Chris Rufo Uncovers How Wokeism Conquered America





Liz reacts to country singer Miranda Lambert scolding two young girls in the front row for taking selfies at a Las Vegas concert. She reports that those who defend Lambert argue that being on the phone during a live show is disrespectful and distracts from the music, whiles others view her actions as diva-like. She adds that capturing moments at concerts is simply a matter of fact in today’s culture. Liz expresses disapproval for Lambert’s actions, calling her a brat and a diva.

Next, Liz begins an interview with Chris Rufo, author of “America’s Cultural Revolution: How The Radical Left Conquered Everythin.”

Chris Rufo describes how his book focuses on the Left’s ideological capture, which began with a small group of far-left radicals in the late 1960s. He explains how they skillfully burrowed into institutions like universities, media, and corporations to propagate their ideology, leading to its widespread influence in society, especially evident during the events of 2020. He also explores how the long march of these ideas occurred over more than 50 years.

Rufo says one of the key issues outlined in his book is the origin of the modern Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, which originated from the neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse’s ideas, rebranded and repackaged for corporate America in the 1970s as racial sensitivity training.

Rufo also raises questions about the Republican Party’s failure to effectively combat radical leftist ideologies. He attributes this to a sense of complacency after the fall of communism and the reluctance to engage in government.

To counteract the Left’s influence, Rufo suggests a multifaceted approach. It includes active engagement in local institutions, creating positive change, trusting individuals and families to make choices for their well-being, and reemphasizing the importance of morality and values, even within the public sphere. He argues that liberty and justice should be interconnected and that embracing moral arguments can help shape a shared moral sentiment among Americans, fostering a stronger society.


Show Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain typos, mistakes, and/or incomplete information.

So my producer Rebecca, went on a date this past weekend. She went out with a guy and they met up with some of the guys’ friends at a different event. And she had an extremely funny, well, I find it funny, at least interaction with one of her dates friends. He asked her the dates friend, ask her what she did for a living. And she said, oh, I work in conservative media. And the guy immediately starts spouting off his favorite conservative media personalities. He goes, oh, I love Ben Shapiro. I listened to Charlie Kirk. And then he says, Liz Wheeler’s. Okay. And he didn’t know by the way that my producer Rebecca works with me. He just volunteered that. And so she said, oh, why is Liz Wheeler just, okay, tell me what you don’t like. And he names three things that he didn’t like, which I thought would be fun to share with you. 

His first concern was that I preach traditional values, family-centric principles, and yet I’m not a stay-at-home mom. I work and I don’t say I’m with my children. And I’d like to, to to respond to that by saying, actually, I do stay home with my daughter. I don’t have childcare. My husband’s a medical provider who works longer shifts on fewer days. And so he and I do the childcare together. We actually are very family-centric. My child does not go to daycare. I don’t have a nanny. I am with her 90% of the day, except when I’m filming here, usually after she goes to bed or while she’s napping or before she wakes up. So, just, just a little tidbit of information. And the reason I’m addressing this is actually a lot of people ask me this question. So his second concern was that I preach traditional values and family-centric principles, but I did not take my husband’s last name. 

And the answer to that is, well, first of all, I was famous before I married my husband. So my name recognition is my brand. Liz Wheeler is the name that people recognize that they associate with me. So there would’ve been some kind of brand sacrifice had I changed my name. But that’s not actually the reason why I don’t publicly use my husband’s last name. I, I do legally use my husband’s last name. In fact, Liz Wheeler is not technically my legal name anymore. It was my maiden name. The reason that I don’t use my husband’s name publicly is out of respect for his career, because as you know, cancel culture is so severe that I worried that my name, what I talk about publicly for a living, would somehow bring harm to what he does for a living. So I do actually use my husband’s name. 

It is my name. It is our name. It is our family name. And his third, his third concern was that he had invited me a couple years ago, apparently invited me to travel to Los Angeles to speak to his Catholic group. And he was upset at the time that I didn’t wanna travel across the country for free. So I don’t think Rebecca’s date was really happy with his friend grilling Rebecca, I don’t know if there’s gonna be a second date or not. I, I advocate that you go on a second date. I think this guy sounds absolutely delightful. I love his honesty and feedback, and I thought you guys would find that story as funny as I did. Also, also, Miranda Lambert has started a huge controversy. I don’t know if she intended to start this as a controversy or not, but at one of her recent con concerts, she’s doing a residency in Las Vegas right now. 

