Pelosi Down

Dennis Prager here. Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire 3 hours of my radio show commercial-free every single day, become a member of Prager Utopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives as well as the daily show prep. Subscribe at pragertopia.com. Hi everyone, I'm Dennis Prager. How we doing on the mic, gentlemen? You like it? Touch it some more like that. There we go. I have a thought for you, my friends. Other than terrible pain and illness, what is it people most fear when they get older? Think about it. Sean, where is our thinking, our thinking music, our thinking theme? You know, the old tick-tock, tick-tock. That's it. All right, it's pretty close. Not bad, not bad. All right, the answer is not being able to take care of yourself. Correct. That's people's greatest Fear. People don't fear dying. I mean, some people do, obviously. People lament it. It is sad. But it's the fear while living, let's put it that way, is I can't take care of myself. So this leads me to think about something. I was in Denmark last week, as you know. Well, as most of you know, I had a lecture there. And Scandinavians are constantly said to be the happiest people in the world. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and though Finland is not considered specifically a Scandinavian country, its language is completely different from any other in the world. I know it's related to Hungarian, but that's irrelevant. If you're a philologist, that's fascinating, but otherwise it means nothing. A Finn and a Hungarian cannot talk to each other with any understanding. So Finland is well, and people will say these are the happiest countries in the world. In fact, I'm going to Google that very notion right now so as to be completely happiest countries in the world. Finland! There it is. Finland comes up as the number one search item. Happiest countries in the world. World Population Review. And let's see, where's our list? Yep, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland. Let's see. Netherlands, Norway, Sweden. Okay, exactly what I said to you. Right. So we have an interesting dilemma here. First, how do you measure who are the happiest people? It's a very difficult thing to ascertain. Secondly, How is that to be reconciled with the fear that we have of being taken care of? The happiest person theoretically is the one who takes care— not theoretically— is the one who takes care of himself and then ideally takes care of his or her family and then community. But if you're taken care of, and that is the nightmare of every person who gets older, being taken care of by others, how do you reconcile all these countries in which people are taken care of as being the happiest countries in the world? Interesting question, no? So I had a thought when I was in Denmark, and that is that these people are content but not necessarily happy. Content and happy are not the same things. You're— a cow grazing is content. But it's odd to say that the cow is happy. In fact, if you're happy and you don't know it, clap your hands. If you're happy and don't know it, clap your hands. If you're happy and don't know it, clap your hands. If you're happy and don't know it, and you're happy and don't know it. Then your face will surely show it. Is that right? Is that true? What, did you make that up? I sang it wrong. Yeah, I didn't know the end part. Fair enough. That's an interesting question. Can you be happy and not know it? Of course not. That's, uh, that's why whenever my wife speaks about how happy our dogs are I often, not always, throw in the bummer notion, yeah, but they don't know it. So how happy? We know they're happy, but they don't know they're happy, so I don't think that counts. They're content in Denmark. All your needs taken care of leads to a certain contentment. But not to happiness. 1-800-PRAGER-776, 877-243-7776. What's your take on that? If all your needs are met by outsiders, everything is free. This is the, this is the imagination of the revolutionary. A society in which everything is given to you, but it comes with another price as well, because those who take care of you control you, and you can't step out of bounds. And I have to imagine that it has some impact on people's ambition. Make sense? We have the notion of the rugged individual in the United States, or we had it. The left takeover of everything in society has meant that a generation has arisen which expects to be taken care of. So would you argue that the generation that expects to be taken care of is a particularly mature generation, or does it keep you as somewhat of a child? Children are taken care of, adults are not. Adults take care of themselves. A terrible price is paid in a society where Everything is so-called free. You work and work, or you work and, I don't know, work and don't work, but it's taken care of. You are taken care of. What is a paradisical dream to some is a nightmare to others. Does it breed maturity? Does it breed excellence? It's definitely one of the reasons that people don't get married and don't have children in many of the industrialized Western countries, because even if the state takes care of your child, you still have to take care of a child. You can't just go on a vacation with your significant other and leave the kid home unless there's somebody to take care of your kid. And maybe the state— maybe the state should have vacation care time for your child, not just work time and your child is in daycare, but vacation time and your child is in daycare. I'm sure to many that sounds fantastic. Yeah, my significant other and I will be taking off for Spain and we're going to have 2 weeks on the Mediterranean Riviera in France. So state here is— here's my child. I have mentioned another factor with regard to the quote-unquote happiest countries. They're incredibly non-diverse. In Finland, which is number 1, virtually every single person there is white. Virtually every single person there is from Protestant stock. Virtually every single person there speaks Finnish. Finland is not diverse and is listed as the happiest country in the world. Another left-wing idiocy. Diversity is our strength. Then why is the happy— why are the happiest countries completely non-diverse? Ethnically, religiously, racially, nationality, linguistically. Now, diversity can be your strength if you believe in e pluribus unum, if you believe in the melting pot, a term that is no longer even used. We return in a moment. The Fed is unstable. Interest rates could go up at any moment. If you're relocating and need to buy a new home or invest in real estate, get fully underwritten and approved with Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian at Sierra Pacific Mortgage before you make an offer. Their fast-track approval process will allow you to compete with cash offers. Whether you're buying today, tomorrow, or a year from now, even though housing prices are stabilizing or coming down, economic uncertainty, supply chain issues, and limited construction means the real estate market is limited and competitive. Go to AndrewAndTodd.com, that's AndrewAndTodd.com right now. Get fully approved today and have confidence so that when you're ready to buy, you'll have the money ready to go. Don't wait, go to AndrewAndTodd.com. Lock in today's still historically low rates. Go to AndrewAndTodd.com. That's AndrewAndTodd.com. So I was thinking about this in Denmark last week. Always listed as one of the top happy countries, Finland number 1. The people who assess these things have biases. Most people do, and they believe that the more of your needs that are taken care of by the state, the less you have to take care of yourself, and the more the state does, the happier you will be. So I think it is true that you will be more content. I don't know that you will be happier. Happy people look at at their lives as one of achievement, whether it is in the micro, making a family, or the macro, in the professional life. And I don't think content and happy are the same thing. I also might note again and again and again, one of the many lies of the left is that diversity is our strength. It's just not true. The least diverse countries are the happiest. This is not a call against diversity. There's no way around it in America. We are by sheer fact a diverse country. It can be our strength if we share values. But if you pit each of the diverse elements one against another, It is not only not our strength, diversity, it is a source of tension in society, which is exactly what the left has created. I would pay a nice little sum of money to get the article by Charles M. Blow, one of the angriest human beings, along with Paul Krugman, Well, if you're not angry, you're not on the left, so you could be a liberal but you can't be a leftist. Do you remember years ago he said he told his child to be afraid of whites? Do you remember that piece? Whites have it in for him. I wish I could find that. I would write an entire column on it. My column this week got a lot of interesting responses because it's such an important thesis. How do you know who's lying between left and right? And one of the major, if not the major answer is the one who censors dissent is the liar. That's, that's the rule of thumb. Tell your kids, how do I know who's telling the truth? Fox News says this and CNN says that, and Democrats say this and Republicans say that. Okay, who wants to suppress free speech, son? Who wants to suppress free speech, daughter? That's how you know who's lying. That's it. There you are. It's fairly foolproof. That's my column this week. You can see it at DennisPrager.com and many other places. But back to this one. The happiest are in non-diverse, big social network countries. All right. Let's go to Tehunga, California. Johnny, hello. Sean, do we have a phone set up here?

