thousand small statues. and that's how fox reports this saturday, november 24th. i'm jon scott. thanks for joining us this evening. life, liberty and levin starts now. ♪ >> hello, america, i'm mark levin, this is life, liberty and levin. i have a great gift, victor davis hanson, how are ya? >> very good, mark. thanks for having me. >> it's a great pleasure. as far as i'm concerned, you're one of the leading intellectuals in this country. you write beautifully, you have a regular column. your books are great. october of last year you wrote this book, "the second world wars: a history of world war ii." you have a brand new book in march, the case for trump. that should be interesting.

by basic books, in march. you're a senior fellow at the hoover institution at stanford, you're a professor at california state university, you're a distinguished fellow at hillsdale college, you've taught at the u.s. naval academy. you've taught at pepperdine university graduate school. what haven't you done, my lord? that's interesting. you know what strikes me about you, you were one of the first intellectuals to support donald trump. in your writings, i mean, it was gradual, but then -- why was that? >> well, i think all of us felt that the national ticket was playing by the marcus of queens bury rules. remember the '88 campaign? we kind of deplored tactics post factum, but at the time he took apart dukakis, the contradiction. and so we werewe losing bob dole and mccain and romney, 46, 47,

43. even as we were doing well on the conservative side of the local. a thousand offices lost during the obama administration. so trump seemed to be the only one that was unconcerned what the establishment -- and by that i don't want to be vague, what university professors said, new york times said, pbs, npr, council on foreign relations. he just spoke to the people, and he did it in such a way that was refreshing, and he sort of was psychodramatic that this was an existential war, and we were losing it, and we had to fight back and not be worried what people said. and then the other something that was really strange about him, mark, he didn't buy into the new demography. it may be true, but he said, you know, you can win by losing california and and illinois, because there are -- and new york and illinois because there are 6-8 million people wisconsin,no north carolina, michigan, ohio, pennsylvania that either didn't vote republican or they didn't vote

at all. eand i can win them back with a nationalist, strong jobs, i like the deplorable message. people thought that was crazy. and so i thought he was just eccentric, and it was a little bit dangerous, i thought, but i thought at this point we're at a point of no return, and he was the anecdote. >> we're at a point of no return. you said existential threat. >> yeah. >> what do you mean by that? >> well, i mean if we're, say we're the typical conservative of america, you and i, the 44 -- 65 million that voted for trump. we look around, it's like an opticon. we've got the nfl, nba, silicon valley, apple, google, facebook, we've got rockefeller, we've got the brookings institution, we have cable tv. not just msnbc and cnn, but the major networks as well. we have npr, we have pbs, we

have the progressive cultural movement -- >> academia. >> where i am. we're surrounded, and we think that these institutions don't have as much clout as they do have, and then we get shocked every four years e that the message surrounds us, and nobody can -- we don'tus have a mechanm for breaking through to the american people and getting a message. and the irony is the message of free market capitalism, limited government, individual liberty is what they thrive for. in their daily lives, they sometimes vote against their interests because this circular octopus, whatever we want to call it, we don't get any -- we, you and i, conservatives, traditional u.s.es, we have safe spaces, if i can use that word, where we retreat to. for them it's a 24/7, relentless entertainment, education, politics, media. it's just, it's overwhelming. >> do you think, you know, the progressives, you know, they

wrote about this, that they basically needed to devour society, all these major institutions. do you think they've largely succeeded? >> i do. i think if you tomorrow, mark levin, go tovi stanford and you give a lecture on global warming, i don't think you're going to be able to finish that lecture without being interrupted. i think if i go to stanford or harvard, yale and give a lecture on the value of assimilation, integration and intermarriage with measured legal mericratic, i think if i touch somebody on the shoulder and that person files a sexual harassment lawsuit at me, i'm not going to be given due process. that's besides the social chaos that we live in. i live in an area that's ground zero. fighting the m-13 gang, i'm talking about refined society.

