Podcasts about Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America has been called by Harvey Mansfield the “best book ever written on democracy and the best book ever written on America." What can a 200-year-old book teach us about democracy in America today? Scholars—Jeremy Jennings, author of Travels with Tocqueville Beyond America; Olivier Zunz, author of The Man Who Understood Democracy: The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville; and Catherine Zuckert of the University of Notre Dame—discuss Tocqueville's masterpiece and its lessons for modern Americans with Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.  This conversation was streamed live on March 6, 2023. Additional Resources Jeremy Jennings, Travels with Tocqueville Beyond America Olivier Zunz, The Man Who Understood Democracy: The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville Catherine Zuckert, “The Saving Minimum? Tocqueville on the Role of Religion in America—Then and Now,” American Political Thought Michael Oakeshott, “The Masses in Representative Democracy”   Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

Dr. Haass, author of the New York Times best seller The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens, discusses how to reenvision citizenship if American democracy is to thrive or even survive. His guide is particularly relevant for college students who are learning how to navigate and participate fully in life on campus and in civic society. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to today's Educators Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have CFR President Richard Haass with us to discuss the themes in his new book, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Dr. Haass needs no introduction, but of course I will say a few words. He is in his twentieth year as president of CFR. He has served as special assistant and senior Middle East advisor to President George H.W. Bush, served in the U.S. State Department as a director of policy planning under Secretary of State Colin Powell, and held various positions in the Defense and State Departments during the Carter and Reagan administrations. He is the author or editor of fourteen books on U.S. foreign policy, one book on management and, of course, this one on American democracy. So, Richard, thank you very much for being with us today to discuss this book. I thought we could begin with you giving us an overview of your book, why you wrote it and, more specifically, why the focus on obligations rather than on rights. HAASS: Well, thank you, Irina. Thank you all for giving us some of your time. So really two separate questions—why the book and why the focus on obligations. Why the book is, look, I'm a foreign policy guy, for better and for worse. But increasingly, when I thought about all the challenges this country faced in the world, they all presume that we would have a functioning democracy that others in the world might want to emulate, others in the world would feel comfortable depending on, relying on. Our foes in the world might be deterred by. That we would generate the resources we needed and the political unity we needed to act in the world. Increasingly all that came under—has come under question. So I don't see how you can talk about American national security and just talk about the sort of stuff that the Pentagon or State Department do, but increasingly our ability to have a working democracy, to have a society that has the bandwidth and the unity to carry out our foreign policy. That's in question. And that's one of the lessons of the last few years. We assume these things are just fine at our peril. So, you know, that's what led me to write this book. And I actually have come to see the state of American democracy as, in many ways, the biggest threat to our national security. More than China, or Russia, or climate change, or anything else, because this is the foundation of our ability to contend with all these external threats. Moving to the question of “why obligations,” look, no one should get me wrong here. Rights are central to this American experiment, as I expect all of you know. You know, the Bill of Rights was politically essential in order to get several states that were holding out to ratify the new Constitution. A lot of people understood that the Articles of Confederation were woefully inadequate, but it was something very different to say they were prepared to sign on for a much stronger federal government and a much stronger executive. And the condition that several states set then was, hey, we need this Bill of Rights which protects states and individuals from the reach of the federal government. Over the last nearly two and a half centuries, we've lived with the reality that there's often a gap between our political realities and the Bill of Rights, you know, what Lincoln called the “unfinished work” of this country remains unfinished. I fully appreciate that. But just try a thought experiment: Just imagine that somehow we managed to close the gap between our reality and the Declaration of Independence, and suddenly rights were 100 percent what they ought to be. Then the question you have to ask yourself, if we were to reach that point, would American foreign policy be on safe, firm ground? And the answer is no. Because what would happen is someone would say, hey, the mother has an absolute right to choose. And someone else would say, no, the unborn, they have absolute rights. Or someone would say, I have all sorts of rights under the Second Amendment to bear arms and someone else would say, oh, hold on a minute, I've got rights to public safety, to physical safety, and so on and so forth. You know, it wasn't by accident that Justice Steve Breyer said that the toughest cases before the court are right versus wrong, but rights versus rights. So what do we do? How do we avoid the clash of rights which, at a minimum, would mean gridlock, and worse yet, in all sorts of situations, one could imagine things descending into violence. If people felt that adamantly about their rights, and if their rights were not adequately recognized, from their point of view, what's holding them back from political violence? And that's what led me to this book. And that's what led me to obligations. Obligation is the other side of the citizenship coin. Rights are essential. To use the political science idea, they are necessary, but they're not sufficient. We need obligations. We need to complement rights, supplement rights with—we need obligations to one another—you to me, me to you, Irina, me to everybody on this Zoom—and vice versa. And then, second of all, we all need to think about our obligations to the country. What do we—in the spirit of John F. Kennedy—what do we owe this country? Only if we balance or complement rights with obligations do I think this experiment of American democracy has a good chance of surviving another two and a half centuries. FASKIANOS: So when you were writing this book, Richard—clearly we all need to read it—but what was your target audience? HAASS: It's a good question. Let me give you a couple of answers. One is, and it's something you and I know from our work here, I'm always interested in finding multipliers in American society. So in this case, it's a lot of the kinds of people on this call, educators, because they all have students. So whether they're administrators, classroom teachers, you know, university, four-year schools, two-year schools, colleges, at the high school level, what have you. So educators are my principal—if not THE principal audience, as the principal multiplier. Obviously, students as well because, you know, particularly if you think about it, college students by—well, we can talk about this more—but they're a perfect audience for this. I'm also, though, interested in other multipliers in this society. One is journalists. They have tremendous reach. They have obligations. Religious authorities, the people who give the sermons. You know, tens if not even more than a hundred million Americans hear sermons every week. Well, why can't religious authorities do things like discourage political violence, say nothing justifies violence, or civility is always called for, or compromise ought to always be considered. Or, how about this, you are your brother's and sister's keeper. You have an obligation to look out for the common good. Who better than a religious authority to do that? I think parents have certain special opportunities, if you will, to carry out these obligations, to model certain behavior. So I'm interested in all of them. And what I found is a lot of—you know, and the good news is I think it's resonating. Particularly a lot of older people know there's something amiss in this country. And what they want to make sure is that younger people get a chance to take this in. FASKIANOS: Right. So in your book, you have laid out ten principles. And under the ten principles— HAASS: We call them obligations, Irina. FASKIANOS: Ten obligations, yes. So what are the key insights that you would want, or the obligations that you would want educators and students to take away from reading this book, and that you would want educators to promote or to share with their students? HAASS: Well, first of all, all ten I think are valuable. You know, if we were in a religious context and you say which of the commandments would you jettison, you know, we all might have our favorite for jettisoning, but—Mel Brooks had his ideas in one of his movies. But I think all ten are necessary, in this case. I'd begin with being informed, which I think is particularly relevant to this kind of a group. You know, Jefferson's notion of the informed citizen is basic to a democracy. And then I think it immediately then calls for a conversation on exactly what is it we mean by being informed in terms of the basics. What do we mean in terms of current issues that come and go? How then do you get informed? How do you avoid being misinformed? I think it's a really rich conversation. Again, with students, we want to urge them, once they are informed, to get involved. To use an old quote of Ronald Reagan's, we don't just want patriotism we want informed patriotism. So we want people to be involved, but we want them to be involved once they are informed. You know, we can go through all of them, just things like behaviors, civility, compromise, observation of norms. Those are all important. Just kind of attitudes and behaviors become important. Then there's more specific things. I'd love for younger people to get involved in public service. Several states have instituted, like California, a large public service program. I think it's great. I think too many of us in this country are now leading very separate lives defined by geography, educational attainment, wealth, race, religion, gender, what have you. I love things that produce a bit of common experience, I think would be good. I'm obviously big, and we'll probably get to this, about teaching civics. I think it's simply wrong that