The Whole Truth with David Eisenhower

ANNOUNCER: BLACK AND WHITE.

MEN AND WOMEN.

BLUE AND RED.

RICH AND POOR.

CITY AND COUNTRY.

GAY AND STRAIGHT.

IS THE UNITED STATES BECOMING INCREASINGLY TRIBAL AND LESS AND LESS OF A MELTING POT, AIMED AT CREATING A COMMON, CIVIL SOCIETY FROM DIVERSE INGREDIENTS?

DO WE RISK BECOMING, AS WE ONCE SO VIOLENTLY WERE, A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF?

ON THE OTHER HAND, IS MULTICULTURALISM AND ATTENTION TO THE PARTICULAR GRIEVANCES AND ASPIRATIONS OF DISTINCT GROUPS OF AMERICANS A SIGN OF PROGRESS, ACKNOWLEDGING AND SEEKING TO REDRESS HISTORIC HARM INFLICTED BY THE MAINSTREAM CULTURE AND, THEREFORE, ATTEMPTING TO ENSURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY MORE WIDELY?

ARE SO-CALLED IDENTITY POLITICS A BOON OR A DETERRENT TO OUR DEMOCRATIC IDEALS AND THE COMMON GOOD?

THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MILL SPRING FOUNDATION, THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

ONE OF THE LONGEST-STANDING MOTTOS FOR THE UNITED STATES IS "E PLURIBUS UNUM," "FROM MANY, ONE."

IT'S LONG BEEN THOUGHT TO MEAN MUCH MORE THAN THE FORMAL AND LEGALISTIC CONCEPT OF A UNION OF STATES.

IT'S BEEN THOUGHT TO MEAN A UNITING INTO A CIVIL SOCIETY OF PEOPLES OF MANY KINDS.

AND INDEED, IT'S INDISPUTABLE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE OF MANY KINDS.

WHEN THE TWIN TOWERS FELL IN NEW YORK ON 9/11/2001, PEOPLE--AMERICANS TRACING THEIR ORIGINS TO A LARGE MAJORITY OF ALL THE WORLD'S NATIONS-- DIED TOGETHER.

THAT IS A STATEMENT WHICH SIMPLY COULDN'T BE MADE ABOUT ANY OTHER PEOPLE.

BUT TODAY, MANY SPEAK OF A NEW AGE OF AMERICAN TRIBALISM, ON BOTH THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT.

IN DIFFERENT WAYS, THERE IS BOTH THE FEEDING OF AND FEEDING ON DIFFERENCES AND DIVISIONS AMONG GROUPS OF AMERICANS.

ARE THE POLITICS HIGHLIGHTING DIFFERENCES AMONG AMERICANS A SIGN OF PROGRESS?

ARE WE FERRETING OUT HISTORICAL WRONGS AND ESTABLISHING PROTECTION FOR A NEW EXPRESSION OF RIGHTS?

OR ARE WE BECOMING ONCE MORE, AS WE WERE IN THE LEAD-UP TO THE MOST TERRIBLE CIVIL WAR EXPERIENCE IN MODERN TIMES IN A WESTERN NATION, WHAT LINCOLN CALLED "A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF"?

TO LEAD A DISCUSSION ON THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES, I TURN TODAY TO EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" CRAIG SNYDER, WHO IS PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA.

MODERATES A PROVOCATIVE CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO OF OUR COUNTRY'S THOUGHT LEADERS AND SOCIAL COMMENTATORS.

MICHAEL ARCENEAUX, A HOWARD UNIVERSITY-EDUCATED WRITER AND AUTHOR WHO COVERS ISSUES RELATED TO CULTURE, RELIGION, AND RACIAL POLITICS, AND ANDREW SULLIVAN, ENGLISH-BORN AMERICAN AUTHOR AND BLOGGER, AND FORMER EDITOR OF THE CONSERVATIVE PUBLICATION "THE NEW REPUBLIC."

THANK YOU, DAVID.

JOINING US FOR THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" ARE TWO THOUGHT LEADERS, PROVOCATIVE AND PASSIONATE WRITERS AND SOCIAL COMMENTATORS-- MICHAEL ARCENEAUX AND ANDREW SULLIVAN.

WELCOME, GENTLEMEN.

THANKS FOR BEING WITH US.