i don't think due process, free speech, the right, redress of grievances existed in major areas of american life, corporate, university, foundational life are, media. l>> so you've already, you're saying what you've already seen -- and i agree with that -- the fundamental transformation of america gradually. is it picking up speed now? >> i think it is. i don't want to be pessimistic in the sense that i really admire you, and i admire people at fox news, i admire people, some of the republican party. really brave voices there are in academia that are saying, you know, i'm going to speak out regardless of the consequences. but the romans and the greeks believed that -- that's luxury, affluence -- leads to nonseriousness. i don't want the use the word decadence, but we are such an affluent, leisured society. somebody from the inner city can can have an iphone with more

computing power than six ibm mainframes. a guy can come from mexico, and he can be in a kia, and that can be a better ride than a mercedes 30 years ago. and i think that's great, but we don't get with itve some collective gratitude or some sense of accomplishment. instead we get that kia's not as good as today's lexus and, therefore, the equalitity result didn't work for me. i don't like the lack of gratitude or the trashing of the system or the ancestors that gave us all the system. maybe it's the universities have created an arrogant and ignorant cadre of youth, but something's gone wrong. >> isn't in the issue about freedom generally, freedom is a tremendous thing. >> yeah.soon >> but it also gives opportunity for very evil people to use freedom to destroy freedom. >> yeah. >> and isn't that what the framers of the constitution frtried to prevent? they were worried about mobocracy, worried about

autocracy, and so they created this republic. and there's a constant attack at the foundational principles of the republic. the president wins the electoral college, they want to get rid of the electoral college. the progressives don't like the fact that the senate is representative of the state, so haey get rid of that and you have direct election of senates. they want to -- of senators. they want to get rid of other aspects, separation of powers. they keep building up this fourth branch, this administrative branch of government with two million people and growing. that's what they do. isn't that an attack on our foundational principles, liberty? >> yeah, i think it is. i think they understand what the framers were up to, and their model is not a constitutional rome that went through europe through ten lightment with montesquieu, it's radical democracy. on any given day, 51% of the population decide what the law is. there is no constitutional protection. you want to kill socrates on monday or murder on tuesday, you

can do it if you have 51%. so it's been steady. i mean, he went from property qualifications, moderate property to direct election of senators, and there were some arguments for this. and then, the as you say now, it's abolishing electoral college and enlarging the supreme court,su now packing it, turning -- enlarging the house of representatives, maybe a thousand members. why, peoplee in california say why does wyoming, 250,000 people get one senator and we, 20 million, get one. that's not fair. let's turn the senate into the house. but the long-term trajectory is governmentct mandated or sanctioned equality result. they got what they wanted with the civil rights finally. we had true equality of opportunity. and then they were expecting that everybody would be equal. human nature being what it is, it's never going to be that way. so they said the conservative position is we're not going to be equal, but the poorest person's going to have a pretty good life if he's in a free

market economy and a constitutional system. but they say, no, no, we don't really care what absolute poverty or wealth is, we want everybody to be equal. they would rather have everybody making $20,000 a year than the poor making 50 and somebody making ain billion. that's relentless. that's a psychological -- >> it's a very, very important point that you mentioned. equality. it's thrown around all the time. >> yeah. w>> now, we know what the founders meant by equality. equality of justice. they didn't mean equality of economics. of course, that would be absurd, because it's an impossibility, and human beings, we pride ourselves on unique -- human beings are unique individuals. human beings are created by god. human beings are one different from the other. but in the civil society we argue that the law is the law, and everybody should be treated as best as we can equally in front of a court, in front of the law. but this notion of radical