anybody should leave a campus without having been exposed to civics. We wouldn't let them leave the campus if they couldn't read or write. Why would we want them to leave a campus if they didn't have—if they weren't, essentially, literate about citizenship, given how important that is. So, you know, I thought hard about the obligations. And I just think that this is what is required if American democracy is going to prosper. FASKIANOS: We've talked a lot about how this book is a perfect fit for the first-year experience and for incoming students to college campuses. And I thought you could talk a little bit about the connection of this book, and why it would be such a perfect fit. HAASS: Couple of things. One is, the average freshman is pretty close to eighteen. So what a perfect time to be doing this, because they're going to have the right to vote. And we want them to vote. And we want them to be informed voters. So that's one thing. But this is—the timing is perfect for people stepping onto campus. Second of all, in addition to voting, campuses, like any other, if you will, environment are political environments. And so over the course of their two, three, four, however many years on campus, students are going to be in all sorts of formal and informal, structured and unstructured, settings in which politics are going to come up. So I believe they need some help in navigating what they're going to experience on a—in classrooms, over drinks, over coffee, study groups, what have you. I think it's really essential there. I also like the idea of first-year experiences—and first principles—I love the idea that people read something and have it in common and they can talk about it. So whether you're a flute major, or a physics major, or a computer sciences major, I love the fact that everybody's reading something. And this is something with real, I think, practical payoffs, again, for the years on campus, and for life afterwards. So I actually think it's a good thing. And, just to be clear, the book doesn't tell them about what's the, quote/unquote, “right” or “wrong” policy on any issue. It's simply about how one approaches political life, whether it's on campus or beyond. And I just think it's—for eighteen-year-olds about to embark on a college experience and on a life experience, I think the timing's pretty good. FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Jim Zaffiro, who is a professor of political science at Central College. And he asks along the same lines— HAASS: Central College in Iowa? FASKIANOS: Yes. HAASS: I got a—I was lucky enough to get an honorary degree from Central College in Iowa. It's a wonderful, wonderful place. FASKIANOS: So he would like to know, how would you present the nature and significance of this as a common reading for eighteen-year-olds? Like, how would pitch it to an incoming freshman about why they should read it? So from the student's perspective? HAASS: It's a good question. Like it or not, government is essential to our lives. And indeed, both whether you like it or not, that makes the case for learning about it. It's going to affect you. But, more important, government is not some impersonal force. Government is affected by citizens. So I want students to understand that government is what we make of it. And it's who we vote for. It's who we reward or penalize politically. It's who they work for. I'd love them to get involved themselves. Not just in campaigns, one day some of them may choose that as a career—I did for a long time—in public service. And it could be—in my case it was working on the policy side. It could be the military. It could be intelligence. I've got a daughter who works for the Department of Sanitation here in the City of New York. There's all sorts of ways to have a public service kind of career. But even if you don't, we still, as citizens, have the right—and I would say, the obligation—to vote. And if they don't, well, that's just another way of saying you're going to let this other person decide what your future is. Why would anybody want to abdicate the chance to influence their own future and lets the person sitting in the seat next to them make choices that would affect them? So I would want students—I would want to remind them that government is responsive. That we've made enormous changes. I think a lot of young people have a really negative view of government. They see what's happened in recent years—whether it's the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or economic crises, or pandemics, or climate. And a lot of them are very down on government. And I get it. I get it. But government also, over the decades, has delivered in important ways. And even when it's failed, the failure wasn't inevitable. So I want to give students a sense of possibility. And that government is really important. And the good news, in a non-authoritarian, democratic system, is governments are potentially responsive, and that there are real opportunities to make an impact that will affect their future and the futures of others they care about. And, you know, as I've learned in life, for better and for worse, not acting—you know, if you will, omissions—are just as important as acting in commission. And so I want students to understand that it's consequential not to get involved. And it's probably consequential and bad in ways that are most – more likely than not, not to be good for them. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. So I'm just going to—people are already writing questions in the Q&A box. Love to see that. So if you do that, please also include your affiliation or I will try to pull out your affiliation. You can always also raise your hand on the screen to ask a question. And on an iPad and tablet, you can click the “more” button. For those of you who have written your question, if you want to ask it yourself please do raise your hand because we love to hear your voices. The first person, Miriam Kerzner, wants to know what you mean by “civics.” And I think that's a good jumping off point for you to talk about civics and why it needs to be—how you think about it. HAASS: No, it's a great—yeah, in a funny sort of way, everyone—well, not everyone—but almost everyone is in favor of civics until you drill down a little bit. (Laughs.) And then they go, oh, I didn't mean that. So it's not enough to be in favor of it in principle, but you've also got to be in favor of it in practice. So it seems to me, and it's complicated, I get it. It ain't going to be easy. I get it. But I think there's certain things about our history, about certain documents people should be exposed to, certain, you know, dates and events that people should be exposed to, certain understandings about how government works at the national, the state, and then the local level people should be exposed to. Certain behaviors and attitudes that are consistent with a democracy that people should be exposed to. I think civics has got to do all of that. And I also think modern civics has to also take into account or include what is increasingly known as information literacy, to teach students to be critical consumers of this flood of information that's coming at them. And it's ironic. It's almost strange that in an age in which we're deluged with information, it's also harder than ever to be informed. But there you have it. So I think modern civics has to teach elements of history, teach some of the elements or basics of the American political system. Probably teach some basic elements of American society, the economy, and so forth, foreign policy. Talk about attitudes, behaviors, almost the culture of democracy, get into things about rights and obligations, talk about information literacy. And it's demanding. It's going to be very hard to—it's going to be impossible to satisfy not just everybody, probably anybody. This has now become a politicized terrain, probably a minefield's a better metaphor. Again, I'm not naïve about that. But I don't think we can throw up our hands and say it's too hard. It's probably impossible to get anything done at the national level just now, but not at the state level. I've already talked to several governors who are willing to take a try. I see certain schools are willing to take a try. I mean, Stanford's going to introduce a civics module for all of its freshmen starting next winter term. Other schools have some things like it. The service academies have been doing work in this area for quite a while. I don't mean to leave anybody out, but I know that schools like Purdue and Virginia, some others, have elements of this. Johns Hopkins is debating it. And so I just think it's also that universities have far more flexibility because, you know, I think it's tougher for public high schools, given the roles of state legislatures and politics. It's probably somewhat tough also, obviously, for public universities, given the way they're funded and the oversight. I think private colleges and universities have enormous discretion. There's nothing stopping them. They could do it tomorrow. There are resource issues. I get it. And not everybody has the, shall we say, resource advantages of a Stanford. So I think, you know, for a lot of schools, they're going to have to look at what's not just desirable, but you've always got to ask what's doable, what's feasible. I get it. But I think every—I think this is a conversation faculties, administrators, boards, students, and others need to have. Which is, one, whether civics? I would say the answer to that is yes. And then, OK, then let's have a follow-on conversation. What should go into it? And we can talk more about it, but I think particularly when it comes to history, which is probably the most controversial area, my own advice is to simply say there's got to be certain things about history which are not terribly controversial. There are certain documents that are essential, certain Supreme Court decisions, certain speeches, certain commentaries. Certain things happen. There's the factual spine of American history. Then there's interpretations of what caused certain things, what are the consequences of certain things. OK. Well, there, I think the lesson is not to teach a single history, not to impose a vision of history, but to expose students to a range of responsible historical analyses and interpretations. And then maybe in the classroom provide mechanisms for debating them in a civics course. And, indeed, I could imagine lots of other ideas—and there's teaching notes we just produced. One could imagine all sorts of model or mock legislatures where people—students would introduce certain legislation. One of the ideas I proposed was a model constitutional convention, and students would have a chance to propose amendments to the current Constitution and debate it out. So I think things like that. I think there's all sorts of participatory things that one could introduce or incorporate into a civics curriculum without imposing a single vision or interpretation of history, which would obviously be unacceptable to, you know, significant constituencies. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. And Miriam's at Columbia Basin College in Pasco, Washington. So I'm going to go next to Larry Mead, who has raised his hand. And if you could identify yourself and accept the unmute prompt, that would be fantastic. HAASS: Or not. FASKIANOS: Larry, you still need to unmute, or not. All right, I will go next to Laura Tedesco, and we'll come back to Larry. Or, we'll try. Laura. There you go, Laura first, OK. Laura, you just muted yourself again. Q: OK, now? FASKIANOS: You've got it. Q: OK. Thank you very much. My name is Laura Tedesco. I'm working from Madrid, Spain, working at St. Louis University, in the campus that they have here in Madrid. And my question is basically how we are going to—I agree with you about, you know, the education of citizenship here. But how are we going to really make people understand—not only students in universities, but everybody else, you know—about the right and the need to act as citizens? For instance, in a country like the United States, where your vote is not obligatory, yeah? You know, how can we make people understand that, you know, democracy should not be taken for granted, and we should all work to improve democracy from the different positions we are? Thank you. HAASS: No, it's a great question. How do we incentivize people not to take democracy for granted? One is to teach them in a civics curriculum a little bit about what are the structural strengths and advantages for democracy in terms of everything from the freedoms and rights they tend to provide and protect, to democracy's ability to adapt and innovate. We also got a pretty good historical record. I mean, yes, this democracy and other democracies have made serious mistakes, and they're imperfect to say the least, but there's a lot that they have accomplished and a lot that they have provided and delivered. So I think we need to remind people about the record of democracies to—and to also—I'd be more than comfortable pointing out some of the shortcomings of the alternatives, because obviously the alternatives do have, shall we say, more than their share of flaws. And I—again, to encourage, you know, informed participation—I think you have to make the case that democracies are responsive, that individuals and groups can make a difference. There's almost nothing that's inevitable. And history is, in many ways, what we make it. And that's what I want students to come away with, the sense of possibility and empowerment. I mean, what I came to conclude in writing this is if we wait for democracies to be delivered, if you will, or saved by someone at the top, it's going to be a long wait. And what we really need to think about is empowerment, whether it's young people or, again, these critical constituencies in American society from business to religious leaders, to teachers, to journalists, officials, and so forth. You know, we all have a chance to make a difference. And I want students to get excited about both why democracies are worth saving and the difference that individuals can make. And I think if we do that, we can generate some greater political involvement. And what the last two elections show is even minute amounts—you know, 1 percent here or there—of greater political involvement can have enormous impact. And that's what I want, again, students to come away with. The, yeah, well my vote won't matter. Well, probably not, if you're talking about one vote. But it doesn't take a whole lot of people getting involved in order to tip the scales. And so I want students to get a sense of empowerment. FASKIANOS: So you can build on—that starts to answer Robert McCoy's question, who is at the University of Montana, in the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center in Missoula, Montana. He says: Read the book. Think it ought to be mandatory reading for all, not just students. However, your opening chapters paint such a dire picture that I fail to see how today's issues can be rectified. Can you speak to that? HAASS: Hmm. I'll have to go back and reread the opening chapters. I thought the first chapter was kind of about the— is really neutral. It's kind of the march of American history—American political history. It's kind of how we got to where we are. You know, the second chapter is on backsliding. And the reason it's that way is if things weren't in a bad way, I wouldn't have needed to write the book and I could have focused on my golf game and lowering my handicap. But because democratic backsliding in this country—and, by the way, in others—is a reality, I felt compelled to write this book. So I didn't have confidence that it would just sort itself out by itself. I actually think very few things just sort themselves out by themselves, whether we're talking about domestic political systems or international systems. I think it takes agency. And but again, small numbers could have really large impact. I mean, we just had a midterm here where roughly, I don't know, 45 percent of the eligible voters voted. And which was, you know, slightly higher than traditional midterms. Still disappointing. But some of the outcomes were pretty impressive. And in terms of stabilizing American democracy. Very easily, though, there could have been other outcomes. And think of the consequences there. So the whole argument for making—you know, for obligations is that nothing's baked into the cake, for better and for worse. So we shouldn't assume that everything's just going to turn out just fine. And we shouldn't assume that it won't. And I think, again, small numbers could have real impact. And, again, it's an empowerment argument. And I think there's a lot—there's a lot of distributed authority—obligation, or authority, or potential for various groups within the society, various constituencies, as well as with individuals writ large. And I think possibly reminding people about how government over the years has adapted, I think people need to, in some ways, rediscover a bit of respect and admiration for government. And I look at some of the changes we've had over the course of, say, the last—take my last seventy-five years, or even, you know, from on domestic things. Civil rights, you know, extension of the vote to eighteen-year-olds, what we've recently done on gay marriage, and so forth. The degree of adaptability and change, government turns out to be quite flexible in this society. So I want students to get jazzed about the potential here, about the possibility, but to remind them it just doesn't happen by itself. And people have to get involved. And politics is not dirty. It's a calling. And so I want the best and brightest to do this. You know, I've had a career that's been in and out of government, and I wouldn't trade it for just about anything. And it's really satisfying. I talk to them about careers and other things also. So I mean, not just people that are going to become doctors, and lawyers, and plumbers, and electricians, and whatever. And I want them to be involved, informed citizens. But I would love a chunk of the best and brightest to go into government and choose that as a calling. So again, one of the reasons I love the idea of a public service experience, say, for a year or two years after high school, before college, or during college, or after college, not only do would I think a lot of people come into contact with one another who ordinarily wouldn't meet where people grow up, but I think they would see what government could do. They would see that public service can actually accomplish some things that are good for the public. So I think students need to realize that. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next back to Larry Mead. And let's see if we can get your technology—there we go. Q: Can you hear me now? OK. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Yes, we can. And identify yourself, please. Q: What I wrote was, I thought I was the only political scientist to write about obligation. I wrote a book about that back in the 1960s. It was about domestic policy, mainly. I think your book is—I think the second book to really focus on obligation. And my question is this: In fact, our system presumes a very high level of civic obligation. We are, in fact, one of the most civic countries in the world, one of the best governed in the world. And that all depends on that civic culture. So why then do we talk only about rights? HAASS: Great question. First of all, what's your book? My research was inadequate. Tell me about your book. Q: (Laughs.) OK. It was called Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. It's about welfare, poverty, and reform of welfare. It makes a case for work requirements. And later on, I became the theorist of welfare reform. But the general argument is that freedom depends on obligation. And actually, freedom is a form of obligation. But people aren't thoughtful about that. They somehow think that freedom is simply liberation from all sets of outside expectations. No. Our heaviest obligations are the obligations we set for ourselves in our own lives. We work very hard to achieve those things. So freedom isn't free, and yet we don't talk about it. HAASS: I agree. And good for you. Thank you. I will now make up for my impoverished scholarship and researching skills. Q: Well, I'm going to read your book, and I will write you a reaction, I promise you. HAASS: Thank you. Be kind. Look, there's a lot of—in the course of writing this, I read some religious and political philosophers. And that was their argument, that freedom without obligation is dangerous. It actually leads you to anarchy. And but obligation and the rest without freedom denies you basic rights. And you've got to—you got to get both. Find it infused in religious and philosophical literature. I found it in some educational literature after World War II. So I've asked myself, to your question, how did we kind of lose the balance? Because if you go to early American history, there was such an emphasis on rights, and my hunch is people were much more conscious of rights because the entire context was not reimposing tyranny after getting out from under the yoke of Britain. I also think our culture was different. That a lot of obligations, or the notion of obligations, was assumed. It was implicit. It wasn't missing. It was there. And when you go back—when I went back and read de Tocqueville, and Bryce, and others, you re-read a lot of this—even the Federalist Papers, they didn't spend a lot of time hammering away on obligations. I think they saw it all around them. I think what's happened, and it's probably beyond my paygrade, or at least beyond my intellectual understanding—because I'm not an anthropologist or a sociologist—was somehow this notion of the balance between rights and obligations in American society, to use a technical phrase, has gotten out of whack. We've become much more rights focused, almost rights obsessed. What are we owed? Whether they're political rights or economic rights. And we've