I WANT TO BEGIN BY GIVING EACH OF YOU A COUPLE MINUTES TO LAY OUT JUST SORT OF YOUR OWN FIRST PREMISES ABOUT THIS TOPIC OF IDENTITY POLITICS.

THE CONCEPT, THE TECHNIQUE, EVEN THE PHRASE, AND WHETHER YOU THINK IT HAS UTILITY.

ANDREW, LET ME START WITH YOU.

WELL, LET ME SAY SOME BROAD PRINCIPLES THAT MAY HELP FLESH OUT SOME OF THE DISAGREEMENTS ON THE SURFACE.

MY BASIC ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE WEST AND WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT THE EMPOWERMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

THAT'S WHERE IT STARTED.

THE DEFENSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE ALL-POWERFUL STATE, THE MONARCHY.

IT WAS ALSO DEFENSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST RELIGIOUS ORTHODOXY, THE ABILITY TO THINK FOR YOURSELF.

IT WAS ALSO THE ABILITY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, A UNIQUE, GENETIC, ENVIRONMENTAL PERSON, TO BE FULLY HIS- OR HERSELF, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOCIETY IN GENERAL.

AND TO CONSTRUCT A REPUBLIC IN WHICH THE CITIZENS ENGAGE ONE ANOTHER JUST AS CITIZENS.

I MEAN, I WAS MOVED TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES LAST YEAR, AND I NOTICED THAT I WASN'T ASKED TO BE A GAY CITIZEN OR A CATHOLIC CITIZEN OR A MALE CITIZEN.

I WAS ASKED TO BE A CITIZEN.

AND THAT MEANT ALSO TO BE PART AND FULLY PART OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE REPUBLIC AND BE TREATED SIMPLY AS ONE CITIZEN AMONG MANY.

THE IDEA OF THIS COUNTRY, AND OF THE WEST IN GENERAL, IS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TO LIBERATE HIM- OR HERSELF FROM THE THINGS THAT MIGHT HOLD YOU BACK FROM SPECIFICALLY THOSE IDENTITIES WHICH SEEK TO DEFINE YOU BEFORE YOU DEFINE YOURSELF.

SO, THE GOAL IS REALLY TO LET THE INDIVIDUAL FLOURISH.

BUT THE GOAL IS THAT WE COULD ALL HAVE THE SAME CHANCE-- NOT EQUALITY OF OUTCOME BUT EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

AND THAT'S WHAT KEEPS THIS COUNTRY ONE.

IT'S WHAT ENABLES US TO HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION WITH EACH OTHER WITHOUT FEAR.

NOW, IDENTITY POLITICS STARTS FROM, IT SEEMS TO ME, A VERY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION, WHICH IS THAT THE GROUP IS FUNDAMENTALLY PRIOR TO THE INDIVIDUAL, AND THAT YOU ARE REALLY DEFINED BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF YOUR GROUP, AND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY SOMETHING IS ALSO PREMISED UPON WHICH GROUP YOU BELONG TO.

AND MY WORRY ABOUT THAT IS THAT THE ULTIMATE RECOURSE OF THAT POLITICS IS MERELY ABOUT THE POWER BETWEEN VARIOUS GROUPS AND THE ATTEMPT OF SOME GROUPS TO WIELD POWER OVER OTHERS.

UM, LOTS TO CHEW ON, OBVIOUSLY, AND TO TAKE UP.

MICHAEL, YOUR OPENING THOUGHTS HERE.

WHEN I THOUGHT ABOUT EVEN HOW I WOULD ENTER THIS SPACE, I HAD TO REMEMBER THAT TODAY WAS TRAYVON MARTIN'S BIRTHDAY, AND THAT IS WHY I'M IN ALL BLACK.

THAT IS WHY I DISREGARDED WHAT I WANTED TO WEAR BEFORE I ACTUALLY CAME HERE.

AND SO, WHEN I READ MR. SULLIVAN'S ESSAY "CAN OUR DEMOCRACY SURVIVE TRIBALISM?"

IT--I HAD AN IMMEDIATE REACTION, BECAUSE IT REMINDED ME OF ESSAYS THAT I'VE READ FROM EZRA KLEIN, FROM NICHOLAS KRISTOF, FROM SO MANY MEN, AND FRANKLY, FROM OTHER WHITE MEN.

AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT HOW YOU DEFINE AMERICA, IT SOUNDS LOVELY, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE AREN'T PARTS OF THAT THAT ARE TRUE, BUT WHEN I THINK OF WHAT AMERICA HAS MEANT TO MY PARENTS, IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT IT MEANT TO THEIR GRANDPARENTS.

IT'S NOW--WHAT IT-- MY YOUNGEST NIECE IS 9 YEARS OLD.

SHE'S ALREADY LEARNING THAT HER IDENTITY, WHICH--SHE WANTS TO BE JUST WHO SHE IS, BUT SHE'S NOT JUDGED THROUGH THAT PRISM.

THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY AMERICA HAS NEVER BEEN, AT LEAST FOR PEOPLE THAT LOOK LIKE ME.

AND FOR ME TO THINK ABOUT TRIBALISM IN TERMS OF RIGHT OR LEFT, I DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF KIND OF LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THAT PRISM.

I, AS A CULTURE WRITER, AS A POLITICAL WRITER, HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF MANY PEOPLE, BUT THE MOST PERSON-- THE PERSON I'VE PROBABLY BEEN THE MOST CRITICAL OF IS PROBABLY PRESIDENT OBAMA, BECAUSE WHILE I ADMIRE HIM, WHILE I APPRECIATE WHAT HE'S DONE, IT'S INTERESTING--I WAS EVEN ASSIGNED SOMETHING BASED ON WHAT YOU WROTE ABOUT HIM BEING LIKE AN LGBTQ PRESIDENT.

I CAN BE PROUD OF HIM ON THAT, BUT AS A BLACK MAN, I AM DISAPPOINTED.

I HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE MANY OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, MUCH OF HIS POLITICAL ASCENSION HAD TO DO--FOR THE FACT THAT IN 2004, HE SOLD AMERICA A VERSION THAT MORE PEOPLE THAT LOOK LIKE ME HAVE NEVER SEEN.

AND FOR HIM, THAT IS PART OF HIS BACKGROUND.

HE GREW UP WITH HIS WHITE MOTHER, HIS WHITE GRANDPARENTS.

HE WENT TO THE FINEST SCHOOL IN HAWAII.

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HIS BLACKNESS THE WAY I DID, BECAUSE BEFORE I EVEN COULD PUT A LOT OF THESE TERMS TO USE, ALL I KNEW THAT I WAS ONLY AROUND BLACK AND LATINOS, ONLY WENT TO BLACK SCHOOLS.

I WAS PURPOSELY SEGREGATED IN A--IN A VERY MAJOR CITY OF HOUSTON.

AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT IDENTITY POLITICS, WE'RE ALL INFLUENCED BY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHO WE ARE.

OUR BACKGROUNDS.

WE GET OUR GENDER, OUR RELIGION.

I GREW UP CATHOLIC, TOO.

I CALL MYSELF A RECOVERING CATHOLIC, WAS ACTUALLY APPROACHED FOR THE PRIESTHOOD.

THANK GOD I'M NOT A PRIEST, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT WE ALL PULL FROM OUR IDENTITIES.

IT'S THE FACT THAT SOME OF OUR IDENTITIES ARE NOT RESPECTED.

SO, I WANT TO DIVE INTO DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THIS, OBVIOUSLY, AND I WANT TO START WITH THE DEBATE, WHICH IS IN MANY WAYS A DEBATE AMONG PROGRESSIVES ABOUT IDENTITY POLITICS, AND THAT IS THE ONE SIDE THAT ARGUES THAT A PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT CAN'T BE ELECTED WITHOUT FINDING A WAY TO, ONCE AGAIN, REENERGIZE AND REAPPEAL TO WHITE, NON-COLLEGE-EDUCATED, WORKING-CLASS FOLKS, THAT THOSE FOLKS, MANY OF WHO WENT OVER TO TRUMP AND BECAME PERHAPS THE MARGIN OF VICTORY FOR TRUMP, THAT THEY NEED TO BE WOOED BACK.

THERE'S ONE GROUP THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO DEEMPHASIZE RACIAL POLITICS.

WE HAVE TO DEEMPHASIZE THIS--THE HISTORICAL REALITIES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT COMMONALITIES OF ECONOMIC GRIEVANCE.

THEN THERE'S ANOTHER GROUP THAT SAYS THOSE FOLKS ARE JUST PLAIN RACISM.