Hello?

Okay, now I hear you.

Okay, good. Yeah, hello. An honor to be on your show. I just wanted to say that I lived in Finland in 1985. I worked for Valtin Rautajet. That's about the only word I ever learned of Finnish. But they are very not much not the happiest place in the world. Because if they were, they wouldn't have the gigantic problem of alcoholism. I would see people drunk in the middle of the day. And when you're on the trains, there's absolute silence. So this— they're not the happiest place people in the world. They're just not, right? So academics don't know.

Yeah, they don't know what they imagine it because they think the bigger the state, the happier the citizen.

Yeah, they're wonderful people, but they are very much not happy.

So tell me, I don't remember which direction it went. I, in my 20s, I was on a ferry between Stockholm and Helsinki. I don't, I don't remember which direction it went, but it was filled with people, nearly every one of whom was drunk. So is it Swedes going over to Finland to drink or Finns going over to Sweden to drink?

No, it's, it's, it's very hard to get anywhere from Helsinki. It's really, you have to take a whole day ferry to get anywhere. Anywhere. It's not like you can go— I mean, you can go to Russia, but you know, there's nothing there. So it's definitely Finns going to Sweden or even down as far as Italy to go, uh, just go somewhere and drink.

Yeah, fascinating. Well, thank you. I know one word in Finnish: ravintola. You know what ravintola means? No, it's not a bad guess. It's not bathroom, it's restaurant. So I'll tell you how I know. It's a funny story. So I began my world travels at the age of 18, and I brag about it. I fully admit it. I've been to 131 countries. I don't know how many books I've written. I give you my word, I have an idea, but I, I know exactly how many countries I visited. So I was in Lapland, the very top of Scandinavia, where Norway sort of covers over Finland. It's that north. So I went into Finland and I took Finnish rail from the very tip-top of Finland down to Helsinki. And I was, I was 21 years old. And I wanted to make sure I was on the right train. Obviously, I didn't want to get lost in Finland. I finished being zero. I have a map. And I look at people. I see a sign at a station and it says Ravintola. And I look on the map for Ravintola to make sure I'm going in the right direction. And I don't see any Ravintola on the map. And I, so I walk over, I go, Ravintola, Ravintola, and point to the map. And they then pointed to outside the train. Anyway, it wasn't on the map because it means restaurant. You all have helped build MyPillow into the incredible company it is today and have trusted in Mike Lindell to give you a great night's sleep. On top of the special available to my listeners on the Percale and Giza Dream bedsheets, marked down as low as $29.98, Mike is now changing the game with his 3-piece towel set. This set is made with USA cotton, making it extremely absorbent yet still providing the soft feel you look for in a towel. This set comes with 1 bath, 1 hand towel, and 1 washcloth, typically retailing for $49.99. For a limited time, you can get this 3-piece towel set for the low price of $19.98 with the promo code PRAGER. Don't miss out on these extraordinary offers. There's a limited supply, so be sure to order now. 800-761-6302. Use the promo code PRAGER or go to mypillow.com, click on the radio listener square, and use the promo code PRAGER. All right, everybody, Dennis Prager. I was thinking in Denmark last week, are people happy? And it's, it's almost impossible to to note, although I have strong happiness radar after traveling somewhere outside of the United States every single year since I was 18 years old or 19 years old, except for 2020 when it was not simply not possible. Even 2021, I went to Hungary. And of course, I just, uh, just now went to Denmark. And it's— I have a certain assessment of how I judge whether people are happy. A few assessments. They're not easily described. They're often sensed more than describable, but that doesn't help you any. So I'll give you some descriptions. You can walk down the street of a place and you look at faces, and if they have a dour look, I think you can tell that. Do they— are strangers talking with one another? That to me is not the perfect assessor, but I think is one indication. In America, strangers talk with one another more than almost in any country. I know this because when I start talking to strangers in an elevator in America, I always get warm responses, not one-word grunts, as it were. And, you know, people waiting for an elevator will commonly say something to one another, especially at a hotel, you know, where are you from, for example, or those your kids, or I don't know, whatever it might be, nice day out. Americans are less happy today than in any time in my lifetime. I completely ascribe that to the damage the left is doing to the society and creating tension, hatred, anger, panic, leaving people bereft of anything to believe in except global warming. The whole belief system of the left is corrupt. Are kids at college as happy as they were 25 years ago? I don't think so. Well, forget I don't think so. We know they're not. There's the highest rate of depression among young women, for example, ever recorded in American history. Is it because young women are persecuted by a misogynist society? No, not exactly. More women get college degrees, considerably more than young men do. Maybe the absence of young men could be a reason for a certain degree of angst among women. Because women need men just as much as men need women. Amazing that that is a controversial statement, but it is The age in which it's controversial to say men do not give birth. That's the world that the left has created. You, you must lie all the time in, in order to be acceptable to the societal norms of the day. Anyway, it's not easy to assess who's happiest. I don't know how these happy meters take place. But I would say that there is a contentment that exists, and— but content and happiness are not the same. If being taken care of financially makes you happy, then the— then people in their 20s and 30s living with their parents should be the happiest people in America. Is that a fair statement? They're all— their financial needs are taken care of. Does anybody listening to me right now think that a 28-year-old living with his parents is particularly happy? Some might be, obviously. As I said, it's not an easy thing to assess, but we don't generally identify such an individual with happiness. Striking out on your own gives you some happiness, but it's risky because you may fail. What the progressive wants everywhere in the world is a place where you can't fall on your face. That's, that's a mistake. 1-800-PRAGER-776. So there's an actress— oh, I Notice, by the way, oh, oh, oh, oh, it doesn't say actress anymore. They're actors now.

But before you get into that story, tell everybody.

Oh yes, I have the news. The news from Washington, D.C. Nancy Pelosi is stepping down as the leader of the Democrats. She would no longer be speaker because the Republicans eked out a majority. And the reason that I have nothing important to say about it is because there is nothing important to say about it. What difference does it make what Democrat does what? It will be destructive no matter what because Democrats are no longer liberal. They are leftist, and the left ruins everything it touches. Okay, so there will be a new A new leader, a new destructive force. Have you noticed this, that actresses— the word actress is no longer used?

They just say actor.

They say actor.

Yeah.