lost a sense of what do we owe in turn. And, you know, how that happened is an interesting conversation. And it's something I've been meditating about and thinking about. But however it happened, it happened. And that's why I think we need something of a corrective. And I'm no longer confident it'll just happen. The ship won't right itself. And I think that we have to now be conscious about advocating for obligations, because they have the coin of citizenship has lost its balance there. And it's gone way too much in one direction. So what I'm trying to do is by talking so much about obligations, decades after you did—is in some ways resurrect the idea and strengthen a recognition that we've somewhat lost our way. And, by the way, I think people know that. I got to tell you, I've been on the road a lot the last six weeks, talking about this book to all sorts of citizen groups. I did one last night about fifty miles from here. And people know it. I got to tell you, particularly people who are middle-aged and older, they look out their window, they get up and they look out at this society, and they go: This isn't the American I remember. There is something amiss. There is something wrong. I'm not saying the old America was perfect. It was obviously flawed in some significant ways. But there is something wrong about our culture. I think if de Tocqueville were to come back, he would not be happy, in some ways. He would see things that were missing a little bit from the relationship between individuals and society, and particularly the obligation I have, say, about the common good. I think there's a degree now of selfishness and individualism. And I think it's gotten out of hand in American society. We saw a lot of that during the pandemic. And that, to me, was yet another message that we've got some work here to do. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Louis Caldera, who is a professor of law at American University. Can you talk about our democracy as an example to the world that is foundational to achieving our foreign policy and national security goals? Do you agree? Do we undermine our leadership in the world if our own democracy is undermined by things like gerrymandering, vote suppressing laws, unchecked special interest money, and so on? HAASS: In a word, yes, we do. We certainly undermine the appeal of democracy. It's very hard to talk the talk if you don't walk the walk. And January 6 was probably the low point. But again, when people look at American democracy or look not just at democracy but American society, I think our ability—and, how do I put this—we're not quite the shining city on the hill we should be or could be. So, we can have—we can arm every diplomat with talking points about preaching democratic reform, but it's not going to have any traction if it's done against the backdrop of what we now have in this country. So I think that's just a fact of life. So you're spot on. And I also think the divisions in our society and the lurches, increasingly, in our politics have made us much less influential in the world, because we're no longer seen as predictable or reliable. And allies, by definition, what have they done? They have essentially made a security choice to put a big chunk of their security in our hands. If our hands are no longer seen as reliable, predictable, or safe, they're either going to put security in their own hands—and that's a world of much more proliferation or something like that—or they're going to defer to some powerful neighbors. That is not a pretty world. I also worry that our—my own guess, I can't prove it—but Vladimir Putin was somewhat encouraged to do what did in Ukraine because he didn't think the United States had the will to come together to resist. And so I take these things seriously. So, yeah. So I think, again, this is directly—what's going on here, you know, to use the old line about Las Vegas, it doesn't stay here. This isn't Las Vegas. And it's—if anybody's on this from Nevada, I apologize. But it does have real foreign policy consequences. So I think you're spot on. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Collette Mazzucelli, who has raised her hand. Q: Hello. Good afternoon, Dr. Haass. And I just wanted to ask you if you think that there's a need for a new model of citizenship because of the evolution of the internet, the next phase that's coming, the prevalence and, you know, omnipresent nature of misinformation, disinformation in our society, and also across the world. Thank you. HAASS: It's a really thoughtful question. It was about, what, two weeks ago the Supreme Court had two days of oral hearings—or arguments on Section 230 of the 1996 law, the Communications Decency Act. I think we're struggling with the internet, because these companies, or the pipes that they operate, are carrying millions and millions of messages from millions and millions of people. So the question is, can we—and if so, how, and the rest—can we in any way regulate the content? So I think there's real issues. And social media is, in many cases, inflaming divisions within a society. It is encouraging some bad behaviors in many cases. But it's not quite clear to me what the remedies are, what's practical, and what's desirable. Some things are simply impractical given the number of users, the volume of messaging. And some things may not be desirable because where do you draw the line on First Amendment rights, free speech, and so forth. And who does the drawing? Who's in charge of line drawing? And do we want to necessarily delegate the ability to draw certain lines to some individuals who may be working for Twitter, or Facebook, or Instagram, or what have you? So I think these are really tough issues. My guess is the Supreme Court will probably punt to Congress. Congress will not pick up the ball, would be my guess. There might be some movement. If you look at one of the cases heard before the court now, I think they'll issue their decision in, say, June or so. Where it's one thing for the companies to say they're neutral, they can't be expected to regulate content. OK. I think it's different, though, when they highlight, or accelerate, or intensify certain content through algorithms or what have you. So I think there might be some pushback there, that they can't necessarily police or regulate all the content. But they can be held accountable for not—or, regulator-required, not to highlight certain content. I think it might get at their business model, but I can live with that, to say the least. And then the other half of the coin is how do we make ourselves more critical consumers? And that gets at the whole information literacy movement that we're seeing in New Jersey at the high school level, and other places. But I would think, again, on university campuses, the idea—if I had my way, there would be a mandatory civics course. And, again, one dimension of it would be information literacy. So even if we'll never succeed in totally regulating what goes on social media, in whatever form. But I do think we can improve our ability to be critical consumers of it. And I think that is out there. But, look, when I look at democratic backsliding around the world, not just in the United States. We're seeing it in Mexico, we're seeing it in India, we're seeing it in Israel. We're seeing it in lots of places. The proliferation of media, social media, you know, my word for it is narrowcasting. We now live in an era of narrowcasting. And people are no longer exposed to common things, and they increasingly go into various social and regular media outlets, which tend to either confirm certain views or prejudices, what have you. I think it's a real challenge for democracy. FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Victoria Powers, who's at Capital University in Ohio. I agree with you that teaching civics is critical, and I understand that it's complex in the current environment for some high schools to teach civics. Although I hate to give up requiring civics in K-12 schools. Do you have ideas about what we could do to help provide an education in civics for all those young people who will not be headed to two- or four-year college or universities or community colleges, obviously. And, sorry, she is an adjunct at the Capital University Law School in Ohio. HAASS: Well, I think the takeaway I take from that question, and it's a good one, is what we do on two- and four-year college and university campuses is part of the answer, it's not the totality of it. And we've got to get to citizens younger. So that gets at what you do at high school, junior high school, even middle school. I mean, iCivics has been active in middle schools for a long time. And it also raises questions of what we do away from school. And that's where, again, I think that those who give the sermons have a certain responsibility, media has a larger responsibility than it is often willing to carry out. Businesses, corporations have a responsibility. I think there's got to be distributed obligations here. And I believe each one of these segments of society has obligations and should be pressured by citizens to carry it out. But I do think, yes, we ought to be pushing civics down younger, but we also—we need—as important as classrooms are, we've also got to do things beyond—outside the classroom. But the basic point is right, particularly since the only thing most Americans have to do is attend school through the age of sixteen. So we can't afford to miss that opportunity. Irina, you're on mute. FASKIANOS: Right. How long have I been doing this? OK. (Laughs.) HAASS: For about half an hour, but we've been waiting for you. (Laughter.) FASKIANOS: I'm going to go next to Jody McBrien, who is a professor of social sciences at the University of South Florida. I understand why young people feel powerless, especially when you consider gerrymandering voting and using misinformation. You mentioned state level, she lives in Florida, enough said. How do you suggest getting students engaged in spite of these issues that understandably cause a feeling of helplessness. HAASS: Well, again, you know, the people who are in power passing certain laws now, or redrawing lines, they weren't always in those positions. They got there. So my view is if one disagrees with them, then one has to get them out of there and put other people in there. And that's what political involvement is all about. There's nothing inevitable. There's nothing permanent. These things go in cycles and so forth. So I would tell students, yeah, channel your frustration. Channel your anger. But channel it in ways that will change the political realities. Don't just protest. Don't just get—certainly don't give up. I mean, I think the worst thing is to walk away from it and saying it's hopeless. That becomes self-fulfilling, because then, again, you leave your political future in the hands of others who are unlikely to have your best interests at heart. So I think the best thing is to sit down with students and talk about how politics have changed