ah, ah, the historic fast in coordination with allies, the us is we're leasing strategic oil reserves to bring down petrol prices of the found attempts to convince the opec to boost production what i will never accept idiots who under the guise we are dissatisfied with fuel pilots gets people with prime minister, locked out at protest, is often nights of rioting against tough new clothing restrictions as cases the johns locked down re imposed across europe. britain's government is sending troops to the pole in february, florida to assist with the refugee situation back home as spacing accusations of failing to cope with an even bigger crisis. more on those stories on plenty more, we can visit our website, t dot com for the back in and out for the latest headlines

with with hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter labelle . the recent written house verdict is a cautionary tale for many in power ideology trumped anything resembling justice. but jerry thought otherwise. unfortunately, our leads when more times than not, they were born by their ideology and they were pursuing a revolution from the top down with

ah, cross sucking ideology versus justice, i'm joined by my guess. for the rico's bristle in washington, he is an adjunct professor of politics at george washington university school of political management. in philadelphia we have bruce marx, he's a former pensylvania state senator and attorney for donald trump's 20162020 campaigns and in paris. we cross to john laughlin, he is a university lecture in history and political philosophy. i gentleman cross hoc rules and effect. that means you can jump in any time you want. now it's appreciate, let me go to john 1st and paris here. okay. i opened up what the rittenhouse case might. i mean, we can go look backwards. we have russia gate how cove it has been sold to the public. we have a weapons of mass destruction and the it's always lingering around, but it's on steroids. now is white supremacy here? i mean, all of these are our pitches. ok. that a servant ideology. they don't serve anybody else is far as i'm concerned. it's, it's in service of a neo liberal ideology. that is, is a desperate to maint,

remain relevant because it's only rel, relevant to the people that hold that ideology for the rest of us. it, it's, it's more than annoying. go ahead, john. well, i think i'm the only non american on the, on the show. so perhaps i shouldn't comment on the rittenhouse case, although i'm sure we'll remember, i'm sure the viewers will remember previous cases or black or white law cases in the states which have caused great controversy. we think of course of the dentist social van trial recently or 20 years ago the o. j. simpson trial. these things come up from time to time and we all know that the race issue is extremely sensitive in america. but yes, the issue of using justice for political ends is, are very old and it is, as you suggest in your introduction, peter, it is a left right issue. and in fact, i think it's the thing which distinguishes the left from the right. the left, of course, wants to change the world and the right wants to preserve what should be preserved

and the left has forked since at least the french revolution. if not, since the english civil war, systematically used justice. the judicial system as an instrument for political change. or, you know, we think of the trial and execution of charles the 1st of england in 1649 of louis the 16th and 1793 and of countless revolutionary trials. a particular course in soviet terms, soviet, russia, and by contrast, conservatives regard the law not as an instrument, but instead as an order, as an intelligible order, which should be preserved, which deserves to be preserved. it's not an instrument in the service of social change. it's on the contrary, the very thing which should be preserved from change. and that really therefore is to me is the, the philosophical dividing line between left and right. and that's why because we live in a world that is dominated by, as you call it, the liberal ideology. that's correct. but that is essentially now

a left wing revolutionary ideology because we live in that world. now, this ideological take on everything comes from those historical sources in my view . could reconcile in washington. i mean in, i go back to the written house verdict, i mean, i watched enough of it. a lot of us did here, and there were 2 trials going on simultaneously. one was a political trial for the, for the elite, particularly for the media, i suppose. and then her verb of her, the defendant, okay. and the jury came to a conclusion to kind of echo it with john just said here, i mean, these institutions challenged, but it worked okay. and when it does work well, there are plenty people, particularly on the left. it's a, it doesn't work. okay. i mean, again, they were 2 different trials there and you could follow whatever one was your political flavoring. go ahead and d, c. you know, peter, i think the fact the really house trial was turned into a less than a right wing. political as really is a call of justice, but let's be also very clear. here. it was written house himself was turned into or