And what is the reason for that? Lest we make a feminine-masculine distinction. It shows you how bored Everyone on the left is the whole woke world. They need to manufacture causes. You know how, you know how much better society is now that we no longer say actor or actress? Do they do it, by the way, at the Academy Awards? Is, is there, is there, is there a leading actress and leading actor, best actor, best actress? They've kept those terms. So anyway, that's not the, the reason I'm mentioning it. I'm mentioning it because that's the way this article is written. Candace Cameron Bure faces backlash after announcing, quote, traditional marriage project. Where is this from? Did you send this to me? No, you didn't. Actually, I discovered it at Daily Mail. I think it is from No, NBC News. There we go, NBC News. So here, here's the story. The actor— let's see, NBC is woke. It's not the actress, the actor. Wow. Does NBC News use Latinx? You know, I'm a Jew. How about jukes? Maybe they'll— J-E-W-X. How many jukes are there in America? These people, they're so bored. And now secularism plus affluence equals boredom. Equals leftism. That is the, that is the way to understand modern life. The actor Candace Cameron Bure, B-U-R-E, is facing backlash. Now, why would an actress face backlash? What did she do? Did she make some anti-you-name-it comment? What did she do? Did she say men do not give birth, which can definitely get you blacklisted, if I can use the term, in Hollywood? No, let's find out. She's facing backlash following her recent comments about her new TV project that she said will prioritize portraying, quote, traditional marriage. Oh, that is bad news. Cameron Bure, 46, the former Full House star— Sean, you ever watch Full House? And yes, you did too? All of you did? Good. I'm very— oh, you went to school with her? Whoa. Made the remarks in a recently published interview with the Wall Street Journal magazine. A reporter asked whether great American family The new cable network she joined after she left the Hallmark Channel this year would feature same-sex couples as leads in Hollywood movies. According to the Journal, Cameron Bure said no. I think that Great American Family will keep traditional marriage at the core, she told the magazine. On its social media pages, Great American Family describes its programming as, quote, celebrating faith, family, and country. For that alone, she's going to be blacklisted in Hollywood. Faith, family, and country. Holy crow, you can't get more patriarchal, homophobic, Islamophobic. What other phobias are there? Transphobic than that. The channel is owned by Great American Media, a company started by Bill Abbott, a former executive of a Hallmark subsidiary. Abbott gave the Wall Street Journal a different answer from Cameron Bureis: It's certainly the year 2022, so we're aware of the trends. There's no whiteboard that says yes, this, or no, we'll never go there. At Hallmark, Abbott came under fire for having been involved in the decision to pull a commercial for the wedding planning site Zola that featured a lesbian couple kissing. That led to the hashtag #BoycottHallmark and Abbott's leaving his role as CEO of Crown Media Family Networks. Representatives for Great American Media did not immediately respond to the request for a comment. In a September interview with Variety, Cameron Bure said she would have an executive role at the network and act in its films. She also said leaving Hallmark was a business decision. In recent years, the channel has made efforts to diversify its characters, notably in the 2020 film The Christmas House, which features a gay couple looking to adopt their first child. A lesbian wedding was also featured in the Hallmark film Wedding every weekend that year. A gay couple will also star in The Holiday Sitter, premiering on the channel next month. Don't they have— you know Hollywood much better than I— don't they have problems getting an audience for gay films? Other than gays, who is particularly interested other than Ivy League school graduates? What was the big flop recently? What was the name of that film? I mean, this is not a matter of hatred, bigotry, or whatever, but most heterosexuals are not interested in gay films. It's not a matter of bigotry. In fact, one of my— two of my closest friends who are two gay men married to one another Yeah, Bros. That was it. Yeah, it was a big, big flop, right? We talked about this, and the following is not for kids under the age of perhaps 13, so I'll keep it as, uh, not only clean but as family-friendly as you can given the subject. And we're extremely open with one another. And one of them said to my wife and me, basically, he believes that men in particular, but women too, are turned off by watching gay intimacy. I'll use the word intimacy to keep it family-friendly. And he knows that it doesn't bother him, it just He looks at life realistically, which is why he's no longer on the left. And I was thinking about that, and the truth is, with one exception— women with women— people do not like to see intimacy of a group that they're not a member of. So for example, Young people are, are not comfortable with watching old people in intimacy. So it just doesn't mean any— that young people hate old people. Anyway, back to the theme of the, of the article. She's facing backlash for wanting to portray the traditional family and make a series that is for