The Media’s Obsession With Identity Politics Is Warping Everything

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Author and Washington Examiner commentary writer Eddie Scarry joins Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech and Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss how the corporate media’s obsession with identity politics, especially race, is warping how people think about everything.

“The media has talked about race for a very long time and that’s just something they obsess over,” Scarry said. “What I have seen of late is just this out and out lie…Almost everything the media says about race, the exact opposite is true.”

[embedded content]

It’s important, Scarry said, for politicians and others to be ready to call out journalists, celebrities, and others who repeatedly twist narratives to accomplish an agenda.

“There [are] forces in the media and in the culture of Hollywood. Understand that that threat is looming always to call you a racist or to call you a bigot or to call you anti-women, sexist, anti-gay, anti-trans person, whatever,” he explained. “There is an understandable fear to that. However, these people are not elected. [Politicians] are elected for a reason: to be standing up to these forces and say we’re not, you know, I’m going to do the job that the average person can’t do.”

Listen here:


What We Can Learn From The Trial Of Derek Chauvin

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Randy Petersen, a senior researcher at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former law enforcement officer, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashisnky to break down the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis officer charged with the death of George Floyd.

“We can’t jump to a conclusion because when we do that, there’s this rush to judgment,” Petersen said. “I’m not even sure how many people are interested in the trial because he’s already been convicted as far as everyone’s concerned.”

Politicians and celebrities have called Chauvin long before the trial even started, Petersen said. “It very may well turn out that he’s convicted and then that would be an apt title but until that time … he’s been almost denied his due process rights.”

No matter the results of the trial, Petersen believes that all people would benefit from reexamining their perceptions about cops, crime, and other groups of people who have come under scrutiny.

“[Police] are, as an internal institution, one of the most colorblind groups that you can find. I think if the public knew that about police officers, they would have a different perception about the idea that they are somehow institutionally racist,” he explained. “They would live or die for each other, regardless of what the color of their skin is.”

“If the general public knew that about the police subculture, about how they view each other, they would reconsider this idea that it’s an institutionally racist program that’s designed to harm minorities. It’s genuinely, genuinely not. It’s there to help,” he said.

Listen here:


Did Big Government Make The Pandemic Economy Worse?

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, John Tamny, author of “When Politicians Panicked: The New Coronavirus, Expert Opinion, and a Tragic Lapse of Reason” and Vice President at FreedomWorks, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss how federal government’s decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic made the U.S. economy worse.

“Let’s not forget that historically, economic growth has always been the biggest enemy of death and disease whereas poverty has easily been the biggest killer mankind has ever known,” Tamny explained. “Yet, when given a choice in March of 2020, politicians chose contraction as a virus mitigation strategy.”

This “one-size-fits-all” strategy based on the decisions of a few people, Tamny argued, did nothing but destroy the economy.

“It also blinds us to the information that tells us, why is it spreading more in New York? Why does it seem to hit New York so hard? Why does it seem to hit Florida, with so many old people not as difficult? What are the answers to this? We didn’t really get that because they chose one-size-fits-all in so many instances,” Tamny said.

Listen here:


A Beijing Olympic Boycott Is Strong Leverage And America Should Use It

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Chris Fenton, a film executive and author of “Feeding the Dragon: Inside the Trillion Dollar Dilemma Facing Hollywood, the NBA, & American Business,” joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to outline the leverage that comes with U.S.-led calls for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics which are scheduled to be held in Beijing.

Fenton said the question not whether the United States should boycott the Olympics or not, but what do we want to accomplish?

“What do we want to accomplish that’s practical, that shows a constructive maneuvering towards whatever our North Star is overall with China? Try to implement those changes and those directives with the Chinese Communist Party in exchange for promising to show up at those Olympics and we should do that also with our Western allies,” he said.

The Chinese Communist Party, Fenton said, views the Olympics as a “goal” that will stoke its own nationalism and display its skill and power to the world.