egalitarianism really is a european import. >> yeah. >> marx, hagel,rousseau, which is completely alien to our founders. >> it is. aristotle, who was a critic of this, said once a man feels he's equal in one aspect, politics, he assumes he can be equal in every other aspect. tplato said the trajectory is that finally the donkeys and the dogs in athens have to vote, meaning the destruction of criterion. but you're right, it takes up speed in the enlightenment in europe, and it bifurcates. we thought we were safe from it because the anglo-scottish tradition was more limited government, very deep skepticism of the cycles of the french revolution, and the european continental model is the model that progressives choose. and they have a view that human nature is, by nature, a view

that we're born into chains, that church, community, the family, and it's the duty of government to take off those chains and let everybody be liberated, and then they're naturally be happy which is sort of our collective nightmare. but we're headed to a radical egalitarian society in aspects that transcend politics almost every imaginable facet. i just mentioned sports, culture, entertainment, movies. that's the message. >> and they advance this notion, tell me if i'm right or wrong, of populism. >> yeah. >> when, in fact, it's authoritarianism. people believe that they've democratized some program, some issue, some aspect of society when, in fact, it's not democratized at all. in fact, it is, it is decisions from on high. the intellectual elites, they

like to think they're intellectual elites. why are they elites, because they're elected? because they're members of unions? because they're in thect civil service? i've never understood who these intellectual elites are and why they're so elite. >> well, they have certain cache. they think they -- they're branded like cattle. theyy think that the ivy league brand allows them certain privileges. but you lookt at silicon valley, you havewi gatekeepers that dece what is hate speech and what is not, and they control the expressions from seven billion people on the planet because they are morally better than we are. you turn on public tv or cable tv, and you get this anguish about, oh, these people, you tknow, the deplorables, the irredeemables, the clingers. i think there was, they used the term east germans.

so there was a contempt for people they feel don't properly know how to use their freedom and their economic clout, and they do stupid stuff. they buy jet skis, they go snow mealing, and they -- -- snow mobiling, and you can just have proper resumés, they can all get around, and they can say, you know what? we're doing it all for you. and, of course, throughout history we've seen these people, and they all have one thing in common. they're all excused, or they're not subject to the ramifications of their own ideology. >> when we come back, i want to ask you about the ramifications or your insight into this election that just occurred and what you think of the result and whyy you think we got the result that we did. ladies and gentlemen, don't forget almost every weeknight you can go to crtv.com/mark or call us at 844-levin-tv.

we'll be right back. ♪ the united states postal service makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ with one notable exception. ♪ at humana, we believe great things are ahead of you when you start with healthy. and part of staying healthy means choosing the right medicare plan. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits when you're sick. but keep in mind you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay higher premiums than you do with other plans. and prescription drug coverage isn't included.

but, with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. you get all this coverage for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. and humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals. so call or go online today. find out if your doctor is part of the humana network and get your free decision guide. discover how an all-in-one medicare advantage plan from humana could save you money. there is no obligation and the book is free. this isn't just any moving day.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. ♪ mark: professor victor davis hanson, we had this election. people say it's a great win, democrats say it's a blue wave. what do you see in this

election? >> i'd see it in a historical context, and that's not -- and i'm trying to be an optimist. barack obama, while 63 seats, 6 senators, bill clinton lost 52, 8 senators reelected. soso zealots and partisans relax in a midterm, and people who were defeat get reenergized. that's common. but there were, i think, a couple of disturbing things, and that is the aftermath of the elections. just seems that every time there's a recount in arizona and florida or even georgia or especially where i am in california, four seats that were won and then lost, and it's kind of the opposite of what that poll eurozone -- january -- napoleon said. at 11:00 i'd lost it, at 3:00 i won it. i thought we'd won more. mark: do we ever win seats that we were losing five days later? i can't think of many. >> no. i think maybe 20 years ago, but