family faith and about family faith and country. So here, here is the real, the real question: is it an act of intolerable bigotry to proclaim that the ideal family is a married man and woman and children. Is that an act of bigotry? More on this when we return. So this is the question on the table: is saying or depicting man, woman, children— man, woman married husband-wife married with children as the ideal family situation. One of my— one of the gay couples involved in my life, in my wife's life, the— they— I'll never forget it. I mean, it just happened a few months ago at their home. And he said, of course the ideal is a mother-father. And he said, I'm gay, married to a man, but of course the ideal is a mother and a father. What am I, stupid? It's theoretically just as good to have no mother as to have a mother, or no father as to have a father. Said, but we, we want a family and we'll try to do the best we can. And so they had, they had the money to have a surrogate and they have two little boys now. But it's, we live in this such a narcissistic age. Narcissism and leftism are handmaidens. What you feel is, is reality. It's all that matters, what you feel. You feel that men give birth, so men give birth. You feel you're a boy, you're a boy. You feel you're a girl, you're a girl. You feel you're neither, you're neither. It's how you feel. There is no reality. It is how you feel. So it's not reality that the ideal is a married man and woman. I mean, even to the extent, if I say a man, woman living together with kids, Is not as ideal as a man-woman married living together with kids. Is it anti-non-married people? No, it's that it's— there's an ideal. That human beings will not live up to certain ideals or cannot live up to them is, I recognize, as a mature human being. But to deny that there is an ideal to strive for, this is the collapse of a civilization. Let me ask you a question. Is, uh, is a single parent as, as ideal as two parents? Now, there are single parents who've done great. I married a single mother. She did great. She'd be the first to say that the ideal is exactly what I described. The a married man and woman. Is it insulting to single parents to say that a two-parent home is the ideal? Hey, is a three-parent home as good as a two-parent home, or can you not make that comment either? So this woman has the audacity this, this actress to claim that depicting the ideal is a good thing— the traditional family of married man, woman, and children. The president and CEO of GLAAD, Sarah Kate Ellis, said Cameron Bure's comments were, quote, irresponsible and hurtful. She— this, this woman is a child. She cannot do what my gay friends say. She cannot say, yes, of course, that's the ideal, but there are other families as well. Two parents of the same sex. That's correct, they exist. So, and some do a fine job. But to deny that the ideal is a married man and a woman is to live in the make-believe land of the woke, the land in which men give birth and menstruate. Bure is out of sync with a growing majority of people of faith, including LGBTQ people of faith, who know that LGBTQ couples and families are deserving of love and visibility. It's so interesting. The issue is not whether or not Cameron Bure is right or wrong. The issue is, is she out of sync? The language of the GLAAD CEO, that is the gay and lesbian advocacy group, the language is so telling. There is no right and wrong. It's in sync or out of sync, right? That's what matters. That's right. Well, let me just say this, folks. Generally speaking, if you're in sync, you're probably wrong. In sync. Yes, the people who thought children should go to school for 2 years were out of sync, but they were right. Sweden was out of sync, but Sweden was right. I must say that my aim in life has never been to be in sync with the majority. She'd love to have a conversation with Bure about my wife, our kids, and our family's traditions. So this is the woman. She's obviously a lesbian. She's married to a woman. They have children. So what would she say? Look at our family, we're loving, the kids seem to be doing fine. Yes. So I would just ask the head of GLAAD, do you really believe— if I put you on a lie detector, would I find that you really believe that no father is as good as having a father and a mother? I wonder if she would pass the lie detector test. I— a lifetime of wondering on this has not been resolved. Do the— does— do leftists believe what they say? I know they talk themselves into it. But do they really believe it? I don't know. I don't know the answer. But the person— but she is getting into hot water for wanting to depict, for prioritizing the portrayal of, quote, traditional marriage. You now get in trouble in depicting a married man and a woman with children. Them as your family in your series. 1-800-PRAGER-776. Hi everybody, I'm Dennis Prager. I can't wait for this interview. How's that for an opening? Christopher Marquis is a professor of Chinese management at Cambridge University. He's an American. At, as you will hear in a moment. You can see him as well because you can see my show. Where do they go, Sean? Salem News Channel, if you want to see the show. He has a brand new book published by Yale, Mao and Markets: The Communist Roots of Chinese Enterprise. Well, I, I, when we spoke beforehand, I called him Professor Marquis. Is it— do you pronounce the S at the end of your last name?