She stopped in the middle of a song. She’s a famous country singer. She stopped in the middle of a song, stopped her concert to scold two young girls in the front, in the front row who were taking selfies. She told ’em to put their phone away and to focus on the music. And this has sparked an enormous controversy. I’m gonna show you this video in just a second, but here’s what the controversy is. Some people, the people that are taking Miranda’s side on this, say, yeah, it’s so disrespectful to be on your phone when you’re there. You should immerse yourself and be present in the music present in the con in the concert. And the other people are saying, who is Miranda Tell to tell these people how to enjoy the concert? Half of a concert experience is documenting yourself at a concert. That’s what our, for better or for worse, that’s what our culture does at this point. And people love to take videos of the actual singers so that they can share them on social media. So, huge controversy. I posted this on Twitter yesterday, and it has thousands and thousands and thousands of people that are commenting on it. And I wanna hear your take on it. So this is what happened. Take a look at this video. 

I’m gonna stop right here for a sec. I’m sorry. These girls are worried about their selfie and not listening to songs. It’s pissing me off a little bit. I don’t like it at all. We’re here to hear some country music tonight. Shall we start again? 

Okay, what do you think? Is Miranda Lambert right on scolding these girls? Or is Miranda Lambert diva and a brat? You let me know what you think and I will tell you, I’ll tell you my opinion. Miranda Lambert is a huge diva. She’s a huge brat. Think about how much concert tickets cost if you buy in the front row. I don’t know what Miranda’s concert tickets are, but I did look at Taylor Swift’s Aris tour tickets when, when she was coming through the Midwest and front row seats were like $8,000. These people spent a whole heck of a lot of money on her concert. And she’s calling them out because they’re taking a picture of her. What a brat. What a diva. I’d be devastated if I were those two girls being humiliated publicly and now making the rounds on the internet just because some country singer who’s doing a Vegas residency doesn’t want you to take a picture her from that angle. 

I hate it. I thought that. I thought, what a divo. What a brad. But you know, let me know what you think. Let me know what you think. Okay. So my new book is coming out soon, as you know, hide Your Children, exposing the Marxists Behind the Attack on America’s Kids. You can pre-order it now at Hide Your Children There’s another book, though that is coming out or that came out this week that you should also read. It actually pairs wonderfully with my book because it’s about a very similar topic. It’s written by Chris Ruffo. You know him, you love him. He wrote America’s Cultural Revolution, how The Radical Left, conquered Everything. And he and I analyze what’s happened in our country, the capture of our institutions in from a very similar perspective. But we have some fundamental differences on what the Republican Party and the conservative movement should do to recapture these institutions and reorder our society. We had the best conversation talking about our similarities and our differences. You guys are going to love it. Here’s Chris Rufo. 

Thank you so much. It’s great to be with you. 

Okay, so first of all, the cover of your book is super cool looking. I really like that. I know that’s apropos of nothing on the inside, but it really is cool from an artistic standpoint. the subtitle of your book is the thing that intrigued me the most. America’s cultural Revolution, how the Radical Left, conquered Anything, everything. First of all, I, I do want you to explain what you mean by that for anybody who hasn’t read the book yet. But my big question, just given the premise of your book, is how did the Left accomplish this, the entirety of the institutional capture that they have accomplished? 

Yeah, I mean, that is really the subject of the book. It’s the Left’s progression of institutional and ideological capture. beginning with a small group of far left radicals in the late 1960s. And then as we saw during the summer of 2020, the great summer of George Floyd, it seemed like every institution in our society, from the federal government to the Fortune 100 companies, to the universities, to the media, to to the K through 12 schools, was in lockstep behind BLM ideology. And the question that I had was, how did this happen? How did all of a sudden, it seemed like all these institution had been captured where did it originate? How did they do it? what was the march of the institutions? And so what I do in the book is really peel back the layers of the onion, it reveal that the answers to that question, and show exactly how they executed the long march of the institutions and basically created the situation that we find ourselves in today. 