THE 2016 ELECTION WAS WON BECAUSE OF AN APPEAL TO WHITENESS, AND THOSE FOLKS ARE ESSENTIALLY IRREDEEMABLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PROGRESSIVES, AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS JUST INCREASE TURNOUT AMONG MINORITY VOTERS.

I WANT TO ASK BOTH OF YOU, EACH OF YOU, TO KIND OF WEIGH IN ON THAT AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.

AND I'LL START WITH YOU.

OK.

THERE IS NO REASON WHY A RACIST CHARLATAN WHOSE BIGGEST CLAIM TO FAME IS "THE APPRENTICE" SHOULD BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON BEING A COMPLICATED CANDIDATE.

THAT'S MORE THAN FINE.

BUT THERE IS A REASON WHY HE WON.

AND I HATE THAT SOMETIMES WE PUT THIS IN THE TERMS OF BLACK OR WHITE, LIKE, IF YOU VOTED FOR TRUMP, THEN YOU AUTOMATICALLY ARE A RACIST.

THAT BEING SAID, IF YOU VOTED FOR A RACIST, SEXIST, XENOPHOBIC DEMAGOGUE, WHETHER YOU WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR NOT, YOU ARE COMPLICIT.

YOU MADE A WILLFUL CHOICE TO PUT YOUR-- WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS YOUR PRIORITIES ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE'S.

BECAUSE WHILE SOME PEOPLE ARE DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT-- THEIR LEVEL OF RACISM BASED ON A VOTE FOR HIM, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES ARE BEING CHANGED FOR THE WORSE.

I LIVED IN GREATER FEAR IMMEDIATELY AFTER I KNEW HE WON.

THIS IS THE LAW- AND-ORDER PRESIDENT WHO IS CURRENTLY TAKING ON THE FBI, BUT HE HAS BEEN RACIST FOR DECADES, FROM HIS HOUSING DISCRIMINATION SUIT TO CENTRAL PARK 5, WHICH HE REFUSES TO-- STILL TO THIS DAY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR INNOCENCE.

THAT HAS REAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME, AND WHOEVER VOTED FOR HIM HAS TO TAKE OWNERSHIP FOR WHAT THAT CHOICE MEANT.

AGAIN, WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IDENTITY POLITICS, ABOUT WHO--IT'S ABOUT WHOSE IDENTITY YOU'RE PRIORITIZING.

AND IT'S NOT MINE.

IT'S OFTEN NOT WOMEN'S.

IT IS WHITE STRAIGHT MEN.

THAT IS USUALLY THE PRIORITY.

ANDREW?

IT'S FUNNY THAT YOU KEEP REFERRING TO "WHITE PEOPLE" OR "WHITENESS" OR "WHITE MEN."

AND THAT'S KIND OF A FUNCTION OF IDENTITY POLITICS.

IT IS THE ATTEMPT TO PUT EVERYBODY IN A RACIAL BOX AND, IN YOUR CASE, TO DISMISS THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.

I DIDN'T DISMISS THEM-- OH, YOU CRITICIZED THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.

YES, YOU DID.

UM...

IF ONE WERE TO DO THAT IN REVERSE, I THINK YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE RACISM.

YOUR DISLIKE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA IS PRECISELY BECAUSE HE WAS A BLACK MAN WHO VIEWED HIMSELF AS AN AMERICAN FIRST, WHO DIDN'T SEE HIMSELF ENTIRELY THROUGH THE PRISM OF RACE, WHO DIDN'T LIVE EVERY DAY CONSTANTLY OBSESSED WITH IDENTITY IN A WAY THAT SEES ENEMIES AND OPPRESSION AND VICTIMIZERS EVERYWHERE YOU GO, AND THAT DOES NOT SEEK TO SEE ANY PROGRESS IN THIS COUNTRY OVER THE LAST 300 YEARS, THAT ACTUALLY DENIES SUCH--SUCH PROGRESS IN THE MOST WEALTHY AND THE MOST DIVERSE AND THE MOST EMPOWERED SOCIETY THIS COUNTRY'S EVER BEEN.

WE USED TO BELIEVE YOU SHOULD JUDGE PEOPLE, TO COIN A PHRASE, BY "THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER, NOT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN."

AND YET, TODAY'S PROGRESSIVE LEFT IS OBSESSED WITH THE COLOR OF PEOPLE'S SKIN AND TALKS ABOUT PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES WITH AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL.

THAT IS A BASTARDIZATION OF DR. KING'S WORDS, BUT, RESPECTFULLY, THE FACT THAT HE-- HE DIDN'T SAY THOSE THINGS?

ARCENEAUX: THE FACT THAT YOU JUST ASSIGNED ME TO BE A RACIST SIMPLY BECAUSE I SAID, "IF WHITE PEOPLE, OR IF ANYONE VOTED FOR "A RACIST DEMAGOGUE, THEN THEY NEED TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF WHAT THAT DECISION MEANT," THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS A WHITE SUPREMACIST.

THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS A NAZI.

THAT'S NOT SAYING THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE SUPERIOR-- YOU DON'T THINK YOU LIVE UNDER WHITE SUPREMACY?

THIS IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST STATE.

OK, OK. AND THE FACT-- THAT'S JUST INTERESTING TO HEAR.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU JUST SAID THAT-- HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE "WHITE SUPREMACY"?

NO.

I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH.

I THINK ANY TIME... ANY TYPE OF CRITICISM ABOUT THE ROLE RACE PLAYS IN SOCIETY, THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN POLITICS, YOU RUSH TO SAY THAT-- TO GO TO EXTREMITIES.

BUT THIS IS HOW, TYPICALLY, AMERICANS-- AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOU BECOMING A CITIZEN-- BUT YOU'RE LEARNING WELL, BECAUSE WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT RACISM, WE ONLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT IN EXTREMITIES-- IT HAS TO BE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I DIDN'T MAKE IT BLACK OR WHITE.

YOU ARE.

THE QUESTION IS-- LET'S TAKE THE TRUMP QUESTION.

THERE'S NO DOUBT TO MY MIND THAT HE IS A FOUL, DESPICABLE PERSON.

UM, I SPENT A LONG TIME CAMPAIGNING AGAINST HIM AND WOULD CONTINUE TO DO SO.

BUT THE REASONS PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM CANNOT BE REDUCED TO SIMPLE RACISM.

IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED SET OF QUESTIONS.

JUST AS THE REASON PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM WAS NOT ABOUT SEXISM.

A MAJORITY, I MEAN, VERY HALF-- ALMOST HALF AMERICAN WOMEN VOTED FOR HIM, DESPITE KNOWING AND BEING SHOWN THAT HE WAS A SEXUAL ASSAULT ARTIST.

DOES THAT MAKE THEM ALL SEXISTS AND BIGOTS?

NO.

IT MEANS THAT THEY DIDN'T SEE THE WORLD ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY THROUGH ONE DIMENSION OF THEIR IDENTITY: THEIR GENDER.

THEY ALSO LOOKED AT ECONOMICS.

THEY LOOKED AT FOREIGN POLICY.

THEY LOOKED AT TRADE.

THEY LOOKED AT IMMIGRATION.

THEY WERE ABLE TO HAVE A COMPLICATED IDEA ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

THEY MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG, AND I DON'T FORGIVE A SINGLE ONE OF THEM FOR VOTING FOR TRUMP, I DON'T, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE ALL RACISTS.

AND THIS ABILITY TO REDUCE EVERYTHING TO THIS, TO DENY THE FACT OF RACIAL PROGRESS IN THIS COUNTRY, TO DENY THE FACT OF SO MANY MINORITIES FLOURISHING IN THIS SOCIETY, AS IF WE HAVE DONE NOTHING SINCE 1830s, AS IF--AS IF WE'VE MADE NO PROGRESS AT ALL AS IF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DID NOTHING?

THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS MEANINGLESS?

AND WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED?

THIS IS ABSURD!

UH...NOW THAT WE'VE SOLVED THE RACE QUESTION... [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER] UM... SULLIVAN: YES.

THE THREE--THE THREE OF US MEN ARE GONNA TALK ABOUT GENDER.

UM...SO, AT THIS TIME...

WHEN THERE'S A GREAT DEGREE-- AN INCREASING DEGREE OF POLARIZATION ALONG SO MANY LINES, RIGHT-- PARTISAN LINES, URBAN VERSUS RURAL, EDUCATION, AND SO ON-- THERE ALSO APPEARS TO BE A GREATER SENSE THAT MEN AND WOMEN ARE AT ODDS WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE WAY THAT THEY VIEW CERTAIN REALITIES ABOUT THE WORLD.

AND IT COMES AT A TIME-- I GUESS TO PICK UP, IN A WAY, ON ONE OF YOUR POINTS, ANDREW-- IT COMES AT A TIME WHEN, JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, IT APPEARED THAT ENORMOUS CHANGES IN THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN AMERICAN SOCIETY WERE BEING FAIRLY WELL-DIGESTED AND ACCEPTED.

SO, YOU'RE BOTH SMART CULTURAL COMMENTATORS.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT #MeToo.

ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST.

WELL, INSOFAR AS IT EXPOSES AND, WITH ANY LUCK, PREVENTS THE ABUSE OF POWER BY INDIVIDUALS WITH RESPECT TO SEX IN THE WORKPLACE, WHICH IS THE KEY ISSUE HERE, IT IS 1,000% A GOOD THING AND BECAUSE IT FOCUSES ON INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ABUSING POWER AND HOLDING THEM RIGHTLY TO ACCOUNT AND DOING SO CAREFULLY, AS MANY OF THESE STORIES HAVE BEEN DONE, SUCH AS THE AMAZING REPORTING THAT UNDERMINES SOMEONE-- A MONSTER LIKE HARVEY WEINSTEIN, BUT THEN THERE'S THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS REALLY THAT ALL MEN ARE HARVEY WEINSTEIN TO VARYING DEGREES OR NOT, THAT ALL MEN ARE ESSENTIALLY GUILTY BEFORE PROVEN INNOCENT, THAT CHARGES COULD BE MADE AGAINST MEN, EVEN ANONYMOUSLY, AND WITH NO CONCERN FOR WHETHER THESE CHARGES ARE TRUE OR NOT, AND LET THEM BE HANGING OUT IN THE AIR LIKE THAT.

IT COMES FROM A BASIC BELIEF THAT WE LIVE IN PATRIARCHY.

LET ME POINT OUT A FEW THINGS.

IN A COUPLE YEARS' TIME, 58% OF GRADUATES FROM COLLEGE IN THIS COUNTRY WILL BE WOMEN, NOT MEN.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FUTURE OF THE ECONOMY, YOU SEE ALL THE ADVANTAGES THAT MEN HISTORICALLY HAD, ESPECIALLY WORKING CLASS MEN-- THE ADVANTAGE OF PHYSICAL LABOR AND STRENGTH AND THE THINGS THAT MEN HAVE MORE THAN WOMEN, AT LEAST THAT SEEMS TO BE A NATURAL FACT-- UM...SEEM TO BE DECLINING, THAT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY ANALYZE THE PAY GAP, YOU NOW FIND THAT THERE'S VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PAY AWARDED TO MEN AND WOMEN WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE KIND OF PROFESSIONS THEY CHOOSE, THE AMOUNT OF TIME OUT OF THE WORKPLACE THEY PICK.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE BEGINNING TO SEE AN EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT IN WHICH WOMEN ARE FINALLY, REALLY SEIZING OPPORTUNITIES.

AND AT THIS VERY MOMENT, THE LEFT DECIDES THAT WE ARE LIVING UNDER AN ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE AND OPPRESSIVE AND CONSTANTLY DESTRUCTIVE PATRIARCHY IN WHICH MEN ARE TRYING TO ASSAULT, RAPE, INSULT, CONTROL WOMEN EVERY MINUTE OF THE DAY.

THIS IS A FUNCTION OF THE LEFT REALLY SEEING THE PROGRESS THAT OUR SOCIETY HAS MADE AND WANTING TO UNDO IT.

AND I WORRY THE HUGE SUCCESS WE'VE MADE IN THIS COUNTRY OF LIBERATING AND EMPOWERING WOMEN TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW IN OUR CULTURE WILL BE UNDONE BY THIS ATTEMPT TO SOW POISON.

MICHAEL?

ARCENEAUX: THERE'S THE WORLD YOU WANT AND THE WORLD YOU ACTUALLY LIVE IN.

AND IF YOU ACTUALLY ASK ANY WOMAN ON THE STREET IF SHE FEELS LIBERATED, YOU PROBABLY WOULD HEAR LESS-THAN-IDEAL ANSWERS.

AND IN TERMS OF MEN AND THE #MeToo MOVEMENT BEING FALSELY ACCUSED, MEN WILL BE OK.

THERE'S A MINISCULE AMOUNT OF MEN WHO ARE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE WHO ARE ACTUALLY FOUND TO BE INNOCENT.

AND WE ALSO LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE ACROSS, LITERALLY, VARIOUS CITIES--RURAL OR URBAN, WHATEVER-- WHERE RAPE KITS ARE NOT EVEN PROCESSED.

THEY'RE NOT EVEN, LIKE, FUNDED.

I THINK RIGHT NOW WITH THE #MeToo MOVEMENT, MEN ARE FINALLY BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

WE ARE FOR A LONG OVERDUE SYSTEM OF, LIKE, DISMANTLING WHICH PATRIARCHY-- YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THE WORD, BUT MEN BENEFIT IN WAYS WOMEN JUST DO NOT, HAVE NOT, AND WILL NOT IF NOT FOR THEIR VOICES.

I THINK ONE THING WITH THE #MeToo MOVEMENT, WHAT I'VE DONE REALLY GOOD ABOUT IS JUST ACTUALLY SHUTTING UP AND LISTENING.

BUT I WILL SAY, I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING, BECAUSE ONE THING I'VE NOTICED AND REALIZED WITH THE MEDIA ATTENTION IS THAT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, IT IS WOMEN BEING ASKED HOW TO CORRECT A MALE-CREATED PROBLEM.

BUT I CAN SAY, MODESTLY, THAT WHAT I HOPE WITH THE #MeToo MOVEMENT IS THAT IT CONTINUES TO BE INTERSECTIONAL.

IT NEEDS TO INCLUDE TRANS WOMEN.

AND I THINK, AGAIN, ONE PROBLEM-- [INDISTINCT] THERE'S PEOPLE LITERALLY TRYING TO TELL YOU, "I DON'T FEEL THIS WAY BECAUSE OF MY EXPERIENCE AND EVERY EXPERIENCE OF SOMEONE I KNOW THAT LOOKS LIKE ME."

AND IT'S SWATTED DOWN UNDER THIS KIND OF LIKE...

HONESTLY BORING LEFT-RIGHT NARRATIVE.

IF WE WANT TO SAY IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, WHEN SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT INFORMATION, YOU SHOULD LISTEN AND NOT GET SO DEFENSIVE, BUT AS FAR AS-- WHO'S SWATTING IT DOWN?

YOU DID JUST NOW.

NO, I CAN'T SWAT IT DOWN.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS BROADCASTING THIS AT A HUGE LOUD-SCREAM PITCH.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS?

I'M SORRY, BUT IT'S JUST CONVENIENT TO SAY STUFF LIKE THIS, BUT... FOR THE FIRST TIME, LITERALLY, WOMEN ARE FINALLY GETTING TO HOLD MEN LIKE HARVEY WEINSTEIN ACCOUNTABLE.

IS IT REALLY THE END OF THE WORLD THAT LITERALLY FOR LESS THAN A YEAR, MEN LIKE HIM ARE FINALLY BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE?

NO, THAT'S A GREAT THING-- AND TO BE FRANK-- WHICH IS WHY I SAID IT WAS A GREAT THING.

IN TERMS OF THE #MeToo MOVEMENT, IT IS A SHAME TO ME THAT PEOPLE LIKE R. KELLY CAN STILL TOUR.

WHY?

BECAUSE YOUNG BLACK GIRLS ARE THE VICTIMS NO ONE CARES-- PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE LEAST.

ARCENEAUX: THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, LIKE, HEARING SOMEONE AND ACTUALLY LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

IF YOU'RE WILLING TO LISTEN TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE DIALOGUE, VALUE WHAT I'M SAYING AND NOT DISMISS IT, NOT GENERALIZE IT, NOT FIT INTO SOME BOX THAT KIND OF JUST ASSUAGES YOUR OWN SENSE OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY MEANS TO YOU, IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO OPEN YOUR MIND AND AT LEAST TAKE A SECOND TO SEE HOW I VIEW THINGS THROUGH MY LENS AND FOR WHAT REASONS, THEN NOTHING-- NO PROGRESS WILL BE MADE.

I CAN HAVE THESE TYPES OF ARGUMENTS, BUT AFTER A WHILE, THEY BECOME USELESS BECAUSE I WANT TO BE HEARD AND I WANT MY PERSPECTIVE TO BE VALUED.

AND IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, THEN THIS WILL BE JUST A DEAD END, WHICH WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THOSE BY NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK.

THANK YOU.

ANDREW.

I'VE LISTENED.

I'VE HEARD.

YOU'VE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO SPEAK, AND YET YOU STILL INSIST THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD AND THAT NO ONE'S LISTENING AND THAT NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU.

OF COURSE.

EVERYBODY WANTS A SOCIETY IN WHICH EVERYBODY HAS EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND A FAIR SHAKE WITHOUT ANY ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS ON WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T ACHIEVE.

MY VIEW IS THAT WE SHOULD ALL WORK OURSELVES ON UNDERSTANDING AND CARING FOR AND LOVING ONE ANOTHER, REGARDLESS OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS INSTEAD OF FOCUSING AND OBSESSING ON EXACTLY THESE CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAN ONLY SEEK TO DIVIDE AND FURTHER TRIBALIZE US EVEN MORE.

AND THAT, IN FACT, ONCE WE'VE ESTABLISHED A FREE AND FAIR SOCIETY, AS I THINK WE BASICALLY HAVE, UM, AND THAT THE FORMAL OBSTACLES FOR PEOPLE TO ADVANCE HAVE BEEN REMOVED, AS THEY HAVE, THAT IS A CHANCE TO LET THIS PROCESS TAKE PLACE IN A FREE SOCIETY.

WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IS HAVE ARGUMENTS AS CITIZENS, NOT AS MEMBERS OF PARTICULAR RACES, TRIBES, OR GENDERS.

AND WHEN WE HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS, WE CAN FIGHT OVER THE CONSEQUENCES.

BUT WHEN WE KEEP INTERPOLATING INTO THOSE THINGS, THE SENSE OF WHAT WE FEEL OR WHAT WE CONSTANTLY ARE FEELING ABOUT OURSELVES, THAT'S ONLY A WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE WITH THE STRONGEST FEELINGS WIN, NOT THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS.

I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF YOU.

I THINK YOU'VE BEEN INSIGHTFUL.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU'VE BEEN CANDID, YOU'VE BEEN SPIRITED-- EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED AND HOPED FOR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.

THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] IT'S EASY, PERHAPS, TO BE DISCOURAGED WATCHING THIS DEBATE BETWEEN MICHAEL ARSENEAUX AND ANDREW SULLIVAN-- TWO EMINENT THINKERS, WHO, I BELIEVE, BOTH SINCERELY DESIRE A SOCIETY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN WHICH PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT KINDS CAN ALL LIVE THEIR BEST LIVES.

BUT THEY'RE ALSO CLEARLY TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN FIND VERY LITTLE COMMON GROUND ON THE ISSUES OF RACE, GENDER, AND OTHER FAULT LINES IN AMERICAN SOCIETY AND HOW THESE DIVISIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN OUR POLITICS.

PERHAPS THERE IS TRULY A BINARY CHOICE, A CHOICE OF TRIBAL AFFILIATION.

MR. SULLIVAN'S VIEW IS THAT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY CAN ONLY WORK WHEN IT FOCUSES ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF THE GROUPS TO WHICH THEY BELONG AND FOCUSES ON PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM A TOO-POWERFUL GOVERNMENT.

MR. ARSENEAUX'S VIEW IS THAT ONE CANNOT EVEN PROPERLY UNDERSTAND MUCH LESS REDRESS THE INJUSTICES OF AMERICAN LIFE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE LIVED EXPERIENCES, BOTH HISTORIC AND PRESENT, OF THOSE GROUPS OF AMERICANS WHO HAVE NOT HELD POWER IN THE SOCIETY AND THAT EXPLICIT POLITICAL AND CULTURAL ATTENTION TO THOSE GROUPS AND THEIR COLLECTIVE GRIEVANCES IS REQUIRED BY JUSTICE.

OR PERHAPS THERE IS SOME SORT OF MIDDLE GROUND OR EVEN A COMBINED PERSPECTIVE, WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS OF BOTH SIDES.

AS ALWAYS, WE LEAVE IT TO YOU AT HOME TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY...

THE MILL SPRING FOUNDATION, THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.