So usually pronounce it Marquis.

Marquis. Well, yeah, that I would not have noted. I'm glad I asked, but he insisted I call him Chris, and I, I will accede to his request. Professor, or Chris, thank you for coming on. Did I read correctly in one of your interviews, the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, that Xi, the current dictator of of China, head of the CCP and government. Was he— did he suffer under Mao, or was it his father?

So I think both of them under Mao. So his father was a very senior political leader in the CCP. At one point, he was the head of propaganda. He actually was the governor of Guangdong Province, which is the large province in southern China. That was after Mao passed away. So his father was persecuted in the Cultural Revolution, you know, sort of stripped of his titles, you know, probably put under house arrest. And Xi himself was actually sent to the countryside, so to speak, for 7 years. So his formal schooling actually ended at age 15. And he went and worked, you know, basically as a laborer on farms.

So explain to me and my listeners how a man whose family and himself so suffered under Mao has such admiration for Mao.

Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, you know, it's interesting because I think— so first of all, I think, you know, whether or not he has admiration for him, you know, as a person, I think that he saw that Mao's ideology and the way that he ran China, actually, from the CCP's perspective, was very effective. So, you know, I think he saw that sort of Mao's sort of authoritarian tools, you know, would help him achieve his goals as well. So, you know, that generation actually, you know, sort of love of Mao is very, very common, ironically so. You know, you would think if you were sort of sent to the countryside, you wouldn't actually be happy with the person.

Well, if I may be so brazen as to suggest that even if one personally didn't suffer, there are ample reasons, like about 60 million of them, to hate Mao.

Yeah.

It's— look, Stalin is admired in Russia, not to mention in Georgia, because he was Georgian, not Russian. But the adulation of Mao, the greatest butcher in history, among the people he butchered, is an ode to the low state of humanity. That's how I look at it.

Well, I think that's one way to look at it. One way to look at it, and I totally agree. I mean, this is someone who, you know, yeah, the number of deaths that Mao created, you know, far exceeds, you know, Stalin, Hitler, right? You know, no doubt about, no doubt about that. So yeah, so, so yeah, basically the biggest butcher in history. I'm totally on board with you there. However, you know, you have to think about the, you know, propaganda machine that, that people live under in China. So, uh, you know, there's a term that they have nowadays called historical nihilism, and, and the, uh, CCP, their diagnosis of why the Soviet Union sort of collapsed in the 1990s is that earlier on Khrushchev denied Stalin, you know, uh, sort of criticized Stalin, right? Uh, and that actually weakened the effectiveness of the Communist Party.

That's a very good.

And to rule.

So they learned, they learned their lesson.

They learned a lesson. And, you know, Mao is absolutely deified from— I know, obviously you've probably seen the pictures of people waving the Red Books and the giant picture of him in, in the Great Assembly Hall. Yeah, exactly, right into Tiananmen Square. And, and, you know, it's, um, I actually went to Mao's birthplace, um, you know, when I was in China once. And it is— it is— was packed with people really worshiping, you know, sort of the chairman.

So this leads me to a question I've never asked: what percentage of educated— well, even you just— educated Chinese know how many people, how many fellow Chinese Mao killed?

Yeah, that's a good question. I don't think it's super high. You know, the thing is, I mean, the educated people, you know, they can access the internet through virtual private networks. So I'm sure that there's nothing that they could access in the Chinese system, you know, that actually tells them how many people in the, you know, Great Famine, Great Leap Forward, you know, died. But it's actually sometimes hard and it's a bit of a hassle to search for information. And I know many people who are very, very educated. And for instance, they didn't even know that in 1989, there was a democracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square for, you know, many weeks, and the people were killed by the Chinese government, thousands of people. And that's, for instance, I've run into people that actually don't— that are, you know, college-educated at some of the best colleges in China and don't even know that. So it's that the information control is pretty severe.