Well, at the risk of asking you to betray all the goodies that are in the books, can you give us an example? I think a lot of people sitting here are like, okay, I get that there was this group of people with a poisonous ideology whose object was the destruction of Western civilization, but like, who and what institutions and how did they go about actually capturing it? Cause I might say, Hey, I’d like to be charge of all of the Ivy League, the ideology at the Ivy League universities, but you don’t just get to announce that and it happens. How do they do it? 

Yeah. Well, the four tent poles of the book are biographical portraits of the Neo-Marxist philosopher Herbert Marza, the Black Communist RA radical and presidential candidate, Angela Davis the Neo-Marxist educational theorist, Paolo Rera, and then the Godfather of Critical Race Theory, Derek Bell. And it really, why I did this, why I structured the book around these four biographical portraits was to show that it wasn’t a huge organization. It wasn’t a vast conspiracy, it was actually just the dedicated, focused work of small groups of people. And these were the four kind of leading profits of their movement that were able to take these ideas that had been dis discredited, that had been discarded, that had been really crushed in the political debate of the era. Late 1960s or the 1970s. They went underground. They borrowed into the institutions. 

They used the transmission belts like the graduate schools of education. They used the university philosophy and critical theory programs. They used the HR bureaucracies and the DEI initiatives to gain a foothold in these institutions and then impose their ideology on everyone else around them. And that’s exactly what they did. They took o over the course of more than 50 years. To the point though, where after 2020, it seemed like you had a DEI bureaucrat breathing down your neck at work, you had a radical critical race theorist shoving propaganda, you know, down your kids’ throat in schools. and then the narrative on television was that everyone in the society, including all the CEOs of the big companies, were posting the black square and kneeling before B l m. And so it really is a wild ride. It’s a history full of twists and turns, but the basic concept is the long march of the institutions and the capture of the institutions from within. 

And I think that’s been something that maybe it started with parents who were looking over their children’s shoulders at Zoom School and they saw how captured our education system was or is. And they kind of realized, well, it’s not just education, that this institutional capture is pretty prevalent, prevalent in our society. Something that a lot of people had kind of been blind to because it hadn’t touched them in a really serious way. I think it’s a really important topic. Who are the people now that are in charge of this, if you will? Because a lot of the people that you mentioned Derek Bell or Angela Davis Yes. Angela Davis is still alive. Paolo Friere is not. Who are the people now who are the primary people pushing this? 

That’s actually a really interesting part of the story and part of the process. Initially, it’s very, I identifiable. There is a small political movement. There are its leaders, its writers, its thinkers, its activists, and it’s very much identifiable on an individual basis because of the size and scale of the political activity at the time today, though, it’s impossible to say, Hey, here are the great figures. You could say it’s Abram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo and a couple other people, but that’s actually not really accurate, although they’re symbols of the movement as it is today. and the reason is that this is now a decentralized movement dispersed through society, established as conventional wisdom established as DEI policy. And so it is a business, it is an industry, it is a sector. it is a kind of an an octopus with its tentacle seemingly in all of the institutions. 

And therefore, it’s not accurate as much as I would like it to be true, to say, Hey, this is a movement of these, you know, five, 10 people. These are the people who are leading it. it’s more a system of incentives because it’s no longer individuals with an ideology seeking to impose it. It’s actually the institutions themself that have absorbed the ideology. And now it changes. it’s transformations happen bureaucratically, they happen on committees. They happen according to institutional consensus. And so it is dispersed, which makes it harder to identify in some ways but also harder to defeat because you not only have to win over the public debate, you not only have to be the better adversary against these individual figures, but you actually have to reform the deepest structures of the institutions. that’s where the fight is today. It’s not an easy one. but the Left is at a 50 year headstart. so if we wanna change the tide, if we want to change these institutions, we have to get started. 

Well, I’m glad you brought up DEI because I thought one of the parts that interested me most in your book was when you were talking about where DEI programs in Modern America come from. We’ve talked about often on this show how DEI is really a Maoist thought reform tactic. It’s just been rebranded in modern America. And you talk about how essentially modern Neo-Marxist rebranded it. Can you tell me a little bit about that? 