“Remember, the Chinese Communist Party’s number one goal is to keep 1.4 billion people just happy enough that they don’t revolt and the best way to create that aura of an amazing government is to create an awe around the world about what your country is doing and what it has accomplished and where it is on that given day,” Fenton said.

“They are going to showcase … all kinds of different infrastructure projects that will blow the minds of a lot of people around the world … and then they’re going to siphon all of that news globally and essentially put it into context through the Ministry of Propaganda to disseminate around their own populous,” he said.

Listen here:


What Is The Filibuster And How Is It Really Used?

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Howard Segermark, longtime legislative counsel for multiple senators, joins Senior Editor Christopher Bedford and Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to explain the filibuster and why the Democrats’ recent push to abolish it could be dangerous to the integrity of the U.S. Senate.

“The Senate is there, designed by the founders to give minority rights as much as possible. And in this case, it had to do with small states, giving them rights,” Segermark said. “There’s, you know, there’s nowhere to go if in fact there’s simply a democratic elected tyranny.”

The Senate not only protects the rights and voice of the minority by stalling, but it also gives senators the opportunity to negotiate and pass legislation despite opposition from an administration and other members of Congress.

“One of the reasons the Senate was set up is to preserve minority rights and the filibuster is a classic situation of that because every senator has the right to use these tools even if, in fact, he’d be voted out 99 to one,” Segermark concluded. “And certainly that’s the way [Sen. Jesse Helms] addressed it. If you can’t get a majority at least he’s going to make his case. Since he was skilled in timing and in using this tool, he was successful many times. It wasn’t earth-shaking successes, but a little bit of time adds up.”

Listen here:


Podcast: The Failures Of ‘Fad Psychology’

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Jesse Singal, author of “The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can’t Cure Our Social Ills” and host of the “Blocked and Reported” podcast, joins Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech to discuss why “fad” psychology fails society.

“The way science works and the way statistics works, you can sort of ‘prove’ anything if you really want to. And there’s now a lot of incentive to ‘prove’ a lot of stuff because society is just fascinated by psychology, by this brand of psychology in a way that it hasn’t always been,” Singal said.

Singal said that researchers are drawn to experiments that will secure them a TED Talk or a book deal.

“There’s been this unfortunate bleeding over between legitimate psychology and basically self-help and it hasn’t been good for anyone except for a few TED Talk stars,” he said.

Singal said it’s this type of appeal that contributes to excessive groupthink which many corporate media outlets and progressives are quick to embrace.

“I’ve noticed this terrible trajectory among my fellow progressives … like this real embrace of groupthink where it’s also faddishness … like there were three or four months last summer after George Floyd was killed where suddenly everyone’s talking about police abolition and people are doing these softball interviews treating this as a serious policy idea and then it’s like gone as quick as it arrives and very few people in the mainstream outlets sort of question this,” Singal said.

“I’m lucky to only have one foot in mainstream journalistic institutions … but within these institutions, there is immense groupthink and pressure to conform,” he said.

Watch here:

[embedded content]

Listen here:


How ‘Race-Obsessed’ Institutions Use Identity Politics To Short Asian Americans

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Kenny Xu, author of “An Inconvenient Minority: The Harvard Admissions Case and the Attack on Asian American Excellence,” joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss the dangers associated with Ivy League universities’ prioritization of affirmative action and how Asian Americans are penalized for working hard.

“What is happening at Harvard and at Ivy League universities is a race-obsessed program,” Xu said. “They’ve created the entire framework of society that they want based on their own racial balancing standards and Asian Americans are not part of this framework. At least, they are part of this framework up to a very limited extent.”

Most Americans, Xu argued, do not want race to be a deciding factor in systems such as college admissions, but that hasn’t stopped the spread of identity politics that only favor certain minorities in the U.S.

“Asian Americans inconvenience the race narratives on the left because the narrative that is being pushed today is that if you are a minority or a person of color, you are a victim of white supremacy and if you’re white, you are privileged, you are an oppressor against these people,” Xu said.

