Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.
(Daily Signal)—Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. There’s been quite a controversial article by one Jacob Savage in the conservative magazine Compact. In it, he describes the destruction of a whole generation, career-wise, of white males, particularly in the entertainment industry, screenwriting, journalism, the humanities, academia.
And his thesis is tri-part. He says that, traditionally, white males had dominated these fields, as they did others. And that was a part of demography. After all, until about 1965 or ’70, 90% of the country was so-called white, but as immigration increased and there was more emphasis on feminism, civil rights, the white male hierarchy decided to help people who otherwise would not be encouraged to apply to these marquee jobs.
And this was sort of a proto affirmative action. And then it was reified by the government. And so, we saw the beginning in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s of affirmative action, and this reduced the number of white males from their demo from being overrepresented, let’s say 70%, when their demographic now is 35, down to the millennium proportionality.
There was no disproportionate demographics. They were more or less proportionate in screenwriting and writing and movie scripts, etc. Right before and then especially after George Floyd, there was something, I guess we would call it reparations or repertory hiring, admissions. In my case, I watched Stanford University go down to 9% white males were admitted to their freshman class, even though that demographic is about 35% of the population.
And this radically changed journalism, screenwriting, academia. And as Mr. Savage points out, some of the exclusionary actions were outright and unabashed, I would call it, racism. He doesn’t, he says prejudicial behavior. So, you would get down to 8%, 9%, 10%, 11%, 12% white males. That meant there was almost no opportunity. And instead, women and minorities were hired.
He ends the article by suggesting that if you get rid of meritocracy—and all of these fields, forget about the tribal affiliations of those who were in them, they did have meritocratic standards. So, I guess I came away from his article thinking, if you don’t think the movies are very good today, the “Star Wars” franchise has gone downhill, the “James Bond” franchise has gone downhill, the entertainment at the halftime shows are pretty bad, Disneyland is not very welcoming anymore, you know the scenario. It’s because we destroyed standards and we replaced them with tribal chauvinism.
Where I think some of you are gonna disagree with this very powerful and well-written article is that he allots no anger, no blame. He says that the white male hierarchy that implemented these changes on another generation, i.e., his generation, it is not to blame, and the people who took advantage of these repertory or race-based or gender-based hiring should not be faulted either. They just took advantage of a welcoming position.
And then, rather than being defined, he sort of shrugs his shoulders and says, I told my children maybe I didn’t succeed. It was kind of tragic. I do blame the older white hierarchy, mostly liberal professors, liberal journalists, liberal directors, liberal actors, liberal screenwriters. They all had nice cushy jobs. They earned them. Then they decided in their utopian generosity that they were going to admit people into their guilds without the same criterion that they had had because it made them feel better.
In other words, they didn’t accept Tom Sowell’s or Shelby Steele’s advice or Jason Riley’s that says, when you do that, you’re going to encourage mediocrity and opportunist, and you’re going to deprecate the work of African Americans or Hispanics that are very talented. But that’s what you’re going to do just to gratify your own sense of ego and shame. And that’s exactly what happened.
So, I do blame that group because all they had to do is say, they could have said: “We have to have a radical change at Disney Pictures. We have to have a radical change at sitcoms. We have to have a radical change in screenplays. And because we have seven white males in the journalism room and we’re all 70, we’re making great money, one of us is gonna have to retire and give our slots to other white males that are young, and then we can hire additional ones.”
They didn’t do that. It was all, I’m going to experiment on these Guinea pigs without any exposure of my title, my job, my salary, my benefits. And they destroyed a whole series of genres.
The other thing that I would say is I do blame the people who took advantage of that, especially those who knew they were not qualified. And then to stay in those positions when they did not have the meritocratic criteria, they had to perpetuate the idea of systematic racism.
What do I mean by that? Anybody, to take one example, who listened to Joy Reid on MSNBC, “The ReidOut,” or whatever her show was, knew that she was A) not truthful, B) paranoid, C) hypocritical, D) ignorant. I don’t care where she went to school or what kind of degree she got, she was not qualified for that job. She tanked all of their ratings. People did not wanna watch her.
And I don’t think that she was an innocent victim. I think she took advantage of that goodwill, especially when she was supercharged after the death of George Floyd to take advantage of that situation and to voice, I think, opinions that were objectively racism. So, not everybody, but I do think people took advantage of this system.
What did he end up with, Mr. Savage? He sort of said this was so unfair and so tragic. We lost such talent. It was so unfair.
Yes. But I would urge all of you listeners to read a little essay in response by Jeremy Carl. He said, no, no, that’s not—you’ve got the diagnosis right, but you don’t have the therapy right. We don’t just shrug our shoulders and say that was unfair, and it’s tragic, and millions of lives were destroyed. We fight back. And that’s what President Donald Trump has done with the destruction of DEI. And Jeremy Carl said it’s racism. Whether it’s white on black or black or white, or white on minority or minority on white, doesn’t matter.
You don’t address a perceived injustice by creating a greater injustice. You don’t destroy the lives of a whole generation of people for the goodwill of your own spirit or something to make you feel good. No. These people were culpable. They did great damage, and they have to be held accountable.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
JD’s manually curated links for God-fearing MAGA patriots
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.