Yeah, that’s really one of the interesting little threads in the book. And as I wove together all the narratives and did all the research and, and really dug into the archives, I discovered a really interesting tidbit. Herbert Marza, the neo-Marxist philosopher who was the father of the new left he was the mentor and sometimes the teacher of radicals in the weather underground radicals in the Black Panther party radicals in the Communist party, u s A, he was the central kind ideological father figure for these movements. And his third wife, who was a former student of his about 40 years, his junior, took some of his ideas, his Marxist ideology, and then repackaged it for corporate America way back in the 1970s as anti-racism training or racial sensitivity training. And her idea was that by taking the ideology out of the political context, bringing it into the workplace, packaging it with euphemisms, and then manipulating the consciousness and the behavior of corporate employees, you could soften the grounds for greater you know, radical. 

And in, in their case, you know, Marxist political change. And she was the pioneer of this movement. So you can trace back the lineage for all these ideas. And if you look at any of, even the phrases that are popular or really exploded into popularity in 2020, are still trying to take a hold of our discourse, systemic racism, institutional racism, white skin privilege or white privilege you know, racially disproportionate outcomes, disparities, all of the vocabulary that suddenly became ubiquitous. It felt new. It all traces back to that same period. And those same people in the late 1960s, the entire philosophy, the entire ideology, the entire set of words and phrases was all there. All you have to do, and what I tried to do in the book for the reader is uncover that history, that inner history of this movement, because I think once you understand its origins, once you understand how it operates, then you’ll have the sophistication to resist it in your school, in your workplace, in your church, in your community, and then of course, in your state and in your society. 

Why do you think the Republican party or even the conservative movement at large didn’t fight back against this effectively as it was happening? Because that phrase you mentioned that the Left, the radical left, or these Neil Marxist, or communists, whatever you wanna call them, have a 50 year headstart. That’s true. That’s empirically true. And it, I find it frustrating. I think a lot of people watching the show find it frustrating that Republicans haven’t fought back effectively as the Left did capture everything. Why do you think Republicans failed to do that? 

I think the answer is actually just a historical curiosity you might say, but a deep historical pattern that influenced this decision. these ideas were totally discredited by the mid 1970s. even the New York Times op-ed page ridiculed Herbert Marza condemned the Black Panther Party and the, and the Black Liberation Army, and mocked the weather underground even into the 1980s. And so even the, the establishment left had had totally discredited and disavowed these ideas. And then you have fast forwarding, you know two decades or, or a little more than two decades, you have the fall of communism, and then Republicans, liberals, Democrats, all thought, w we’ve ridden the world of the nightmare of communism. Everyone has now seen that it creates totalitarian societies, poverty, misery, death, genocide, war for everything that we don’t want. 

 nobody will take that ideology seriously ever again. So for a 30 year period, as these radicals were working in the shadows and in the institutions undercover in a sense the establishment, including the conservative establishment, thought that they’re harmless. There’s no harm. These ideas are done, the movement is dead, communism is over. But they made a huge mistake. these are zombie ideas meaning that they are, you know, oriented towards nihilism and death, but they always somehow reemerge to fight again. And so I think Republicans were caught flat footed. They got complacent after the fall of communism. And then on top of that, they had this reganite idea that you should just leave the government alone. Don’t touch the government, don’t lead the government. The government is bad. We don’t wanna participate in it seeding all of that territory to, to, to the opponents of a small l liberal democratic society, or liberal democratic republic. And so those few historical curiosities happening together I think opened the playing field for these folks. They saw their moment in 2020, they emerged with a ven reemerged with a vengeance. They reanimated the philosophy of the Black Panther Party that transformed into Black Lives Matter. They brought the ideology of the weather underground into the K through 12 classroom. And they revealed what I think of as the hideous face of their revolution that had been masked for so many years prior. 

So essentially, would you say that it was Republican naivete that led to this? They just didn’t believe that communists and Marxists would try to infiltrate our society? 