right celebrity immediately following the murder of 2 men. democrats then fixed upon that idea, the essentially said that the trial was 6 to begin with. so there were, there was a sort of perversion of justice from the democratic perspective, but also from the right perspective that he was also immediately turned into some sort of little whole celebrity. you're right, there were 2 trials and in many respects just written how's trial and even the trial that is currently going on in brunswick. georgia was, are very, these both sides are seen as referendums on white, which lead to them that is across i think of what is going on, what the other guests talk about with regard to ok, but you've, you've already, but you've already framed it. vigilante is ok. i mean, i watching the trial of rittenhouse, you don't see that at all, at least i didn't see it. i can see if you have ideological lenses. that's exactly

what you can see. i admit that you can see that if you want to see, let me pull in bruce here. bruce again, you know, people who were on it, they were going to get the outcome that they wanted. ok. and i had, it was irrespective of what happened in that courtroom, and i'm glad the john brought up a pass cases glowing back centuries here. i mean this, this is a tool in the, in the hands of the powerful go ahead. bruce in philadelphia. listen, i'm not sure what everybody's watching. i watch all the tv channels. rittenhouse was not made into some type of right wing, so i agree. i agree with the i watch fox. i watch other stations that they covered the proceedings before the trial. there were some videos that were shown because those, those were evidence, but he wasn't made into celebrity people on the right. needless to say, it was a very sad thing then anybody was killed. but the issue was whether he was acting

in self defense and the left treated it completely different. i mean, they alleged that there was races that he was a video on tape that there was white supremacy. what kind of white supremacy is involved? one white person shoots 3 other people who are attacking and that's, and that's what the, and what we wanted to see is conservatives. we want the system to work. we wanted to do the jury's jury to hear the evidence. and that's what happened. and i'll tell you one good thing about wisconsin, other states, or like that to they allow televisions in the quarter. and that gives a lot of comfort, i think, to the community in the united states, when the people in the united states can actually see what happens in the court room. they can hear the witnesses and let's not forget how witness rip, house testified, you know, it doesn't have to because of the privilege but he testified. and i think that one of the reasons why that verdict is being accepted is because people actually got to see the evidence. they got to hear what power houses had to say. and of course we

have respect for the jurors. so i don't think he was made into a celebrity by the right. i think the left tried to use it what purposes and the jurors did their job. yeah. but you know, let me go back to john and parents. i mean that's, is the point you were talking about celebrities and all that. i think this is all intentional. i think this is just smoking mirrors. they focus in on these things that divides people. this is perfectly, it's that the neo liberal ideology is that there's no real structural change for working people in the class is never mentioned here. it's always you know, how we can we get each other's throats here? it's white supremacy. it's vigilante ism, you know, you can scream all you want, but it doesn't change the structural life of pans. hundreds of millions of people. and at the end of the day, everyone is sweating and tired and angry. and the elite, when again, john? yeah, i mean i, we live in the victim culture and that is the,

and it's been said by many commentators that the working class and ordinary people generally have been abandoned in favor of these mythical victim groups. in the case of the united states, the blacks in general, and who are put forward as i say, as eternal victims. and the same goes in europe for migrants or whatever. i think i listened with great interest to what lay 2 speakers have just said, because i don't know how great the pressure was in the rittenhouse case from the, from the left. but in the show van case, it was absolutely for leonard. or you will remember that, and we remember not just public opinion, not just demonstrations, including outside the courtroom, but also elected officials, if i'm not mistaken, insisting that a conviction had to be handed down and so on. and that's why i say that the law, the judicial system, is often abused as an instrument for political change rather than being allowed to operate with full integrity as it seems to have done in this case. but on the other