now it's the sciu that mobilize people. democrats are much better at it than republicans, and we thought we would learn. the other thing in these very close races where we lost some good people, we've got this missing 4-5, the so-called deplorable, the trump base, whatever. they were there, but now there's going to be a great discussion where do you, pick up the missig 5% that would have won you some of these good senate seats. is it to appeal to the african-american community and say i think trump might want to consider that, go into the inner city and say, you know what? i may have said things, you may have said things, we didn't get along, but i want you to have leverage over your employer. i want you to have a choice of jobs. i gave you an opportunity and an economy, and i think you're going to take advantage of it. that's what i'm worried -- i want you to be powerful. and i think he could say to latino community when we close that border and make it legal aher accuratic e, guess what? your communities can have ap in the classes. omthey don't have to have

bilingual education. your kids are not going to be bullied by gang members from central america. and you're going to be in such demand that your wages are going to climb as they went 3% this year. and then we have that other missing -- i don't know, maybe you know better than i do, and that's the proverbial -- i don't know who they are, but cable liberals keep talking of the suburban women that are turned off, and we've lost them. maybe so. i don't know what -- when he said stormy daniels was horse face, maybe that turns them off, i don't know. but there's 3-4%, and that -- you don't need it i all in one place. you can get 1% here, 2. he's very close, but he's going to need a little bit of boost if they have a credible candidate in 2020. mark: isn't part of the problem -- maybe it's in the suburbs -- the way the media frame this debate? they don't even frame the debate. >> no, they don't frame a debate. mark: now, the last six months the president'sen been called -- president's been called hitler. his administration has been

compared to the third like. >> yeah. mark: he's been accused of creating internment camps for immigrants. that would actually be fdr but, you know, who's counting? he's been accused of being a racist, because he wants to secure the border. finish he's been accused of being anti-semitic despite being the greatest president, i would argue, for the jews that we've ever had, and he has a jewish daughter, son-in-law and jewish grandchildren. he's been called things i've never heard a president called in my life, and it gets worse and worse and worse on cable tv, out of the democrat party. could it be that that has some impact on the 2, 3%? >> oh, i think it has a lot. when i was saying he needs an extra 3 -- that's working with the system in which 93% of the press coverage the first hundred days was negative. msnbc and cnn. when he gets at the rallies, and

trump says look up there, fake news? i don't say he's demagoguing, i say to myself, wow, these impressive bylines told us that andrew scaramucci was involved with a russian hedge fund when usit was a lie. or that donald trump knew of this meeting, not true. ore, that james comey was goingo come into congress and refute all of t their private -- not true. and then i look at anderson cooper, and i think this mythology that he mentioned -- remember the religion editor for cnn, he said trump is a piece of -- we haven't seen that before. michael hayden or james clapper calling the president either, in the case of clapper, treasonous, or hayden invoking the third reich or that julia joffe saying he's radicalized more people all without pushback. this all came from cnn. we're not talking about kathy griffin with the decapitated a head or the jokes about trump crashing. there's a whole corpus of

examples that wewe don't hear about, but we have privilege if you want to take the effort to learn about it. when he says look at those people, he has grounds to do that. mark: and yet this president has been relatively passive when it comes to action. >> yeah, he has. mark: on the media. john adams, sedition act. locked up journalists. abraham lincoln's executive order, where the new york newspaper printed a fake presidential proclamation. he ordered his generals to arrest the editors, and the journalists, and they shut down almost 300 papers. whatever you think about it, that's what he did. woodrow wilson set up a whole intelligence operation against the media and the new sedition act of 1918. you've got fdr going after publishers, obama going after a reporters. trump hasn't done any of that. >> no, he has, he has an effect psychologically on the journalists because he conveys the idea that he doesn't have respect for them. he has contempt because they violated their journalistic ethics. and for them, that psychology of