I don’t think it was naivete, of course, because, you know, Republicans had been you know, fighting that fight in very strong terms. certainly after the end of World War ii. I think it was more complacency because they thought they had already won. and so I guess in a sense, yeah, maybe a form of naivete, but I think it was more complacency that they felt like the United States has won, where the dominant kind of global hegemon we, we, we beat back the Marxist radicals in the fifties and then again in the seventies. And how could anyone possibly return to that ideology that has yielded so much destruction everywhere it’s been tried. And so they stopped being vigilant. And I think that we’re, we’re, we’re now beyond the point of vigilance. we actually have to take decisive, constructive action. 

And what I try to do at the end of the book is to say, now that you’ve followed this story, this shocking secret history of the long march of the institutions, you understand how this movement operates. You understand the status quo as it exists today. Now what do we do? And that’s the question that I try to answer at the end, providing people with a blueprint for fighting back against America’s cultural revolution and restoring their own autonomy, dignity, freedom, liberty, equal treatment under the law, and then creating, again, a society in which they feel confident for the future, confident for their kids. 

What does that society look like? I think that this is a question that Republicans have to grapple with in a very, very existential way in really now, it’s not even over the next few years, we have to do the urgency to do this is right now. Because when we play defense against liberal policies or leftist policies, Marxist policies, sometimes we’re successful. But the true way to defeat them is to play offense, right? Not just to defeat the ideology, but to replace in that space that was captured, replace it with a proper moral order. So what does a society look like to you, or what do you offer in this, in your book for what American society should look like if we are successful in routing communism from our institutions? 

Yeah, I, I mean, I mean, look, I think given the composition of the conservative movement, I, and also there’s the basic philosophy of the conservative movement. I don’t think that saying we want to match them, you know, man for man, toe for toe you know tooth for tooth in, in their own game. I think we have to change the structure and the dynamics of the game. And one thing I saw over and over is that the, the folks on the, on the radical left are very sophisticated in how they identify weak spots in institutions. They identify vulnerabilities, and they identify ways in which they can establish great power with a, with a small number of people over an institution. And of course, we need to get in there and we need to fight. We need to retake institutions. 

We need to reassert political authority over, especially the public institutions, universities, schools, government agencies, et cetera. But we also have to adopt a posture and a philosophy that we trust the average person, certainly more than the average bureaucrat. And so we need to return power to people so that they can have renewed authority and control over their own lives and their own families and their own communities. And so, policy solutions, for example, like universal school choice, telling every family in this country or or every family in every state that can pass it through their legislature, you can take that $7,500 a year out of the public school system into any school of your choice, private school, religious school, homeschool, micro school, whatever you want to do, and then take that money and start investing it in a solution that’s better for you, that reflects your values that you feel comfortable with. 

And then that all of a sudden creates new counter institutions everywhere through society in a decentralized way beyond the reach of these bureaucrats that can only succeed by centralizing control. And over time, you can create a new ecosystem. So parents have options. They can go to classical school, parochial school, religious school, you know, you know, any kind of school that they want. And the wager is you can have a society where you want to impose your ideas from the top down, or you can have a society that trusts the average person, trusts their moral instincts and seeks to support them in, in, in, by delegating authority and autonomy to them compared to what we have now, which is a centralized monopoly on education, for example. Those are the kind of solutions that are gonna work. It also creates positive patronage effects once you, once you distribute money to people in a way that they can take to go to a school of their choice, they’re now invested in that system. We have to create better systems. We have to empower people, we have to fight people within the institutions that are important. but ultimately, you know, we have to give people their freedom back. We have to give people their liberty back, treat people as equals, and stop trying to re-engineer society according to these abstract ideals. 

Here’s my concern, and I’d love to hear your response on this, because again, I think this is something Republicans really have to grapple with, and that is what liberty means, or what the definition of freedom is, not just as an individual, but as it pertains to our society. And what I mean by that is I think the Republican party has embraced a fairly libertarian view on the role of government in our society over the past 50 years. And I would argue that that’s one of the reasons why the Left was able to capture our institutions the way that they have done. and I would also argue that libertarianism doesn’t really work. It sounds great. I mean, I think all of us, I can certainly say that I was, when I was younger, I embraced a more libertarian viewpoint. I can’t anymore, because I don’t think it works, because I think libertarians misunderstand the definition of the word liberty. So my concern with the Republican party fighting back against this stuff is it’s great to acknowledge the reality of the political enemy that we’re facing. We need to do that, but an effective way to fight back. Can we do that if we remain as a Republican party too, focused on a libertarian definition of liberty versus a definition of liberty that embraces more of an ordered society viewpoint? 