hand, it's not wrong for, for these issues to excite comments and for people to take up one cause against the other in a way is normal. you know, there are plenty of trials which excite her interest was what's, what sad is when they are, when this interest is excited, as you've suggested peter through the lens of revolutionary ideology, because that simply distorts the facts are quite because you're the odd man out here you want to react to what we've heard here. go ahead. sure. listen. you had email solicitations for file signed by david clark, who was the farmer, sheriff of law county. wisconsin was also a former spoke person for a pro trunk last committee. you had a congressman met date saying that he would give written house internships. you had congresswoman and margaret taylor green studying and telling how innocent he was and that he is a hero. these are all of course examples of how he was thrown in fact into a political right brings the letter be and you're right peter. the structure of

life for many, particularly black brown and other communities are racialized colors of course are continues to be left behind and that is the problem. and that, of course, according to audiology, as well as, according to political frame, me was brought out in both those trials that we saw in the greenhouse case. okay, products we've got one minute before we go to the break, jump in. listen, i don't know about different people are being left behind. i mean, let's take chicago, which is the highest murder rate in the world. they've had a democrat and an african americans mayor in an african american police chief like almost the last 30 years. i mean, i don't see how anybody could, you know, articulate, isn't it in a real way how that's how that's caused by racism is caused by one party rule in chicago and in this management. okay. okay, i'm going to jump in here. gentlemen, we're going to go to a short break and after that short break, now we'll continue our discussion on ideology versus just to stay

with ah, for is your media a reflection of reality? in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation for community, are you going the right way or are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true or his faith in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths. or remain in the

shallow herman by drink shapes. bankers are those with there's sinks. we dare to ask oh, i saw a message from an unknown account. it had to sell for you with my boss board as its profile page. i saw pictures of my documents. it was they also sent a credit contract law if i had just 3 days to comply with their demands. if i didn't send money and they sent up an online hate campaign for camp,

i was supposed to be a very dangerous man. i welcome back to cross like we're all things are considered on peter level to remind you we're discussing ideology versus justice. i say let's go back to john in paris. i want to kind of widen this out a little bit. i, i bought my intention was not to talk about this tra, cases for the entire program here. but i did say in my 1st question to john, you know, weapon, weapons of mass destruction rush again. you know how kobe was originally rolled out and, and then i ended with white supremacy. but all of these things have something in common. these are elite narratives, okay. and in more times than not, they are wrong narratives in the service of many people in power. and why i'm

asking the question why we're even doing this program is it never held to account. okay, that's why we get into these cold. this acts over and over. busy again, it, it was written house case over the last few days. okay. for what, for years there with russia gate. okay. and then you know, the drive to war against saddam, you know, it happens over and over again in the one of the ring. so i'm stressing it, john, it's not republican or democrat, it's the elite i keep focusing on these leaps. go ahead, john. so i totally agree again though, this is a distinction between left and right. i mentioned the distinction with respect to the judicial system just now, but perhaps a more even more profound difference between left and right is precisely that the left is ideological, whereas the right is based. in reality, the right is reality based on the left wants to change the world, the right likes the world more or less as it is and wants to try to learn, learn things from the world. it doesn't denounced the world. the left attitude is

one of permanent denunciation because it hates the world way the world is structured it, it wants to change it. and that's why i, the ology is the reserve of the preserve of the left. and that's why it is fundamentally elitist because by definition, intellectuals and members of the elite are the people who drive ideology, ordinary people, by contrast, live in the real world. they have to fill up their call with, with gas every, every day they have to drive their children to sue to school. they have to eat the houses, etc, etc. they all based in reality, you may remember i, i think i might, you might even have quoted at once on this program. there's a famous confrontation between a and no call back in the george bush. she is a journalist who was questioning and you mentioned peacher about the weapons of mass destruction and the, the near called. i can't remember who it was looked pityingly and with contempt the journalist across the cross into course questioning him and said,