American time, and time, and time again. And they ought to essentially think about collective action. And that's the history of American political life. FASKIANOS: I will take the next written question from Ali Abootalebi, who is a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. Would you comment on implications of your civic education argument for U.S. foreign policy? The American public is fundamentally divorced from U.S. foreign relations, leaving the foreign policy establishment free from certain obligations and in pursuit of narrowed interests. HAASS: Well, the latter we can have a debate about, to what extent does American foreign policy always served American interests. And I would say, at times it has and at times it hasn't. I'm often a critic of what we do in the name of the national interest, which at times to me seems to be anything but. But that's almost a case-by-case type thing. But, look, I would say that one part of being an informed citizen is understanding the world and understanding foreign policy. It's one of the reasons about a decade ago here, at the Council on Foreign Relations, we made it a real priority to promote literacy in matters of the world and matters of foreign policy. And we've got an entire curriculum. We've got simulation resources. We've got resources aimed at younger students. We do now all sorts of public fora on our website, CFR.org. The most trafficked items tend to be the explainers of these complicated issues to give people a basic understanding of these issues. I think it's part of being an informed citizen. So my own view is we want to have what we call global literacy, in addition to having what I would call civics literacy. I think they are both—since we live in a global world, where everything we do or don't do affects the world and vice versa, everything that goes on the world affects us, for better and for worse, we want citizens to be aware of that loop, and to think about the consequences of certain policies or actions for that. So I think that as an extension of informed civic involvement. It's just the content, in some cases, has to involve things international, and not just things domestic. FASKIANOS: All right. I'm going to take the next question from David Cheney. And I'm trying to pull up affiliation. While I am: How can young people stay accurately informed, given their reliance on social media? And how would you have them balance right-wing with left-wing media sources to arrive at a closer approximation of the truth? And he is at NYU. HAASS: I've heard of NYU. Look, a couple things. Yeah, I know what is not in my answer. TikTok is not the answer. Let me say that. A couple of things. One is, and in the book I have a whole section on where to go for more. And I also think—you know, because there are certain quality publications. Certain newspapers just tend to be good, or better than others. They're not perfect, but they're better. Certain magazines, certain television and radio shows, certain websites. So there are quality places to steer people to. I think as a rule of thumb we ought to encourage multi-sourcing, not to put all your—not to depend on a single source. It's almost like a journalist. A journalist would never write a story based on a single source. They have to double-source it. And I almost feel as citizens we ought to double-source our information, and not just depend on one. I used to have a rule when I went to the gym in my pre-COVID life, when I went on the elliptical, I would divide my time among Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. And I'll admit, I did cheat and ESPN would get a chunk of it as well. But the whole idea was the be exposed. It was just—it was interesting just to see the different “realities,” quote/unquote, that were put forward. But I think it's important to—if you read a national newspaper, then read a local newspaper, maybe. Or if you do something of the left, do something of the right. Or if you read this book, as a professor or teacher, you'd encourage someone to read something else to—so you're not, again, single sourcing. And I think that's the—if I had a single rule of thumb, it would probably be that, to protect yourself from the structural biases. Because all authors or publications have a bias either in what they cover or how they cover it. I take that for granted. So the only way—the best way to protect yourself from it is a degree of multiple exposure. FASKIANOS: OK. I think we have time for one more. Dana Radcliffe at Syracuse University. President Obama in his farewell address referred to the citizen as “the most important office in a democracy.” The philosopher Joseph Tussman in 1960 offered an insightful characterization of “the office of the citizen.” Might the suggestion that citizen is a public office help advance the thesis that citizenship entails obligations as well as rights? HAASS: An interesting construct. I like it. It kind of adds a bit of heft, because we tend to sort of just talk about citizenship, almost dismiss it at times. Well, he's just an ordinary person. But I like the idea of an office, that it's—that you're—because that suggests a degree of empowerment and a degree, again, of obligation. So I like the idea. I think it kind of—kind of it gets people to take the potential to make a difference a little bit more seriously. And I really like it. So that's a useful construct. So thank you for that. FASKIANOS: OK. We have a few more minutes. Richard, is there anything you want to leave the group with that we haven't covered? HAASS: I know I'm always supposed to say yes at this point, but no. It's been a really wide-ranging conversation. No, and I think what I'm hoping is that people on a call such as this will think about how to promote—you know, particularly on campuses and schools—the teaching of civics. Both to create a mandate for it, and then we can debate the content. But the idea that—you know, one of the arguments often used that I encounter—I'm not in a position to judge its accuracy—is that too many of the constituencies on campus oppose this, particularly it's often said to me, you know, faculty, or whatever. And I think the faculty could make an important difference by basically saying: Actually, no. We don't oppose this. We think this is a swell idea. And we're prepared to work with administrators, students, and the rest, to make it happen. And I think that would be fantastic. So, again, you're the multipliers. And I think you're in a special position to do this. So, again, I think freshman year experience is a good place to get the kids going, the students going with this. But I do think, whether it's a course or a module at some point, it needs—but we need advocates for it. So I hope some of you on this call will be advocates, because I just think we're missing not just an opportunity but, if you'll pardon the expression, we're missing an obligation to see that—to make sure that our students are prepared to do their bit, to do their share, for upholding democracy in this country. And so I just think universities and colleges have, again, a special opportunity and obligation both. And you're all so instrumental to do that. So Godspeed in that effort. FASKIANOS: Well, with that, thank you very much, Richard. Thank you for writing, authoring, this book, The Bill of Obligations. Richard has also written teaching notes to go with the book that we will be posting on the website alter this week. If you're interested in an exam copy, either digital or print, we can—we can honor that request. And if you want to try to make—put his book on the common reading list or incorporate it into your first-year experience, we can also think about having Richard address the incoming class virtually or perhaps in person. We appreciate all that you have done, Richard. He has really transformed CFR into an educational institution. You should check out Model Diplomacy and World 101. You can follow Richard on Twitter at @richardhaass, subscribe to his Substack newsletter which he just launched, called Home and Away, by going to richardhaass.substack.com. We'll include those links in our follow-up note with the link to this video and transcript. We will include the teaching notes as well. And I also encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thank you all for being with us today, for the work that you do on your college campuses. And, Richard Haass, again, thank you for being with us. HAASS: Thank you, Irina. Thank you, all. I appreciate it. (END)

John Petrides, portfolio manager at Tocqueville Asset Management, says that the stock market has come back around to a good time for investors to buy the dips, largely because the market's decline last year did 'so much of the heavy lifting' to put stocks in a better buying position. While Petrides expects continued earnings contraction, he says 'We're probably closer to the bottom than we were at this time last year.' Also on the show, Tom Lydon, vice chairman at VettaFi picks a precious metals fund for a 200-day moving average play on current conditions, Meagan Dow, senior strategist at Edward Jones discusses the firm's recent survey showing that Americans are prioritizing financial wellness but aren't making much much progress toward it., and Burns McKinney of NFJ Investment Group, talks about buying value stocks in the Money Life Market Call. 

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comAurelian is a political scientist and professor at Indiana University in Bloomington. His two most recent books are A Virtue for Courageous Minds: Moderation in French Political Thought and Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes. His forthcoming book is Why Not Moderation?: Letters to Young Radicals. If you think you know what moderation is, Aurelian will surprise you. Not mushy; not vague; not the median: it's a political temperament and philosophy with its own distinctive heritage. We talk of Raymond Aron and George Orwell, Albert Camus and Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah Berlin and Adam Michnik. And why we need these kinds of thinkers today.For two clips of our convo — on whether the right or left is more of a threat to moderates, and why moderates oppose the notion of salvation — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: Aurelian growing up in communist Romania near Ukraine; his five key principles of moderation; the French philosopher Raymond Aron and his rivalry with Sartre; Camus and Orwell as men of the left whom leftists hated; Isaiah Berlin and pluralism; Tocqueville, Judith Shklar, and Montaigne; relativism vs. skepticism; Keynes, and how liberty and equality are not incompatible; Machiavelli and the role of luck in politics; Oakeshott, politics as the art of improvisation; Adam Michnik's courage in dark times; Plato on when moderation is not a good thing; MLK's critique of moderates, Flight 93 elections, the Benedict Option, the cancel culture of the right, Oscar Wilde and the need for relaxed humor in politics. Yes, it was a lot. But we had a lot of fun as well.