being rejected by the president hurts them more than the actual deeds that you recited. remember, obama went after the ap reporters, he went after james rosen at fox. remember he actually said on the campaign trail you should debate, sean hannity, i think he said, you'll tear him up. if trump said you'll tear somebody up, so for them it's something about trump, his speech, his mannerism, has appearance. it's not just journalists either. he is an affront to their cultural and social sensitivities of what is proper and improper. mark: could it be his very existence, because he fights back, he calls them out by name? he'll go after the media outlet, is and he'll say fake news, and this particular organization is the enemy of the people? >> i think so. i mean, we're accustomedded to sources say, anonymous and unnamed person said. we knowse in a lot of that case, that just didn't happen. they hide behind this facade that with other journalists, and

we're -- that we are journalists. it's true, but it's like a chain. the weakest link destroys it. they didn't done anything in their generation to honor the people thaten gave them that tradition, and they're actually traitors to that tradition. a guy like jim acosta goes to those presss conferences with sarah sanders, and his point is how can i virtue signal to the people in the room that i'm morally superior, how can i find -- make her stutter or make her pause, or how can i tell my bosses that i'm part of the resistance, or how can i get the cnn brand name out there in front. it's not to say to the american people i'vepl got to clarify, ie got to find out what the president of the united states wants. mark: i want to pursue this further when we return. we'll bebe right back. i never knew there was a different solution to my

constipation until my doctor recommended miralax. stimulant laxatives forcefully stimulate the nerves in your colon. miralax works with the water in your body, unblocking your system naturally. miralax. now available in single serve mix-in pax.

♪ ♪ >> live from america's news headquarters, i'm jon scott. president trump reportedly striking a deal with mexico and its president-elect, paving the way for big changes in the way migrants attempt to somewhere the u.s. "the washington post" reports the trump administration has won the support of mexico's incoming government for the president's plan requiring asylum seekers to wait in mexico while their cases are processed. president trump reiterating that policy on twitter tonight adding this, quote: if for any reason it becomes necessary, we will close our southern border. there is no way that the united states will, after decades of abuse, put up with this costly and dangerous situation anymore.

protests in paris turning violent. demonstrations started days ago over rising fuel taxes, but they've since morphed into protests against president emmanuel macron's government. dozens of people have been arrested. i'm jon scott. now back to "life, liberty and levin." ♪ ♪ mark: cnn, jim acosta bring this lawsuit. they hire tedded olson who was -- ted olson who was a former reagan official. his partner, boutros. these are supreme court litigators. i read the brief. i think it's preposterous. let's go through this a little bit. cnn has multiple reporters at the whiteit house who have these hard passes. jim acosta can make a request every day to go in, he just doesn'to have a hard pass where he can come in willy-nilly. presidential press conferences started with woodrow wilson. is there anything in the constitution that compels a president to hold a presidential press conference, to call on

somebody from cnn? anything that compels any of this? >> no, there's not. and jim acosta can't take his shoes off and walk around barefooted either because there's protocols and norms of behavior in every endeavor. i can't get on an airliner and be a stewardess and wear a pro-obamaba or pro-trump hat. they have the right to say, in this particular area, there's -- i was a professor for 35 years, and if i had hijacked a chat the way he hijacks a press conference and just sermonized or pontificated, i would be called up to the dean, and he would say, you know, you have freedom of expression, but not to violate -- mac mark do you think -- mark: do you think a lawyer in the supreme court had conducted himself in the way jim acosta had done, would be able to continue to go on and on and on -- he'd be thrown out and heldld in contempt. >> especially if he argued, especially if he got in physical contact with a bailiff or somebody. mark: what do you make about their argument that it's

vigorous freedom of the press? does jim acosta advance the cause of the press and information to the american people? >> no, he doesn't. i mean, we all give lectures, so we go through this. a everybody who gives a lecture, a teacher, a public speaker knows there's eight or nine good questions, the purpose of the question is to elicit information.re we always say please ask the question, and they will not. they want to hector you, and finally you say will somebody please get him off the stage, or will somebody make him ask a question. and that's all it is. and he's dressed this up in the first amendment and that he's some kind of wounded fawn or a martyr to the cause of the resistance. he's not. he's doing a disservice to the colleagues around him who he's monopolizing their time. he's destroying the decorum of the press conference, and the irony, of course, is there's been noth president that's been