i can see that you are part of the reality based community. but we create our own reality. i think it was. i think it was paul wolf. it was like kind of person. and that shows that the, the left cosigned cute. the near comes in that regard ideas as their as an instrument of social change. because once again, they hate the world as it is, and they want to use ideas to break it. ok, what's a good a to watch. and i mean in watching a m s m b, c, and seeing and the way they looked at the, the, the written house trial was through video. vigilant is, i'm in and white supremacy. i mean, how does that mean? is there a mission? is to identify what they think is the problem and if it's identified, how is it resolved? i mean, because it takes that judicial system out of the equation here because the jerry decided ok, that will. and if you like the result or, you know, are not ok, it's their decision. that's how the system works. but i mean, how does the,

how do we get what, what do we gain as a society by constantly using this cudgel? because i how did i were things to resolve the, i mean, just throwing these phrases out in flames. people that i don't see the path forward to progress. go ahead in washington. so i think 1st we have to agree upon a working definition of ideology, right? which is very simplistic, lee, a system of ideas and beliefs to which both the right as well as the left are also have a sort of form of ideology to which the see the world you are a diagnostic or a political theory list. i think that's 1st and important to know, you know, the country is teetering, as you said, peter, between a tyranny of leads as well as a tyranny of the irrationality, right? as it is a sort of a societal bipolar condition that will become crashing down on us because more representative. moreover, i should say,

representative democracy. both domestic enterprise is being down ready by this rapid popular isn't right. that is exploring or trying to use exploiter forces for the dominance of sort of political minorities. this anti democratic craziness has its roots and willingness. let's be very clear on one side of the political out that be the right. but of course, democrats and the left of course are also asked for here. how do we get to a place where we understand both perspectives and yet agree to disagree? unfortunately, our world is completely polarized and we're trying not to understand is each other's perspective. i think that is the problem here. yeah, i think that's an interesting description here. bit of it when i go to bruce here, i mean, then you throw in cancel con. so if you don't agree with me,

you're cancelled. i mean, that's not a democratic process. that's not, you know, engaging people here and i totally disagree with your, your definition of populism. here a lot of people are turning to populism because the demo recording, quote, democratic process and the rhetoric that is behind it has totally failed tens of millions of people in the western world. ok i that is a reaction to a system that doesn't meet the needs of, of people that are go to the polls, they vote and nothing ever changes. you change the president for one party, the next and nothing really changes. that's where populism comes from. bruce, go ahead and jump in philadelphia, which is all very interesting to me. i'm. i'm just to help billy from west virginia . i grew up and we like pop is what's, what's wrong with what's wrong with the people making decisions. and i think that that was, you know, an enormous stuff for one. donald trump was elected president in 2016 because he appealed to the working class in america that had been left out,

particularly people, for example, in west virginia, ohio, western pennsylvania where i also grew up up. what i just would like to point out is that i think on the conservative side, we look at democracy as a small see where the people should make the decisions. and you let the people govern their own lives. and on the other side, in the lib, liberal late and particularly in the media they, they view using the judicial system. it's coercive they want to use the power of the government to change things and they want to do it through judges. and thank goodness, here in the united states, we actually have a jury system and it's average people. you know, that which is what america, average americans who are making decisions. and i think it's, it's really important to put in perspective the conservatives are trying to keep the power in the hands of the individuals to not put them into the institution, such as the courts. and then talk about my favorite subject. one of the problems we

do have in what in the elite is that the media is controlled with the exception of fox and a few other publications is controlled by, you know, very liberal leads to do 2 things. one is they dominate, you know, outlets like c a, m, c, n, n, and m s, b c. and then they now dominate, you know, the social media, facebook and twitter. and there's absolutely repression in the united states. have people who's, who's, who's message and beliefs are not the same as those who control the elite media. and that, you know, was unfortunate because reality is that people communicate these days not by standing on street corners and yelling, but by posting messages on facebook and twitter and so forth. and that's something it really needs to be done. and it would be a great thing if our government to put the 1st amendment privileges in the institutions, the social media institutions so that people are not styled. so i'm glad i got to go to town and parents. i mean, i'm glad the word populism was,

