Podcaster Joe Rogan has launched a fierce critique against The New York Times after one of its writers suggested that the United States Constitution might pose a threat to democracy. On Sunday, the Times’ book critic, Jennifer Szalai, published an article titled, “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” Her piece speculated that
“one of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document.”
Szalai’s article highlighted that despite Donald Trump losing the popular vote in 2016, he still secured the presidency through the Electoral College. She questioned whether the Constitution can effectively guard against “authoritarianism” in modern times. “Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional,” Szalai wrote.
Rogan’s Outrage Over NYT’s Stance
During Wednesday’s episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan discussed the article with author Bret Weinstein, referencing an Instagram post where he shared the article’s headline, captioning it with, “What a fascinating time to be alive.” Rogan expressed disbelief, saying, “This isn’t the Babylon Bee; this is an actual New York Times article, you see it? This is so crazy.” He questioned the decision-making behind the publication: “It’s really hard to believe that someone would print this, and that the New York Times would say, ‘Yeah, we like it, put it out there!'”
Rogan marveled at the headline, rhetorically asking, “What the f— are you talking about? One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country was ever founded on, if not the greatest ever? That could be a threat to America’s politics?” He continued, challenging the logic behind the article’s assertions:
“What politics are we talking about? Like what-how could you possibly gaslight me enough to go along with you on this?”
The Constitution and Modern Politics
Weinstein responded by suggesting there’s an authoritarian undercurrent that resents the Constitution for limiting its power. “It’s on the one hand, completely predictable, right? Because there’s obviously an authoritarian force there that just grinds its teeth at night over the Constitution and the fact that it prevents it from doing things that it just wants to do last week, you know?” Weinstein said. He further elaborated on the mindset behind such articles: “And so of course, they’re like, scratching their heads, like ‘Can we come up with an argument for why it might be time to get rid of that thing?'”
Rogan added that figures like Trump serve as focal points for such criticism. “This is why a person like Trump is so important to them because if you don’t have someone that is an imminent threat on the horizon in three months, it’s very difficult to justify all this s—,” he argued.
According to Rogan, Trump provides the left with a narrative that justifies attacking foundational principles like the First Amendment: “You can’t make that argument that we don’t need- we can’t have a First Amendment because the First Amendment is getting in the way, the First Amendment is allowing people to say things that aren’t true, ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.’”
Recurring Themes in Political Rhetoric
Weinstein noted that similar extreme rhetoric has been used against past Republican presidential nominees, such as Mitt Romney and George W. Bush. “They did pull this stuff when it was Mitt Romney, when it was George W. Bush, right? The rhetoric was still ‘existential threat,’ and they always have particular versions of this,” Weinstein explained. This pattern suggests a broader strategy employed to frame political opponents as direct threats to democracy.