Yeah, no, I, yeah, and I, and I really appreciate that point because I share the same exact frustration. You know, I find myself so frustrated with aire libertarians that don’t recognize the status quo as it exists today. They make all of their policy prescriptions as if we lived in a university, a kind of perfect universe that was libertarian since the beginning. No, we live in a very state centric society. I don’t like that. I wish it weren’t. So I wish the historical development were, were, were, were different. And so we have to work with the system that we have today and then work from those institutions as a starting point. And I think that the libertarian position doesn’t hold water, but we shouldn’t throw out the idea of liberty. 

 just as, because the Left has abused the term with social justice. We shouldn’t throw out having a conception of justice. the debate over what these terms means is important. And I think that liberty and justice should be deeply interconnected because true liberty is not anarchy. It’s not hedonism, it’s not relativism. It’s not you know, transgression. true liberty is having the responsibility and the freedom to pursue happiness, to pursue human ideals, to pursue the good. but you have to know what those things are otherwise, liberty gets derailed. And so I think that the, the government has a role in setting the, the, the bounds of society. It’s not just a free for all. You know, you don’t wanna have pornography in kindergarten classrooms, for example. you know, the kindergarten classroom, public kindergarten classroom is not a libertarian paradise. That’s a bad idea. but I think at the same time, we, we shouldn’t adopt our, the mantra of the Left that you have to, you know, strong arm so society into your vision of the good. so I think we need to strike the right balance and neither the kind of materialist Marxist nor the materialist libertarian position I, I think will get us there. 

So all of this, I love these conversations. I think this philosophical discussion is actually what college was maybe intended to be. It was intended for people to explore and break apart different ideas, to find out what’s worked and what hasn’t, and what might suit society, what suits human nature, what’s in alignment with natural law, what might contradict it. What would, what would your advice be to Republicans at large? I mean, I don’t wanna talk about just the RNC, not just the Republican party like that, but what would your advice be to Republicans on how to achieve what you’re talking about? Cause they might read the book and they might think, this stuff sounds great. I feel fired up. It’s good to know who we’re fighting, but I need something concrete to do in my life right now. 

Yeah. I, I, I mean, you know, certainly for people that are in the grassroots is you know, take control over your own life. Take control over your own community, start participating in all of the institutions that are immediately around you that matter, that you spend your time in, you know, your, your school, your, your, your church, your place of worship, your workplace, your business, your, your social institutions, your civic obligations. And that’s really where life is lived. You know, I like living in media world and in, in news world but ultimately I live in a place with people that is very particular, very specific. So first, make sure that you are in a place where, where all of those things are healthy and functioning, the immediate institutions around your family. And then move on to starting to work on some of these larger issues, national issues, political issues in, in, in which we have to start fighting. 

and the thing that I would say for Republican legislators, for example, is you know, institutions are always guided by a set of values. The question, the political question is, whose values will they be yours or your opponents? And so you cannot abdicate the responsibility of governing. And if you wanna get into politics, you have to take that, that responsibility of governing c seriously, you have to care about it more than your opponents. And the reason why we lose so often is that we’re not willing to stand up to take control, to say no when we have to say no. And then to be the responsible stewards of these institutions. We’re not in a libertarian free-for-all, you know, man against man Ayan Rand fantasy novel. we live in a complex society with robust institutions that require leadership and cooperation and require sometimes compromise participate get out there, lead, have courage, and people will, will reward you. They’re seeing that you’re gonna stand up for them, they’re gonna support what you’re doing and then you’ll leave a legacy in that way. 

Okay. If you’ll indulge me, this philosophical question, and this is not, this is not necessarily practical, this is just philosophical about politics. I completely agree with you that there’s really no such thing as neutrality either. Either the values that, quote unquote values of the Left are going to prevail, or the values of maybe the right. I’m not sure if the right knows what their values are right now will prevail, but it’ll, it’ll be one or the other. There’s no such thing as really a neutral playing field. It’s gonna be one or the other. So who gets to determine the definition of right, of wrong, of moral, of immoral, of liberty and justice? 