I hope everybody listening is taking this in. It would be as if Germans knew almost nothing about what Hitler did, except it's even more remarkable because Mao did it to fellow Chinese, whereas Hitler did it primarily to people he didn't consider German— Jews, Slavs, and others. So it's— this is the world in which we live. So you— again, I want to remind my listeners, the book is up at DennisPrager.com, Mao and Markets: The Communist Roots of Chinese Enterprise. So let me make a statement and tell me if this is accurate in your view.

Sure.

The Chinese model has been for decades now, we can have capitalism in our country because it's the only way to create wealth. However, everything else we control, all the political and, and media organs of society. But if we allow business to run according to more capitalist principles, we can have the best of both worlds— power, autocracy, and prosperity. Is that a fair summary of what they believed?

So, I mean, I think that since, you know, Mao died in the late 19— mid to late 1970s, and since then, yes, there has been definitely a liberalizing of the market, and there's a lot of like, as you mentioned, sort of free market competition that they've allowed to sort of, you know, thrive. And a lot of businesses and entrepreneurs have done amazingly well. I think, though, that, you know, it all still sits under the state control. You know, there's state-owned firms. There's many of the entrepreneurs actually are members of the Chinese Communist Party, which is what we look at in our book. So, you know, they you know, even though the CCP or state may not own their company, they're still actually very much, you know, sort of beholden to the party. So I think that there was a period of time where they allowed some experimentation and opening, but that has actually, I think, really been closing in the last few years.

Because of Xi.

Exactly.

So the West sort of went along, if I understand it correctly, thinking, I believe, incredibly naively, and I've always believed this, oh, if only they have some free enterprise, they'll become a freer country. Was that the Western belief?

That was the Western belief, and I think, as you said, very, very naive. I think that—

By the way, you're a rarity. I know, I gotta say, Forgive me for this little interlude, but are you sort of an exception or outlier in your field, either at Cambridge or Cornell or Harvard where you taught previously?

Uh, it depends. You know, I am a little bit of an outlier that I'm actually not someone who has been traditionally educated as like a China expert. Uh, so it's only been, you know, people, you know, with that, you usually publish these books, they have PhDs in something oriented to China, which I don't do. But the last 10 years, I've certainly researched a lot about China. So that way, I'm an outlier. But I think that over the last number of years, the idea that sort of the West sort of suffered from wishful thinking. All right, China, keep that, keep that thought, if you would.

The book is up at DennisPrager.com. Mao and Markets. The Communist Roots of Chinese Enterprise by Christopher Marquis and Kun Yuan Kao, a name I probably butchered. I already butchered his name, in fact, my guest's name. I began by butchering an American name thinking it was a French name. Anyway, Christopher Marquis, you're a delight and I— we were talking about The Western nations— do we have a, do we have a noise in the background, guys? Yeah, okay, so might be, might be on your end, Chris.

Yeah, it might be.

Okay, all right. Yeah, is that— do you hear that? The—

I do. There's some construction going on next door in my, to my apartment, so I tried to—

you know what, they knew you'd be on my show. They, they don't like conservatives. I know exactly what is happening.

Yeah, I'm in New York City, so.

Yeah. Oh, and it's self-evident. So I asked you about Western naivete in thinking, oh, China, they'll have free markets, they'll have corporations privately owned, then they'll join the free world. It was a mistake, right?

Yeah. No, I think, like we said, you know, it's sort of— it definitely reflected some naivete. Everyone from both George Bushes to Clinton and Obama, this was a universal cross-the-party aisle thinking that, okay, as they economically develop, of course, the people will want to become much more liberal and free. And actually, in some ways, the opposite has happened. As China has increased its economic power, The government has actually gotten much more adept at actually controlling the sort of narrative and propaganda. So, for instance, the internet, you know, for a long time people thought this would be a mechanism for, you know, citizenry to, you know, become, you know, sort of get free information from everywhere. But actually, you know, that's actually been tightly controlled, very hard to get around the Great Firewall. And so it actually becomes a tool to use for propaganda.

So what, what does she— what animates she? My, my outsider's take is— so obviously I want you to tell me, and I always tell guests, totally fine if you don't think I'm right, just say it. It seems to me that there were two animating impulses for Xi. One is power. Those of us who are— who— the world is divided, in my view, between those who yearn for power over others and those who don't. And those of us who don't, don't understand those who do. But anyway, there are a lot of them, obviously. And nationalism. Which, by the way, I do not hold as always bad at all, but it can be used for terrible things. He thinks that China should be the most powerful country in the world and that it has been locked out of its mission in the world of influence by the West. He resents it. So that combination of power internally and Chinese influence internationally. Those are my reads of his two animating impulses.

Yeah, I would say that those are definitely consistent with what I see. You know, I think that it, though, to me, the way that I read his actions are actually also of someone who is actually very insecure And, you know, very sort of thin-skinned as far as, you know, any sort of anyone sort of broaches, you know, various topics that he doesn't like. I mean, they're sort of thrown away in jail for, you know, a decade or two. And so, you know, I think that if there really was the power, there would be the confidence to actually sort of have people broach sensitive topics. And I think this is particularly worrying because it really suggests that he probably is just surrounded by a bunch of yes-men.

Right, sycophants. Yeah.