By examining the writings of twentieth-century thinkers such as Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Norberto Bobbio, Michael Oakeshott, and Adam Michnik, Prof. Aurelian Craiutu's Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes (U Pennsylvania Press, 2017) argues that moderation remains crucial for today's encounters with new forms of extremism. In his interview with an old friend, Craiutu candidly talks about his scholarly trajectory from Romania to Indiana at Bloomington, his momentous encounter with the works of de Tocqueville and his long-time friendship with Romanian philosopher Mihai Sora, as well as the ways in which the virtue of moderation can instill civility, respect and dialogue in politics and daily life. The interview also anticipates another book on moderation he will publish later this year with Cambridge University Press. Lavinia Stan is a professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

By examining the writings of twentieth-century thinkers such as Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Norberto Bobbio, Michael Oakeshott, and Adam Michnik, Prof. Aurelian Craiutu's Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes (U Pennsylvania Press, 2017) argues that moderation remains crucial for today's encounters with new forms of extremism. In his interview with an old friend, Craiutu candidly talks about his scholarly trajectory from Romania to Indiana at Bloomington, his momentous encounter with the works of de Tocqueville and his long-time friendship with Romanian philosopher Mihai Sora, as well as the ways in which the virtue of moderation can instill civility, respect and dialogue in politics and daily life. The interview also anticipates another book on moderation he will publish later this year with Cambridge University Press. Lavinia Stan is a professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

By examining the writings of twentieth-century thinkers such as Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Norberto Bobbio, Michael Oakeshott, and Adam Michnik, Prof. Aurelian Craiutu's Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes (U Pennsylvania Press, 2017) argues that moderation remains crucial for today's encounters with new forms of extremism. In his interview with an old friend, Craiutu candidly talks about his scholarly trajectory from Romania to Indiana at Bloomington, his momentous encounter with the works of de Tocqueville and his long-time friendship with Romanian philosopher Mihai Sora, as well as the ways in which the virtue of moderation can instill civility, respect and dialogue in politics and daily life. The interview also anticipates another book on moderation he will publish later this year with Cambridge University Press. Lavinia Stan is a professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Entrepreneurship is by no means exclusively American. But this country has led the way in unleashing, encouraging and elevating entrepreneurship as the creative and virtuous pathway to the creation of new value for all. As a republic, we've established the institutional framework in which entrepreneurship can flourish, and entrepreneurs who are successful in creating value reap — and keep — the rewards. Dr. Samuel Gregg, in his book The Next American Economy, examines how this framework was designed at the founding, and discusses what we must all do to preserve it and re-animate it despite the attacks on it from the left. Knowledge Capsule Entrepreneurship and the founding of America are intertwined. America remains the most entrepreneurial country in the world, even if the degree is declining. Our nation has many people willing to pursue the uncertain path of creating new economic value for customers through new products, services and businesses; and, equally importantly, people who will try and buy the new offerings. Alexis de Tocqueville captured the entrepreneurial character in Democracy In America. He thought everyone in America was entrepreneurial. He noted that those immigrants who arrived would quickly start a business, then move on to another one. He observed the tremendous creative energy of the United States. Immigrants have already embraced change in the act of leaving one country to establish themselves in another, and business entrepreneurship is a direct expression of this same love of change. In fact, says Dr. Gregg, America was designed by its Founding Fathers — as they plainly expressed in the Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, the Federalist papers and documents like Washington's Farewell Address - as a commercial republic based on entrepreneurship, and not a political or military or top-down republic or mass democracy. Commerce — or what we would call business — was not viewed with disdain, as it was in aristocratic Britain, but as republican virtue. Washington's Farewell Address refers to the importance of expanding, of national and international navigation and trading, and about the development of strong markets to give Americans an outlet for their production. Business was viewed as the height of civilizational activity. There was a commercial ethic in the vision of a commercial republic which would grow wealth for all. Economic expectations were high and political institutions were designed to be compatible with these economic expectations. There is an increasing trend towards government and the administrative state strangling the creative energy of American entrepreneurship. The erosion of institutional integrity shift and suppresses the creative energy of entrepreneurs. A strong tradition of property rights, in which entrepreneurs can feel confident that they will not only be able to earn but also keep the reward that come from satisfying customers and meeting demand, is an important element of the incentive structure for entrepreneurship. Similarly, entrepreneurs need to feel confidence that commercial disputes will be fairly adjudicated in courts. And they also need to feel confidence that government regulation will not act as an unreversible ratchet of restrictions on their value-creation activities. The trends in the business environment in the US are currently running in the opposite direction: the property rights of successful entrepreneurs are being increasingly questioned and squeezed, commercial interests are viewed unfavorably in courts, and the regulation ratchet is running in the direction of more, not less, restriction on commerce. Dr. Gregg sees the anti-entrepreneurship trend beginning in the Progressive Era and gathering pace since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Progressives seek forms of control that will suppress economic uncertainty and social turbulence. The entrepreneurial embrace of change and pursuit of new value must be suppressed. If society and the economy is to conform to their design, unpredictable creativity must be excluded. The progressive control urge took expanded form in the New Deal and the Great Society and all the successive opportunistically explosive expansions of government power. The anti-entrepreneurial tool is regulation and the administrative state. Dr. Gregg employs the term corporatism to mean legislators and elected politicians, government departments and their administrative bureaucracies working together with big corporations and NGO's to impose control through regulation — “attempting to manage everything for everyone else”. Corporatism is very uncomfortable with freedom, and is more than willing to trade off liberty, and the capacity of markets for entrepreneurial competition, in favor of stagnation and the vision of engineering a specific economic outcome. Their preference is for a form of regulatory state capitalism that exerts control over free enterprise. Recently developed constraints such as ESG and DEI are a manifestation of state capitalism with a particular ideological edge that emanates from left-leaning politics. Companies can no longer have a free choice in the assembly and orchestration of their human capital, which will seriously impair the capacity of the economy to deliver what consumers expect of it. Most of the government's regulation is not aimed at any “public good” (e.g., overall workplace safety) but at special protections for specific interest groups. Often, the businesses who are protecting their interests are the ones who, first, initiate the regulation, and second, write it, through their lobbying firms. If citizens were more habituated to asking who is the group behind any specific regulation, there'd be a greater understanding of this problem and a developing distaste for regulation. Dr. Gregg sees the expansion of state capitalism and the regulatory state as cyclical and capable of reversal. The trends are in the wrong direction, but are not irreversible. Dr. Gregg expressed great confidence in the ability of Americans to work their way around the regulatory barriers to creative entrepreneurship. He highlighted two of the optimistic themes in his book: Capital, capital, capital: Regulation has made it increasingly difficult to match up small entrepreneurial businesses with the capital they need. It takes lots of expensive lawyers to navigate the regulatory jungle that exists for capital acquisition in the us. Yet, American entrepreneurs are proving to be just as creative in capital acquisition as in other fields. They can find their way around the regulatory system. Inventions such as crowdsourcing are a good example of new ways to access capital. The fintech industry is entirely dedicated to freer access to capital. Angel funds, regional and local venture capital funds, new entrepreneurial communities (such as Brandjectory) and new two-sided investment platforms provide more impetus. Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate: If we want to retain the American edge in entrepreneurship, we should focus on reducing the size and scope of the regulation at the local, state and federal level. One of Dr. Gregg's fears is that individuals become political entrepreneurs, and their efforts are directed towards finding ways to thrive in an expanding administrative state and insufficiently on creating new and improved products. Let's find creative ways to reduce regulations, rather than creative ways to survive. Additional Resources The Next American Economy: Nation, State And Markets In An Uncertain World by Samuel Gregg: Mises.org/E4B_206_Book

Antifa is back, with their determination to burn the world away and replace it with their Millennium, their utopia. Their Anarchism, as the Legalism of other Leftists, has and can never produce anything other than pain. These ideas of eliminating the rule of law or of legislating away our human frailties is their justification for killing, burning, and destroying. They can be stopped. Each of us should take part in doing so.Would you like to share your thoughts with Ralph?  Please email your comments to hello@idahospeaks.com or post your comments on @IdahoSpeaks on Twitter.Idaho Speaks is a listener supported production.  Please visit idahospeaks.com/support to learn more.Do you have something so say?  Interested in learning more about publishing on the Idaho Speaks Network?  Our nation was built on ideas and your idea could be the next political advancement for Idaho.  Call Ed at (208) 209-7170 or email hello@idahospeaks.com to start the conversation.