Yeah. Well, I mean, it’s a great question. and I think the, the basic idea is quite, is quite simple. I mean, there are no neutral institutions. and you can say you’re a neutral institution, but you, you look at the actual behavior of institutions, you look at documents, policies, people, language, whatever it might be, you can ferret out or discern an ideology. You can discern a philosophy, you can discern a mission, even if they don’t know it one exists. and so you can’t even be neutral about neutrality. I mean, neutrality is a position that you have, it’s not neutral even in itself. so, so you have to acknowledge that first and foremost. And then who who decides is a hard question, right? Because you can have laws that are unjust. So the law is not always just, but in our society, under our political regime, ultimately, the Constitution sets the basic framework. 

It sets the bounds. and then legislators who represent the people in the Republican form of government decide to write the actual specific laws and statutes of that society, the rules, the punishments, the rewards, the system of values, the system of the moral system, what is permitted, what is not permitted, what is encouraged or incentivized, what is not encouraged or incentivized. And so at heart, these are all moral questions. And I think that the right stopped moral arguments because frankly, you know, the old moral arguments of the right, the kind of Christian coalition, moral majority you know, which is now basically disappeared as a political force in American life was not appealing to people. it was, I think, alienated voters and consequently does not have a large voice. and then I think conservatives started getting kind of uncomfortable making moral arguments. 

They retreated to a libertarian position. but I think we have to make moral arguments again, because all political arguments are moral arguments. You know, what is good? and so we have to speak to those questions, those human questions that people care about. and we have to have a better vision than our opponents. It has to be closer to the truth, closer to goodness, closer to all all of those principles that are part of the founding of our country. But I think actually towards which most people desire, they have a desire to see that in their lives. And so, if we can not only create great principles, tell great stories have great policies, but also exemplify through our own lives something that is attractive to people, I think we, we get people back on our side. We rebuild institutions that are better and, and that’s how we win. 

Well, you hit on something that I find really interesting, because it’s always a balancing act between when you’re, when you’re proposing a political policy, you talk about the moral majority. Like, okay, yes, Bible thumping isn’t a popular political policy. We all know that. We know that it’s not voters’ favorite thing. Even if voters agree with it’s not. At the same time, those people were probably right, they were probably correct about their mor morality and about their policy. And my concern is that the Republican party for fear of simply not being experts at crafting their narrative and selling their policies to the American people, have embraced this idea that we can completely divorce politics from religion. And I’m not talking about like practicing religion. I’m not advocating for a theocracy sure, by any stretch, but the morals that are inherent to Judeo-Christian teaching doctrine. And I worry that a lot of Republicans are so fearful of talking about morals, that they only make the purely secular arguments for policies. And again, that that’s led us to where we are. I’d be interested in your thoughts on that. 

Yeah, yeah. I, I’m, I’m sympathetic to that argument, and I think that one of the reasons I’ve become more sympathetic to it over time is that when you look at these left-wing ideologies and the classroom and HR departments and government agencies, you realize that this is a moral system. It is a system of belief. You know, you can make the kind of metaphorical argument that it serves as as as a religion. And so what I realized over time is that, oh, man, when you take people’s religion totally out of public life, when you really exclude it from the public, from the public sphere you know, something worse is oftentimes, and in this case, very much worse, is going to replace it as the default morality of those institutions. And this doesn’t mean that you should have a you know, I’m a Catholic, you shouldn’t have a crucifix and a government office. 

That’s, that’s not what I’m saying, that’s not appropriate. But I think you need to have a shared moral sentiment. And this is an ongoing question in American history. You know, the, the founders tried to reconcile people from divergent, you know, divergent like religious practices and, and religious sex. but they wanted, certainly, they wanted a, a, a shared morality, a shared vision, a shared participation. I think we’ve gotten rid of that. Unfortunately, I think we’ve gotten too far away from that. And I’d like to see policies that actually let people within public institutions live out their lives and live out their faith. And so you know, Christian Jew, Muslim Hindu, whatever it might be I think having people able to bring their faith, to bear to live out their faith in the public sphere is something good. 