“Asian Americans completely challenge and disprove this narrative because Asian Americans are a minority. We have been historically discriminated [against] in this society and we lacked the privileges that a lot of people in America have … we’re disproportionately reliant upon our skills and our merit to succeed and we do.”

Listen here:


Lil Nas X And His Satan Shoes Reflect A Splintering Culture

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Billy Hallowell, author of the book, “Playing with Fire: A Modern Investigation into Demons, Exorcism, And Ghosts,” joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss Lil Nas X’s “Satan shoes” and what the celebration of his hellish appeal signals about our culture.

“There’s nothing new under the sun. A lot of other people have done this kind of stuff in the past, and there was a reaction to it, but we’ve come to a really strange place in our culture where people are praising this, they’re loving it, they’re asking for more, and there’s a sizeable proportion of people who feel that way,” Hallowell said.

Hallowell said the real danger is not in the sneakers themselves, or in the music video, but in the culture.

“I think, the slip into apathy, this spiritual apathy, this feeling that either this stuff isn’t real or we just don’t care about it. And then beyond that, it’s not even just not caring about it, it’s using it in a mocking sort of way,” he said.

While Hallowell conceded that some people may be tired of hearing “culture war,” Lil Nas X’s newest music video should be a wake-up call.

“This video, what we’re talking about, this is part of the culture war and it’s not something that only the right is waging. Both sides are part of this war and it’s going on whether Christians or conservatives like it or not, or are tired of it or not. It is a real thing and it is happening,” Hallowell said. “…I always say to people, ‘don’t let your guard down. Love God, love others, speak up for the truth, but buckle up because it’s going to get a lot wilder.’”

Listen here:


Vaccine Passports Are A Terrible Idea

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Ben Domenech hosts a round table discussion on how a national vaccine passport manned by powerful Big Tech companies poses a danger to Americans’ privacy and freedoms. He is joined by Ellie Bufkin, writer and producer at Sinclair; Rachel Bovard, senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute; and Emily Jashinsky, culture editor for The Federalist.

“The outsourcing of government power to supra-governmental bodies that are technically private, but again have amassed so much power over our lives, they can effectively operate as a government without any kind of accountability, and in fact with complete and total autonomy,” Bovard explained.

Creating a vaccine passport, Jashinsky noted, not only removes the element of choice for Americans who might be hesitant about receiving the shot but also contributes to the growing division in the country.

“It’s really, really dangerous to start taking steps like this, to start asking the government to mandate personal health decisions,” Jashinsky warned. “When the people in power operate on these really tough, really false definitions of what constitutes negative behavior, then we’re in for a very, very, very dangerous situation.”

A strong response from state leadership, Bufkin said, could be the key to pushing back on a push for vaccine papers.

“I’d love to see local legislators and local leaders like DeSantis signing onto executive action that say we will not be allowing any kind of this in the future,” Bufkin said. “I think that’s really powerful stuff, especially coming from statehouses, especially coming from governors’ offices.”

Listen here:


Podcast: How Twitter Is Destroying Journalism

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Siraj Hashmi, host of the Habibi Bros, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss how Twitter escalates conversations surrounding current events and why journalists using the platform to communicate with the public seem to have such thin skin.

“You have a bunch of individual pockets, a bunch of different circles of people who have their own echo chambers and so when they tweet, they are tweeting for their followers. They don’t realize that like the millions of other people on the website can see their terrible take,” Hashmi said.

While some people on Twitter can accept criticism of their publicly shared thoughts with grace and humility, Hashmi said others, specifically blue checkmark journalists, have a hard time coming to terms with the fact they can be wrong or even sometimes spreading “disinformation.”

“I don’t know why people look at it as a form of like harassment,” Hashmi said. “If you’re looking to make an impact in journalism, sometimes criticism is like the best way to like, get your name out there even if it’s warranted or not.”

Listen here: