last night Sean Hannity laid out what he thinks the United States
approach should be when it comes to the Russia Ukraine conflict and
he did so in a fun conversation with Sean Penn, let's watch.
>> We're the greatest country on earth and I think the Ukrainians will win,
Western Europe and America needs to supply them with the weaponry to win.
And if they do, they'll be defeating in my view evil in our time and
that's following the Reagan doctrine.
And frankly the Trump doctrine, even though you don't care about doctrines,
you know what the Hannity doctrine is, we'll give it to you quick.
If you invade a sovereign country,
you forfeit your right to lead a country and you forfeit your right to live
meaning Vladimir Putin has forfeited his right to live.
>> You heard him loud and clear folks.
Sean Hannity believes that George bush and Dick Cheney should be executed.
They have forfeited their right to live.
>> What do you mean?
>> By waging a preemptive war in Iraq under false pretenses,
by the way, no weapons of mass destruction.
So wow, breaking news, we're breaking news here folks.
>> No, you're like implying that like when we say that there should be
a standard that were implying that it should be applied equally to everyone.
I don't think that he actually means that Anna and honestly,
like I'm joking, we talked about this from time to time.
I think that this is actually maybe I'm being naive.
Feel free to let me know if I'm being naive.
I think this is one of the fundamental differences between progressives and
everybody else actually, I would say the right but probably others too.
When we express the value, when we advocate for a value,
it's because we believe in that value and believe that the world will be
best if it is applied as close as possible to a universal principle.
And that's one of the cores of certain forms of philosophy that you
should have actual standards that you apply as equally as possible to everyone.
But obviously on the right,
they don't believe that Sean Hannity like he has so internalized that we
get to force standards on other people make them live that way.
That he didn't even notice what he was doing in that he
didn't as far as I could tell, make a case for why.
Okay, I get that, that sounds bad, but here's what makes Iraq different or
Vietnam different or
God only knows Korea, like he doesn't even feel the need to do that.
Both because he's internalized it, but
also because he understands his audience the fundamental difference is two part.
It is both that the person saying the value advocating for
the value in their case doesn't mean it to be applied to them,
but also it's the way that it's received by the audience.
I have a feeling, I hope at least that our audience wants the world to move in
a better direction, they do not simply want our side to win at all costs,
even if it means jettisoning all of our supposed values.
But on the right victory is the that is the foundational goal.
Power is the foundational ending that they're moving towards.
And hypocrisy is a perfectly valid tool to get you there.
Open dishonesty is a perfectly valid tool to get you there and
we just try to live in a different way.
>> No, you're you're so right about that.
And you use the keyword that I wanna talk about just briefly and its power.
Because you're right in that everything that informs the right wing mind is
about accumulation of power, is about using power, flexing power.
And obviously there's a lot of negative policy decisions that stem
from that kind of thinking a lot of toxic stuff happening internally,
with domestic policy and the way that we treat one another.
But there's also a downside I think in the left not really understanding
the importance of power and the importance of thinking straight.
Because look, the thing about the right wing that I'm gonna give them credit for
is they not only understand power and want it,
they will do anything necessary to get it.
And they organize they are strategic sure, especially during the Trump era,
anyone that like dares to speak out against Trump will be reprimanded or
like just rejected from the party.
But overall generally speaking, you don't see the kind of like nonsensical
infighting among the right wing that we see on the left and
it's frustrating because rather than fighting each other.
The left should be thinking strategically on how we can work together despite all
the little factions that may exist to accumulate power for
good to actually carry out the policies that we wanna carry out.
But to your point about Hannity and
his just lack of willingness to even address why Iraq would be different.
I just wanna remind you all of what Hannity thought about the war in Iraq.
This is a video from 2016.
>> I was a real believer in the Iraq war, I still am to this day.
I still feel that there were probably weapons of mass destruction.
I do believe they were likely moved to Syria and the long lead up to the war.
I think that probably represented the type of weapons that that
Assad was using against his own people,
when of course Obama drew that infamous red light in the sand.
>> 2016 still a supporter of the Iraq war.
I still think that there might be weapons of mass destruction, John?
>> Someday they're gonna find them.
>> Someday.
>> Yeah, the final point I wanna make is about the difference.
Another difference that you just identified on the right and the left,
that there are obviously more unified and it's not to say that there are clashes of
personality, there are, but there's clearly less.
And I think that we at some point should dive into it, but
there's two large reasons why, one I think it is that they their establishment media,
like Fox News and their independent media are actually the same thing.
Like there's not the difference between like us and MSNBC,
there's clear differences there.
Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity want the exact same things.
They may pretend that there are surface level differences.
There aren't there going for tax cuts?
They're going for the same things.
There isn't actually independent right wing media, it is all tied and
funded by the establishment, but
also they don't have to deal with former members of their side.
There's no, like former right wingers like that are now progressives,
not that I know of, not high profile, because that's not the direction it goes,
because that's not where the financial incentives are.
People become former liberals or post left,
because they're going towards the money.
Sure, maybe they had some leftist values, but they'd very much like to have a much
much larger house and the way that you get that is by becoming a conservative.
Being awakened from your progressive delusions and that doesn't exist on
the other side, because there isn't money waiting for them over here.
>> Right, right?
You don't see anyone getting I don't know, I guess blue pilled, I don't know if that
would make me I mean, but yeah, the people get red pilled because you're right.
I mean the incentives are in the wrong place and that's how you can see all
sorts of people morph into, the Dave Rubin's or the Jimmy Dore's.
Yeah, go ahead.
Super fast, you do see regular people being blue pilled.
Regular Conservatives tell us that they started watching us and
became progressives all the time.
But that's because they're being honest, it's not about like seeking profit.
When you talk about the media wing though, there's no honesty,
it's all goal driven and the money is the big goal.