Right, exactly. And so, I mean, you probably saw when Hu Jintao was removed, you know, the former leader, you know, he was removed from the big meeting, the sort of very typically very orchestrated meeting. And so the fact that he was actually, you know, taken from there is a huge, you know, breach of etiquette and surprise. And everyone actually, these are people that Hu Jintao worked with for decades. I mean, they just really stared just totally straight, did not sort of show any concern for him. And this is a really, I think, visible sort of manifestation of how fearful people probably are of Xi. And he's implemented this anti-corruption campaign to sideline all his enemies. You know, it's millions of people have actually been persecuted under this, this campaign. So, so I hear what you're saying about sort of him focusing on power. But also, you know, I think if he really felt that he achieved it, he would have actually more confidence. But, but, but the opposite has been the case in my—

So here's a 64,001 question.

Sure.

And I just for the record, Whenever I'm asked to make a prediction, whether it's elections or anything else, I never do. So you're not under any compulsion to make a prediction. So I'll put it in a non-predictive way. The likelihood that, that makes it easier of his invading Taiwan.

Yeah, that's that. That is the $64 million question, something that a lot of people are sort of thinking about, you know, I, you know, I'm someone who may be, you know, a bit naive myself, optimistic. I think that, that he may realize that would create such incredible economic disruption to his country, which actually, I mean, that's, that's actually how he's able to maintain power. You know, it's by the people are happy because they are generally, I mean, with COVID is another story. But generally, as China has really developed over the past 40 years, you know, people's, you know, material situation has increased, and so they don't want to challenge the CCP. So I— so, so on the one hand, I do—

all right, keep, keep on the one hand because I, I want to remind people about the— this important book, Mao and Markets: The Communist Roots of Chinese Enterprise, Christopher Marquise and an is up at my website. Christopher Marquis, M-A-R-Q-U-I-S, Bao and Markets, The Communist Roots of Chinese Enterprise. And the noise you hear in the background is New York construction. This is my last live interview with a New New Yorker in my career. No, it's not your fault. So I'm telling you, I— it is a joy to talk to you, and, and I hope everybody reads your book. So we were talking about Taiwan. I, I am on board with you, actually. So I have an additional question. On board meaning I also have some degree of faith that he, at least at this time, does not want to invade Taiwan. And I'm curious what your read is. My suspicion is that Putin's failure in Ukraine and the world's reaction has sobered Xi about an invasion of Taiwan.

Yeah, no, I think definitely I would agree with that assessment. I think, you know, it's hard to actually invade another country. I think probably, you know, Taiwan's small. I think, you know, 20, you know, 24, 25 million people. It's an island, but also it's actually a very mountainous island. And from what I understand, the places where you would actually land troops, the beaches are very inaccessible. So actually it is not really an easy thing. It's not an easy thing to do. And it's obviously, you know, much harder than invading something over land. So I think probably the trouble that Russia's had in Ukraine is, is a very sobering, um, right. Okay. Sobering lesson in some way.

I'm glad as a non-expert I have a sober read on that. By the way, I just want to note for, for all my listeners, I've been to both China and Taiwan. Taiwan is gorgeous.

Yes.

If you leave Taipei You, you, and that's why the Portuguese who founded called it Ilha Formosa, and it became known as Formosa. Formosa means beautiful, and it is. Okay, next question: What happened to Jack Ma?

Yeah, I mean, I think this, this is the why China is sort of a scary place, you know. He, uh, crossed the government, uh, had been doing very, very well for a very long period of time.

By the way, let everybody know that the man is the founder of Alibaba. He, he the Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos of China.

Exactly. And so he founded Alibaba, which has like an eBay type of, you know, platform. However, what he did is he then created a payments company on the back of that, you know, Ant Financial, which was the company that's going to go public, and a variety of other products. And the app is actually, you know, it's not just PayPal or an eBay. It's actually a lifestyle app where people can pay all their bills, they can order taxis, they can rent bikes. He created this really very effective and creative platform for people to use. The payments part of that, Ant Financial, was going to go public. And they had savings accounts. The banks in China are basically state-controlled, mostly state-owned, have very low interest rates. And so, because he had all these people's cash, because they wanted to do transactions on the Taobao or Alibaba platforms, he had these big pots of money that he could actually invest in money market funds and return at a much higher interest rate to the general public. And so, he gained a lot of power by gathering all these assets outside the formal banking sector. So, when Ant Financial was going to go public, this is now a few years ago, the government basically, 2 days before, he actually had some very strident comments about government regulation in this area, that they shouldn't meddle. You know, they just create problems and has disappeared. And yes, so they canceled the IPO literally like 2 days before it was supposed to go public. And then they disappeared him. And he was, you know, he's still sort of missing from what I understand. You know, occasionally he'll pop up.

So you, you have no idea where he is either?

I think the last time I heard he might have been in Spain, believe it or not.

Oh, okay. Well, well, that. So, oh, sorry, look, I pictured him dead. So I'm—

yeah, no, no, no, he's, he's alive.

Oh, good. Okay.

But clearly—

but they got rid of him.

They got rid of him, basically. And it's, you know, not an uncommon pattern, to be honest.

Correct. Uh, we, we don't have a lot of time, although I want to take you to the very end of the show, but the last segment is short. Explain to me the craze crazed policies of lockdown in Shanghai and elsewhere? What animated that?

Yeah, so I mean, I think there's a couple, couple things. One, you know, that I think that, you know, Xi and the CCP—

All right, hold on, we'll get your answer. I forgive me, but well, you're American, you know about commercials. I usually have to explain it to foreigners. By the way, he teaches at Cambridge. We'll be back in a moment. Mao and Markets, up at DennisPrager.com. All right, everybody, I have a new China expert for the Dennis Prager Show, Christopher Marquis. Book is Mao and Markets. It's been a real delight, sir. We have a couple of minutes left, so Again, explain to me Xi's almost crazed response of locking down 20, 25 million people for prolonged period because of COVID Was he, was he led by Chinese epidemiologists? Was it a power grab? Is he a fanatic? Is he a germaphobe? I mean, I have no idea why he did it.

Yeah, I mean, I think that, uh, you know, part of it is that actually they did really dig into this you know, zero COVID, we're controlling things. You know, the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes, you know, doesn't, you know, rests on sort of very, you know, sort of very few things. I mean, one of them is economic security, which we've talked about. The other is sort of control of life, sort of being able to run an orderly society. So I think that, you know, one aspect is just that, you know, this was important they had committed to this and to make sure that it actually happened. That said, I do think that some of the more, in some ways, I don't know, rational reasons why China had to be careful with COVID is that their healthcare infrastructure is much, much less developed than the West. So, very few hospital beds, super limited number of ICUs, the various equipment when people got sick. That's an interesting, yeah, that's important.

Yeah, right. I mean, I don't think lockdowns work, but it doesn't matter. For those who think it works, that is a very rational response. I'm only pushing because we have another minute. So in light of everything, do you think that Western companies, A, will be less likely to open up in China, and B, are they pulling out?

So there's mixed evidence on this. I mean, actually, if you look at some of the surveys from the US Chamber of Commerce, the US-China Business Council, of their members, actually, there's still a lot of optimism around markets on the ground in China. You know, companies that are already there continue to do well for the most part. They're worried about the future more so than the past— than they were in the past. There's uncertainty. So I think, you know, the folks that already have sort of a beachhead in China, I think, will continue to do well. I think, though, that new companies coming in I think can see that it's just so challenging to actually enter the market. You know, there's a lot of nationalism where, you know, many times either the Chinese population or the government sort of stokes sort of anti-foreign sentiment that has landed a lot of companies, you know, from the NBA to H&M, in trouble. So I think that for the companies already there, I mean, they have made their commitment and they're doing relatively surprisingly well. But new companies, I think, will be paused.

By the way, we have more time than I thought. I had mistaken what segment we're in, which is wonderful. I'm happy to have more time with you. So I, I just want you to know, and I wonder if I represent anything other than a little tiny segment of the population. If I have a choice, I don't buy items now made in China. Do you think I am idiosyncratic or represent some, some percentage of the population?

So there probably is some percent of the population, but my guess is that most people don't even think about that. I mean, you know, many of the things that you'd order on Amazon are probably made in China, for instance, or some other— you know, if you order online, it's very hard to tell where it's sourced.

Right, but forgive me, I want to tell you an interesting thing. Looking at Amazon, how often, you know, they have a series of questions about the product, Q&A, it's a common thing. Almost always I now see, is it made in China, is one of the questions.

Uh-huh, right. Yeah, so I, yeah, I do think that there is increasing concern, but you know, it's tough for, you know, consumers, you know, I do a lot of work, research on sustainability too, and people, people want to buy based on price, to be honest. If they like it and the price is good.

Yeah, I know, I'm aware, I'm aware. Okay, so, so I, I, again, I don't know how many my, my policy represents. The, the compass— so, but I want to just review. So companies that are still there are doing well. However, isn't there a big problem, which is part of your book, obviously, given his authoritarianism and clamping down on even free enterprise, let alone free speech or free movement, uh, right, there is a downturn in the Chinese economy. Is that correct?

Yeah, I mean, definitely.

The—

at least, I mean, if you believe the government's figures, which of course, you know, those are frequently thought of, you know, sort of with a grain of salt, Yeah, the economy has been down over the last few years. I mean, very much so, I think a result of obviously the COVID lockdowns. People are stuck at home. It's much harder for them to be out and going to restaurants, etc. Although there has been even a more vibrant delivery economy driven. So, I do think The economy is definitely down, without a doubt. But I think that these businesses are hoping that once things open up again, that there'll be this sort of surge.

Why would they open up again? He's closing them down.

So you mean the economy or the firms?

The economy.

Yeah, I think, you know, I'm— I think that's a good question. And I'm not super optimistic about when China is going to open up again. I think that they very much like having you know, limited foreign, you know, foreigners coming in.

So let me ask you a philosophical question.

Sure.

Do you think— because I dealt with this in my study, my field was Russia, and I always wondered, is it the czarist influence that led people to accept communism to the extent that they did? Is it the, uh, is it Is it the Confucian background that allows people in China to accept totalitarian rulers?

So, you know, there is, I think, an element of that that you, I mean, sort of you could make the case because, you know, in Confucianism, there is this sort of very much hierarchical relationship between the state and the people. So, you know, the idea that there is a strong central state that's authoritarian, you know, has existed, you know, throughout Chinese history. That said, you know, other countries that have also followed, you know, that model, you know, Taiwan or, or Korea or Japan—

oh, that's great. Excellent. So back in a moment, Mao and markets, final segment coming up. Dennis Prager here. Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire 3 hours of my radio show commercial-free every single day, become a member of PragerTopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep. Subscribe at pragertopia.com.