 Hi, as a Canadian and, you know, Jamaican background, can you explain your take on the anti-intellectual movement in the United States? Is it just that we have big guns, big religion, and, you know, we're not afraid to throw that around? Or what do you think? Well, is it any different, I mean, a different, first of all, I don't know whether, well, let me back up, the role that evangelical Christianity plays in this country's culture is very different from other Western countries, so that's clearly a consideration. That's been a force not for anti-intellectualism, that's wrong. It's been a force for a particular approach to intellectual life. You know, Christianity, and I say this as someone who comes from any evangelical Christian background, is a deeply intellectual culture on many levels, but there are certain questions on which the religious perspective orients thinking a little differently from the secular intellectual mainstream. So that's been a prominent part of this country, I think, for a long time. But also I think that there's a, I would say, I would phrase a lot of what's going on now, not in terms of intellectualism versus anti-intellectualism, but a kind of, I've said this before, the most striking thing about American public life to me as a non-American is the extent to which it's dominated by backlash. Now I think of the history of American life over the last 150 years as just one period of prolonged backlash after another. There are these, you have a backlash to the Civil War that basically lasts 75 years. Then you have the Brown decision, then you have backlash to the Brown decision that lasts 25 years, and then you have a little moment for feminism in the 70s and you have a backlash that lasts until, I mean, might still be going on. You have a little, I mean, there's a gay rights backlash which dwarfs the little moment of gay rights pops its head into the public discourse, and the backlash goes on for years and like, and you know, chases every Democrat out of Congress and distorts, you know, two election cycles. I mean, so it's like, and I feel like we're getting, we're in the middle of another one of these, I don't know why American backlash cycles, it's a kind of one step forward, four steps back that I don't, maybe I'm naive, I don't see that in other cultures. I've just been, I've only been thinking this because I've been doing these podcast episodes on the 50s and 60s and on civil rights movements in those. And the backlash, you know, the backlash to Brown is so phenomenal, I mean, it's so great that you have to seriously ask yourself whether Brown was worth it. I mean, there's a great paper written on the Brown backlash thesis by a historian whose name, sadly, has escaped me right now, Clair, is it Clair, Michael Clair, maybe I'm already, Clairman, Michael Clairman, thank you, which you should read because, although he doesn't take this tack, but as I read that paper, he just points out, you know, the backlash is sort of 10x what Brown is, distorts the politics of the South for two generations, you read that and you have to think, Jesus, maybe it wasn't worth it. I mean, maybe we should have just done something a lot more subtle and not risk this. And I feel like what's going on now in American life is a backlash that maybe one reading is that there was the dominant kind of liberal and intellectual culture in this culture, in this country, went too fast. Maybe we went too fast and we just have to learn to slow down. You can't do everything you want in one generation. And my current take on, I'm currently pro Obamacare, this will change, but my current take is, it was a good idea, but you know what, maybe it was a bridge too far, maybe it just was the thing that maybe we should have done a little tiny, smaller piece of it and just mail it out because in part that's what we're seeing now, like the centrality of Obamacare in the current backlash narrative is so weird, right? Make any sense. Many of the people who are against it are beneficiaries of it. This law is not this kind of pox on American life. It's managed to bring down, I mean, there's tons of, from a perfectly rational standpoint, if you were an ardent right winger, this is not the thing you would go after, right? There's a ton of other battles. The fact that they want to fight this battle first is really strange and can only be interpreted in terms of, it's the backlash. It's like, it's the symbol of what you, of the thing that just drove you crazy and appalled you over the last couple of years and you just want to banish it from your site, you know? And that's, so that's, I think does that answer your question?