more transparent than donald trump. h [laughter] you yell at him, you scream at him, he'll turn around -- really well known journalist said the me once i don't think i can vote for him. ie said, why, i just walked up o him, there was no staff, there were no prep books, and i just talked to him, and i thought that was great. but he was saying there were no barriers, no substations between trump and the public. and so acosta got what he wanted. he got a very transparent, accessible president, and yet he's nots acting like a journalist. he knows it. this is not just jim acosta. remember jim routen berg, i think from "the new york times", said this is an age in which we require partisanship, and i think christiane amanpour said we cannot be neutral. mark: there's a fellow by the name of matthew pressman, and he's a professor, and he's written a book, and the subtitle is liberal values but not

liberal bias. i read the book, and i'm unconvinced. i'm convinced what he said about the '60s and '70s. the media decided it's not enough to report objective fact, you need to present it in -- that doesn't mean there is liberal bias. and yet we see it all time, don't we? every survey, you just mentioned one. 93% negative on trump. they're negative on conservatives, they're negative on republicans, and they bring some of the most preposterous members of congress on to their programs, and they make those decisions too, right? >> it gets down to a fundamental philosophical idea that they feel that their noble ends -- and i think we agree egalitarianism -- requirere any means necessary to achieve them. in a way that republicans and conservatives, their means are more selfish because liberty is not as an exalted virtue as

equality. therefore, they feel we can violate canon of behavior, we can scratch our nails on the supreme court door. what would they have done if they broke into the door? would they have sworn the kavanaugh family? they can stand up and disrupt, and this is all for a noble cause and, therefore, justified. if a republican did it, it would be for this. you didn't build that crowd, or it's not time to profit people. it's been age-old, but i think we now have these force multipliers, social media, the internet, great wealth, and it's -- we're reaching a critical mass. mark: when it comes to the second amendment, they'll say things like, well, you know, the framers of the second amendment didn't know about semiautomatic weapons. they didn't know about sniper rifles, about this, about that. it's muskets. therefore, we can regular late whatever we want. regulate whatever we want. okay. let's talk about the first amendment. there was no

tv, there was no radio, there was no cable, there were no satellite -- and yet it's a preposterous argument, isn't it? and yet when it comes to the second amendment, it's an argument they make. when it comes to the first amendment, anything goes except whatng they disagree with like conservative talk radio and fox ernews and conservative bloggers on social media. they want to regulate the internet, get rid of conservative talk radio, so they're really not for freedom of the press, are they? >> no, i think we're seeing something unique in the last -- i think the obama administration encouraged people to come out of the woodwork, and i think we're seeing not just a traditional left-wing assault on the second amendment, i think they're going after thefi first and fourth amendment. they have this new term called hate speech, and somebody can arbitrarily what you say is either homophobic, racist, protectionist, nativist, etc., and, therefore, you can't see it. and that's pretty much institutionalized on campus. we've seen with matters of

sexual assault or accusations of such, you don't really have due process in a lot of place, corporations, the workplace or on campus. i think they feel that the bill of rights, unlike the old aclu, the new aclu believes that's an impediment to an aggressive future. mark: ladies and gentlemen, don't forget, every week you can see me on levin tv, go to crtv.com/mark or call 844-levin-tv. 844-levin-tv. we'd love to have you in our communitiful we'll be right back -- community. we'll be right back. hello, i'm an idaho potato farmer.

as you probably know, i've been looking all over for our big idaho potato truck. it's out there somewhere reminding folks about heart healthy idaho potatoes and making contributions to local charities. so this year, i've built myself a secret weapon. there it is let's get 'em boy! awe man. always look for the grown in idaho seal. did you know not all fiber is the same? try citrucel. it gently relieves occasional constipation by absorbing water to make stools easier to pass, without causing excess gas or bloating. help relieve occasional constipation with citrucel.