Entrepreneurship is by no means exclusively American. But this country has led the way in unleashing, encouraging and elevating entrepreneurship as the creative and virtuous pathway to the creation of new value for all. As a republic, we've established the institutional framework in which entrepreneurship can flourish, and entrepreneurs who are successful in creating value reap — and keep — the rewards. Dr. Samuel Gregg, in his book The Next American Economy, examines how this framework was designed at the founding, and discusses what we must all do to preserve it and re-animate it despite the attacks on it from the left. Knowledge Capsule Entrepreneurship and the founding of America are intertwined. America remains the most entrepreneurial country in the world, even if the degree is declining. Our nation has many people willing to pursue the uncertain path of creating new economic value for customers through new products, services and businesses; and, equally importantly, people who will try and buy the new offerings. Alexis de Tocqueville captured the entrepreneurial character in Democracy In America. He thought everyone in America was entrepreneurial. He noted that those immigrants who arrived would quickly start a business, then move on to another one. He observed the tremendous creative energy of the United States. Immigrants have already embraced change in the act of leaving one country to establish themselves in another, and business entrepreneurship is a direct expression of this same love of change. In fact, says Dr. Gregg, America was designed by its Founding Fathers — as they plainly expressed in the Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, the Federalist papers and documents like Washington's Farewell Address - as a commercial republic based on entrepreneurship, and not a political or military or top-down republic or mass democracy. Commerce — or what we would call business — was not viewed with disdain, as it was in aristocratic Britain, but as republican virtue. Washington's Farewell Address refers to the importance of expanding, of national and international navigation and trading, and about the development of strong markets to give Americans an outlet for their production. Business was viewed as the height of civilizational activity. There was a commercial ethic in the vision of a commercial republic which would grow wealth for all. Economic expectations were high and political institutions were designed to be compatible with these economic expectations. There is an increasing trend towards government and the administrative state strangling the creative energy of American entrepreneurship. The erosion of institutional integrity shift and suppresses the creative energy of entrepreneurs. A strong tradition of property rights, in which entrepreneurs can feel confident that they will not only be able to earn but also keep the reward that come from satisfying customers and meeting demand, is an important element of the incentive structure for entrepreneurship. Similarly, entrepreneurs need to feel confidence that commercial disputes will be fairly adjudicated in courts. And they also need to feel confidence that government regulation will not act as an unreversible ratchet of restrictions on their value-creation activities. The trends in the business environment in the US are currently running in the opposite direction: the property rights of successful entrepreneurs are being increasingly questioned and squeezed, commercial interests are viewed unfavorably in courts, and the regulation ratchet is running in the direction of more, not less, restriction on commerce. Dr. Gregg sees the anti-entrepreneurship trend beginning in the Progressive Era and gathering pace since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Progressives seek forms of control that will suppress economic uncertainty and social turbulence. The entrepreneurial embrace of change and pursuit of new value must be suppressed. If society and the economy is to conform to their design, unpredictable creativity must be excluded. The progressive control urge took expanded form in the New Deal and the Great Society and all the successive opportunistically explosive expansions of government power. The anti-entrepreneurial tool is regulation and the administrative state. Dr. Gregg employs the term corporatism to mean legislators and elected politicians, government departments and their administrative bureaucracies working together with big corporations and NGO's to impose control through regulation — “attempting to manage everything for everyone else”. Corporatism is very uncomfortable with freedom, and is more than willing to trade off liberty, and the capacity of markets for entrepreneurial competition, in favor of stagnation and the vision of engineering a specific economic outcome. Their preference is for a form of regulatory state capitalism that exerts control over free enterprise. Recently developed constraints such as ESG and DEI are a manifestation of state capitalism with a particular ideological edge that emanates from left-leaning politics. Companies can no longer have a free choice in the assembly and orchestration of their human capital, which will seriously impair the capacity of the economy to deliver what consumers expect of it. Most of the government's regulation is not aimed at any “public good” (e.g., overall workplace safety) but at special protections for specific interest groups. Often, the businesses who are protecting their interests are the ones who, first, initiate the regulation, and second, write it, through their lobbying firms. If citizens were more habituated to asking who is the group behind any specific regulation, there'd be a greater understanding of this problem and a developing distaste for regulation. Dr. Gregg sees the expansion of state capitalism and the regulatory state as cyclical and capable of reversal. The trends are in the wrong direction, but are not irreversible. Dr. Gregg expressed great confidence in the ability of Americans to work their way around the regulatory barriers to creative entrepreneurship. He highlighted two of the optimistic themes in his book: Capital, capital, capital: Regulation has made it increasingly difficult to match up small entrepreneurial businesses with the capital they need. It takes lots of expensive lawyers to navigate the regulatory jungle that exists for capital acquisition in the us. Yet, American entrepreneurs are proving to be just as creative in capital acquisition as in other fields. They can find their way around the regulatory system. Inventions such as crowdsourcing are a good example of new ways to access capital. The fintech industry is entirely dedicated to freer access to capital. Angel funds, regional and local venture capital funds, new entrepreneurial communities (such as Brandjectory) and new two-sided investment platforms provide more impetus. Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate: If we want to retain the American edge in entrepreneurship, we should focus on reducing the size and scope of the regulation at the local, state and federal level. One of Dr. Gregg's fears is that individuals become political entrepreneurs, and their efforts are directed towards finding ways to thrive in an expanding administrative state and insufficiently on creating new and improved products. Let's find creative ways to reduce regulations, rather than creative ways to survive. Additional Resources The Next American Economy: Nation, State And Markets In An Uncertain World by Samuel Gregg: Mises.org/E4B_206_Book

Entrepreneurship is by no means exclusively American. But this country has led the way in unleashing, encouraging and elevating entrepreneurship as the creative and virtuous pathway to the creation of new value for all. As a republic, we've established the institutional framework in which entrepreneurship can flourish, and entrepreneurs who are successful in creating value reap — and keep — the rewards. Dr. Samuel Gregg, in his book The Next American Economy, examines how this framework was designed at the founding, and discusses what we must all do to preserve it and re-animate it despite the attacks on it from the left. Knowledge Capsule Entrepreneurship and the founding of America are intertwined. America remains the most entrepreneurial country in the world, even if the degree is declining. Our nation has many people willing to pursue the uncertain path of creating new economic value for customers through new products, services and businesses; and, equally importantly, people who will try and buy the new offerings. Alexis de Tocqueville captured the entrepreneurial character in Democracy In America. He thought everyone in America was entrepreneurial. He noted that those immigrants who arrived would quickly start a business, then move on to another one. He observed the tremendous creative energy of the United States. Immigrants have already embraced change in the act of leaving one country to establish themselves in another, and business entrepreneurship is a direct expression of this same love of change. In fact, says Dr. Gregg, America was designed by its Founding Fathers — as they plainly expressed in the Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, the Federalist papers and documents like Washington's Farewell Address - as a commercial republic based on entrepreneurship, and not a political or military or top-down republic or mass democracy. Commerce — or what we would call business — was not viewed with disdain, as it was in aristocratic Britain, but as republican virtue. Washington's Farewell Address refers to the importance of expanding, of national and international navigation and trading, and about the development of strong markets to give Americans an outlet for their production. Business was viewed as the height of civilizational activity. There was a commercial ethic in the vision of a commercial republic which would grow wealth for all. Economic expectations were high and political institutions were designed to be compatible with these economic expectations. There is an increasing trend towards government and the administrative state strangling the creative energy of American entrepreneurship. The erosion of institutional integrity shift and suppresses the creative energy of entrepreneurs. A strong tradition of property rights, in which entrepreneurs can feel confident that they will not only be able to earn but also keep the reward that come from satisfying customers and meeting demand, is an important element of the incentive structure for entrepreneurship. Similarly, entrepreneurs need to feel confidence that commercial disputes will be fairly adjudicated in courts. And they also need to feel confidence that government regulation will not act as an unreversible ratchet of restrictions on their value-creation activities. The trends in the business environment in the US are currently running in the opposite direction: the property rights of successful entrepreneurs are being increasingly questioned and squeezed, commercial interests are viewed unfavorably in courts, and the regulation ratchet is running in the direction of more, not less, restriction on commerce. Dr. Gregg sees the anti-entrepreneurship trend beginning in the Progressive Era and gathering pace since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Progressives