And even if we come from different backgrounds, I think it’s what parts, it’s what makes us human beings, and we’ve suppressed that to the point. And I think it’s actually been quite harmful. And so I think we have to figure out how to do it, how to stay in, in, within the bounds of the Constitution, of course. but, you know, I would like to see, you know, on a voluntary basis you know, one, one policy that I’ve seen circulated is, you know, why can’t kids voluntarily with parental permission you know, have a Bible study before school at a, in a public school not taking resources, not forcing anyone, obviously having people who volunteer to run it but letting them do you know, a club to that effect. And that seems to be perfectly appropriate. that seems to be like something that we encourage, just like other belief systems that can have after school programs. So things like that I think will go a long way towards helping restore some of these cultural bearings that have been lost 

More and more things for the Republican party to grapple with. Okay. Now, for my two favorite questions to ask authors when I have them on the show. First of all, what was the most surprising or shocking or hilarious thing that you found in the course of your research when you were putting together this book? 

Yeah, I, I mean, the most shocking thing to me was looking at the old propaganda literature from the violent Marxist londonist revolutionaries and the Black Liberation Army, and all these other groups that were, you know, assassinating police officers, planting bombs in the US Capitol robbing banks, hijacking airlines, and reading their propaganda, their newsletters, their pamphlets, going into the, to the university archives and uncovering all this literature and then comparing it to the public school curriculum in a place like Buffalo or New York or San Diego. And then realizing that they’re more or less with some euphemistic changes, telling the same story, using the same concepts, deploying the same words. And that to me was shocking. These ideas have gone from the fringes all the way to the center. 

It is really shocking. And I think parents are, parents are gonna love reading this to see what their children are being taught, cuz it’s not just the glimpse you got during Zoom School. It’s every day, all day in schools. And then my final question is, you’re a bestseller on day number one. So let me ask you, what’s your secret to selling books? 

I don’t know. You have to talk to my publisher. I, I’ve never sold any books before. I’m a first time author, and so I’m grateful to Harper Collins and and my great editor Eric at Harper Collins and the whole PR team. And you know, the best advice that they gave me, they said, Hey, go on as many interviews as you can, really just you know, go hard for a couple weeks, talk, talk, talk about the book, don’t be afraid to pitch it. And you know, and so I’m getting better and better. And I would just say like as yearbook comes out, I know it’s coming out in the coming months. just get out there, talk about it, be excited about it. And I think that when, you know, people have heard, heard me talk about it, they can sense my, my passion, my interest, my enthusiasm. I think that’s infectious. I think we need that kind of optimism. We need that confidence, we need that that kind of feeling. and then when people feel that, I think they’re attracted to something like it. So everyone that’s listening go out, buy the book, America’s Cultural Revolution. it’s available everywhere books are sold. and it will unlock the secret history of the radical left unlike you’ve ever seen before. 

You guys are gonna love it. It’s a great book. We’ll link to it on all the platforms, America’s Cultural Revolution, how The Radical Left, conquered Everything. It’s not only available on all the platforms, it’s at the top of the bestseller list. So if you, yeah, there it is. You can see it on the screen. That’s the cover I was talking about, it’s at the top of the bestseller list. So you click on Amazon, just go to books and there it is. There it is. Chris, this was such a great conversation. Thanks for coming on the show. I really appreciate it. 

Thank you so much. 

All right, don’t forget to buy Kris’s book, cultural Revolution everywhere Books are sold. And don’t forget to pre-order my book, “ide Your Children: Exposing the Marxists Behind the Attack on America’s Kids.” I’m so excited for you guys to read it. I hope you’re going to love it. I think you’re going to love it, but still a few more weeks until it comes out pre-order now, so it can be in your mailbox on the day that it comes out. Go to, buy a copy for yourself, buy a copy for your woke niece or nephew, and pass it along. Thank you for watching today. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is the Liz Wheeler Show. 


Read More


Trending stories, leading insights, & top analysis delivered directly to your inbox.

Related Stories

Related Episodes

Scroll to Top