i saw my leg did not look right. i landed. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding.

it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. with truecar, you can see its value in real time.ar. sports package, nice. small dent...not so nice. within minutes, you'll have a true cash offer and you can head to a dealership and get paid, today, right now. do i use a toothpaste that whitens my teeth, or one that's good for my teeth? now i don't have to choose. from crest 3d white, the whitening therapy collection with new spearmint and peppermint oil. it gently whitens, plus it has a fortifying formula to protect your enamel. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life.

mark: mark: professor hanson, i want to get into this immigration issue as it relates to this election we just had. you know, i can remember the second term of reagan, he won massive popular vote. same with his first term. in fact, george h.w. bush won

california by a significant amount. california's gone. other statesot are gone. arizona's now purple, moving to blue. new mexico's more blue than it is purple. colorado's blue. they used to -- colorado used to be red. nevada's blue, used to be red. and they're turning ore states -- other states. you look at texas. inthe vote out of texas was not great. we lost three or four members of congress. even abbott, who's enormously popular -- and 100 million wasn't spent t against him -- he got 55, 56% of the vote. at the lower levels, every major metropolitan area now is blue. you don'tt have enough rural voters to balance that. are we in big trouble? ?>> well, i think in the short term we are because the democratic party's a pyramid now. it's the medieval power of wealth. all the big fortunes are no

longer farming or minding, they're in high-tech, silicon valley, warren buffett, the facebook, google and amazon people. and that's the fuel of this. and then a professional elite beneath them, and then we have the impoverished, and many of them are recent immigrants. they work hand in glove, and they flipped these states or that were red and purple into blue. and it'sis a coalition between i call them the suburban elites and very poor people. and it's funny though, mark, where i live in california, very poor -- southwest fresno county, the people who drive the democratic party don't want to live with the people they count on their votes because they feel that socially, culturally, educationally, whatever,tu theye not comfortable with them. so that gives us hope because the republican party now is a workers' party, entrepreneurial, meddle class party. and -- middle class party. and one thing we know about people of that class, they feel familiar with and they like people of different races and

different classes. so it's -- a republican congressman from ohio is probably going to be more accessible than a bay area congressman, even though they're very different politics. shut the border and let the engine of assimilation, integration, intermarriage work. and i think in 20 years, this is why i'm optimistic, long term very pessimistic we'd have this experience where if your name's cuomo or giuliani, we can't predict your affinities. short term, we've got to shut the border and get back to the melting pot and junk the salad bowl. mark: this issue of assimilation, i find that's where it's different. and that's what worries me 20, 30 years out. >> yeah. mark mark private institutions don't put a-- push one for english, two for spanish, that sort of thing. we have affirmative action plans in the government. they don't push assimilation. we have it at the state level too. but even more than that, we have

a democrat party that is committed to balkanization. the way their leaders talk, the way they govern, they don't want assimilation because of the very reason you say. >> yeah. mark: because assimilation works against their ideology and throws them out of office. > and their ideology by i thk what you're suggesting is their ideology on its own facts and merits can't get 51% of the electorate. so they have to bring in voters that have an instant greeives. it's pretty crazy when a person crosses one inch into america and then plugs into the whole affirmative action grievance industry even though we've never done something oppressive to somebody in oaxaca. we saw the elizabeth warren fiasco, stuff like that. so there are limits to identity politics. just because it's getting to the level of dna badges. it's contrary to the whole liberal idea of martin luther king, you know, content of our character. it's all about the color of our