was brought up here. i mean, i didn't, but i, you know, it's, it's always kind of in the back of my mind here. but you know, it populism is democracy with a small, di, these are democrats to and truly believe it here. and i think that the left is terrified of it. i mean, all across social media populism is attacked. okay. i mean, they don't want to give it any kind of oxygen at all and i didn't. and there's such a gross misrepresentation of what populism is. i mean it's, it's a lot of people that are sick and tired, ideology oppressing them. and the state is an ideology that has a state that will implement badly ideology. go ahead, john, and will, this is a very old problem in the united states as elsewhere. if you look at the political program of general weaver back in the 18 ninety's, it's very similar to trump. it was middle america rebelling against the pic against the east coast, but also against the west coast. you know, the people who felt they got left behind. i think if i may say so again as the only

non american, i think one of the other problems. and i think many europeans are probably feel that as i do on the other problems specific to the united states is that the united states is, of course, a very litigious society. and that means that a lot of social conflict is channeled through the calls. and plus, of course, the supreme court as we know, and the various federal courts and so on have a considerable power over legislation. and this doesn't happen in most of the countries. those questions decided instead in polymers and inevitably, therefore in the states, these trials, these court cases attract a huge amount of political tension because they are actually where a lot of political decisions are made. and that's one of the reasons, one of the constitutional reasons why these court cases in america, calls so much controversy. drinkers react, react to what, you know, what we've just heard from bruce and john here. i mean, you know, we all agree ideology is in play here. i think we disagree on how to define it and

how it is instrumental to political change here. because, you know, when again, going back to the trial, i mean, i just saw on cnn and m, it's and see what they believe they were projecting their values. they were re work telling us what was going on in the courtroom. go ahead and d. c. no popular is in contrast, are not pluralist. i mean, that is, in fact the definition. they consider just one group, whoever they may be, the people legitimate. so the concept in of which is m a c, a stems from the fact that a popular st you is the view their view as the sensually moral and essentially right. and that is a problem is a small vocal minority that is not inclusive of other ideas or even trying to understand the underwriting. and that is the problem with barbara. and again, what we saw going that red brow is understanding the context as,

as to how and why rittenhouse was on trout living quite reconsidering. let me ask you day that why, why over an entire century is the democratic party been most oppressive against populace? it's not the right. okay. it's a, it's the democratic party that a bit of horse. any kind of. peter explained plenty of them here, but it's called the grid has to dominate party, ben. oh, press that because popular isn't what we're talking about. popular ism, it is the will of a minority of people who are trying to overtake the dominance. that is what part of the resume it. okay, well, okay, so we have, we have different dimensions of this word and we will, we can reconvene and talk about it cuz it's very important. and the man in washington dc winds the bow tie contests on this program. many thanks to my guess and watch it in philadelphia and in paris. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here. darky. see you next time? remember rostock ro?

ah yeah, we're still in el salvador now or in san salvador. it's not popping off here. the country that typically is legal to transforming the country, transforming the people, transforming the culture, transforming the region on like a wrong one. i'll just don't hold any world to shape out this day because the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground.

ah sure don't seem inefficient. mister fisher from one of the familiar jaqakira with jonathan dinner, washed them with those that below them. having jo, beside bexla me within another, she usually said almost by you. so what i'm going to look up in that is it will take us on submission, right. you have the key moments it, she's leeway and she shared with

you in so on the so know what you're watching. yes. and we are getting more bullying. the sticker was more thought elaine on forensic show at the when you struck opportunity with her mom, which embarrassed that alex at her, her name and upset, come in tidy, thicker cream, skeleton, new life to face. it was good after mortals like nor you eat pasta, grab than any, pretty much the cost on your protocol. for tyler sits alcuin across all to look at the love seat, but the mother a problem whatsoever. all prosperous fall in your shame.