skin and our superficial appearances. the revolution always devours its own. we're in sort of a committee of public safety. when you saw that hearing, poor old dianne feinstein reminded me of a bourbon king trying to deal with spartacus -- mark: we'll be right back. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ mark: one of the persistent problems is education, academia. it's really, you know, 90, 95% of one direction from an ideological point of view. it seems to me with these colleges and universities, they have like an oligopoly. >> yeah. mark: what do we do about this? >> it used to be sort of esoteric, but now it's permeated into the society because the entire demography. we're getting these 20, late 20-somethings that are graduating in six, eight years. and to the extent that they do, a lot of them have anthropology or social science degrees. they have this staggering 70, $80,000 debt. they can't buy a home. they don't get married. they don't have children. it affects the entire country. and i think the universities are largely to blame. they need to be truth of advertising. when somebody comes in there saying this is how much money you'll borrow, this is how much interest you'll pay, and this is

the likelihood this major will get you a job. and we're just going to be honest with you. they're not even subject to the laws that used car salesmen are. they've got to be very candid about that. and then we can't ask the 70% or 65% that don't go to college to subsidize those t who do. so we need more trade schools, we need the federal government probably to get out of it because by guaranteeing those student loans, the university's been jacking up tuition. diversity jars, you know, assistant provosts for inclusion, rock-climbing walls. they're jacking up the rate of tuition and costs over the rate of inflation. get back to an idea that used to be we teach you two things, to be inductive in the way you think in the bide of literature, science, math, so you can be informed. and what your politics are were your own business. but now we're turning out an arrogant, indoctrinated cohort, and they're ig in and about. --

ignorant. mark: i think this is one of the keys to the survival of the remix really, the educational system both at the public school level and at the college and university level. and i think those are great ideas. i also think the states primarily subsidize these state-run colleges and universities, particularly those with republican governors and legislatures really need to step up. we hear about diversity all the time except when it comes to, you know, more of a pro-american pell -- principles argument in these colleges and universityings. you have people who want to w speak who are shouted down, who are attacked who have a different viewpoint. it's like the last place of the soviet union. you know, this is supposed to be academic freedom and free speech. it's the opposite of that. >> they believe that the family, the religion, the institution, whatever, is all biased. so they have you for four or six

years, so they can be biased to counteract the larger bias. the fact is these institutions are supposely biased, as you know, are becoming progressive as well. it's very hard. i was a classics professor, it's very hard to teach last aren and greek grammar or history of western culture versus let me just tell you about myself and what i had to puppet with today -- put a up with today and what george w. bush did to me or donald -- that's easy. a lot of this watering down of the click limb were people who are not educated, not trained well, and they just want to vent and rant. i'm getting to the point where i think tenure is really a questionable institution. mark: when we come back, the big question. ♪ ♪ little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable,

with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. (music throughout) the curriculum were people who

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ comfort. what we deliver by delivering.

♪ ♪ mark: victor davis hanson, the gbig question. next 5-10 years, country going this way or the country going this way? >> well, i think we're in an

1861-1968 moment. so optimistically, you and i hope america will be the first truly multiracial society in the history of the world that's worked. so we won't look anywhere like the ancestors, any -- it won't matter, because we'll have, we'll be united by a shared ideology, commitment to constitutional government. if that doesn't happen, and that very easily could not happen if we demagogue the identity politics and other issues, then we're going to go the route 1861, what could have happened after 1968. but something like the balkans or rwanda or something in the austria/hungary or ottoman empires were we were identified by our superficial appearance first and our loyalty to the common collective investment of america. and to make the right choice, we really have to remember where we came from, and we have to claim jefferson, lincoln as our own.

people who died in shiloh really do belong to people who came from oaxaca. mark: great pleasure. >> thank you. mark: you too. see you next time on "life, liberty and levin." ♪e, ♪ jesse: welcome to a special holiday edition of watters world. i'm jesse watters coming to you from beautiful san diego. and i'll be talking with this huge crowd behind me here at san diego county credit union stadium. we're here for the navy football game. we live in the greatest country on earth with the most beautiful land and freest people. we're protect by the constitution and, of course, we're or very grateful for the incredible service members whose sacrifices keep america great. here with me n