seek forms of control that will suppress economic uncertainty and social turbulence. The entrepreneurial embrace of change and pursuit of new value must be suppressed. If society and the economy is to conform to their design, unpredictable creativity must be excluded. The progressive control urge took expanded form in the New Deal and the Great Society and all the successive opportunistically explosive expansions of government power. The anti-entrepreneurial tool is regulation and the administrative state. Dr. Gregg employs the term corporatism to mean legislators and elected politicians, government departments and their administrative bureaucracies working together with big corporations and NGO's to impose control through regulation — “attempting to manage everything for everyone else”. Corporatism is very uncomfortable with freedom, and is more than willing to trade off liberty, and the capacity of markets for entrepreneurial competition, in favor of stagnation and the vision of engineering a specific economic outcome. Their preference is for a form of regulatory state capitalism that exerts control over free enterprise. Recently developed constraints such as ESG and DEI are a manifestation of state capitalism with a particular ideological edge that emanates from left-leaning politics. Companies can no longer have a free choice in the assembly and orchestration of their human capital, which will seriously impair the capacity of the economy to deliver what consumers expect of it. Most of the government's regulation is not aimed at any “public good” (e.g., overall workplace safety) but at special protections for specific interest groups. Often, the businesses who are protecting their interests are the ones who, first, initiate the regulation, and second, write it, through their lobbying firms. If citizens were more habituated to asking who is the group behind any specific regulation, there'd be a greater understanding of this problem and a developing distaste for regulation. Dr. Gregg sees the expansion of state capitalism and the regulatory state as cyclical and capable of reversal. The trends are in the wrong direction, but are not irreversible. Dr. Gregg expressed great confidence in the ability of Americans to work their way around the regulatory barriers to creative entrepreneurship. He highlighted two of the optimistic themes in his book: Capital, capital, capital: Regulation has made it increasingly difficult to match up small entrepreneurial businesses with the capital they need. It takes lots of expensive lawyers to navigate the regulatory jungle that exists for capital acquisition in the us. Yet, American entrepreneurs are proving to be just as creative in capital acquisition as in other fields. They can find their way around the regulatory system. Inventions such as crowdsourcing are a good example of new ways to access capital. The fintech industry is entirely dedicated to freer access to capital. Angel funds, regional and local venture capital funds, new entrepreneurial communities (such as Brandjectory) and new two-sided investment platforms provide more impetus. Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate: If we want to retain the American edge in entrepreneurship, we should focus on reducing the size and scope of the regulation at the local, state and federal level. One of Dr. Gregg's fears is that individuals become political entrepreneurs, and their efforts are directed towards finding ways to thrive in an expanding administrative state and insufficiently on creating new and improved products. Let's find creative ways to reduce regulations, rather than creative ways to survive. Additional Resources The Next American Economy: Nation, State And Markets In An Uncertain World by Samuel Gregg: Mises.org/E4B_206_Book

Our elected officials should meet in a swamp in the pouring rain while knee-deep in muck to prevent corruption! Maybe that idea needs some work, but among other rants, we discuss theories of mass society in the twentieth century. At what point does politics just become the masses ruled by the elites? Has this process already occurred, and if so, how did it happen? Is there any hope in bringing back the educated, independent civic-minded individual, or are we all just ruled by a secret elite anyway? All this and more as we discuss Tocqueville's quiet despotism made real, Marxists' reaction to the lack of revolution, and other theories on how the people may lose power.  Follow us on Twitter! @UlmtdOpinions

On this week's episode, I continue our series on the topic of tyranny and totalitarianism by looking at several writers and philosophers who predicted the future of totalitarianism. Two hundred years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville described what despotism would look like in a democratic nation. About one hundred years ago, C. S. Lewis predicted the rise of tyrants who would act for the "good" of the people. Lastly, about fifty years ago, R. J. Rushdoony warned of the nanny state and the idolatry the lies at its foundation. As we consider the words of these prophets of totalitarianism, let us think about what this means for us today. Where are we now? Have things gone too far? Are we too late? 00:30 - Passage of the Day: Ecclesiastes 5:8-9 (Oppression in the Land) 05:23 - Prophets of Totalitarianism As always, if you have any law/government related questions, feel free to email me at thegbgpodcast@gmail.com, and I will be happy to address them on the program. Thank you and God bless! Follow me on Facebook or Twitter or go to www.ericluppold.com Please support me on Patreon!

On this week's episode, I continue our series on the topic of tyranny and totalitarianism by looking at several writers and philosophers who predicted the future of totalitarianism. Two hundred years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville described what despotism would look like in a democratic nation. About one hundred years ago, C. S. Lewis predicted the rise of tyrants who would act for the "good" of the people. Lastly, about fifty years ago, R. J. Rushdoony warned of the nanny state and the idolatry the lies at its foundation. As we consider the words of these prophets of totalitarianism, let us think about what this means for us today. Where are we now? Have things gone too far? Are we too late? 00:30 - Passage of the Day: Ecclesiastes 5:8-9 (Oppression in the Land) 05:23 - Prophets of Totalitarianism As always, if you have any law/government related questions, feel free to email me at thegbgpodcast@gmail.com, and I will be happy to address them on the program. Thank you and God bless! Follow me on Facebook or Twitter or go to www.ericluppold.com Please support me on Patreon!

Political Theorist Jennifer Forestal's new book is a fascinating exploration of contemporary democracy and how it operates in different spaces. Forestal's avenue into the question of democracy and the space in which it functions comes out of the idea of how spaces are designed and for what reasons. This idea of built environments—be they city centers in urban areas, software architecture, or the existence and width of sidewalks—contribute to how we, as individuals and community members, operate in those spaces. Forestal is paying particular attention to participatory democracy, where community members come together to solve problems collectively.  Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments (Oxford UP, 2021)weaves together the concrete, the actual spaces where we can gather together or where we are pushed apart, and the theoretical, the way democracy, as a concept, draws on the will of the people to govern themselves. In examining democratic theory, Forestal integrates work from Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Dewey, all of whom provide frameworks for thinking about and understanding interactions between individuals and the effort to share responsibility to govern in common. Forestal unpacks the many ways that built environments guide our choices and behavior—from how the layout of a grocery store pushes us towards certain kinds of purchases, to the design of sidewalks or the absence of sidewalks as determining our public engagement or disengagement—and how this is an often overlooked or obscured exertion of power, especially political power. The power of the built environment trains us in a variety of ways, and this is an area where changing the design of the space in which we exist can also change our behavior and can shift our perspectives. Democratic theory is predicated on individuals acting together, and the space in which we do this contributes to the success of these efforts, or their fragmentation. Social media spaces are very much like the physical built environment, and Forestal examines three different social media spaces, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, exploring how they are and are not hospitable spaces for democracy. Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments is an original analysis of how physical and virtual spaces provide individuals with barriers or openings to engagement, and how these spaces can shift our behavior and our priorities. Ultimately, democracy is an idea that must be translated by real people in real spaces and places, and how we all engage with one another is not just important, it is the basis for the implementation of this concept of self-government. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Political Theorist Jennifer Forestal's new book is a fascinating exploration of contemporary democracy and how it operates in different spaces. Forestal's avenue into the question of democracy and the space in which it functions comes out of the idea of how spaces are designed and for what reasons. This idea of built environments—be they city centers in urban areas, software architecture, or the existence and width of sidewalks—contribute to how we, as individuals and community members, operate in those spaces. Forestal is paying particular attention to participatory democracy, where community members come together to solve problems collectively.  Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments (Oxford UP, 2021)weaves together the concrete, the actual spaces where we can gather together or where we are pushed apart, and the theoretical, the way democracy, as a concept, draws on the will of the people to govern themselves. In examining democratic theory, Forestal integrates work from Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Dewey, all of whom provide frameworks for thinking about and understanding interactions between individuals and the effort to share responsibility to govern in common. Forestal unpacks the many ways that built environments guide our choices and behavior—from how the layout of a grocery store pushes us towards certain kinds of purchases, to the design of sidewalks or the absence of sidewalks as determining our public engagement or disengagement—and how this is an often overlooked or obscured exertion of power, especially political power. The power of the built environment trains us in a variety of ways, and this is an area where changing the design of the space in which we exist can also change our behavior and can shift our perspectives. Democratic theory is predicated on individuals acting together, and the space in which we do this contributes to the success of these efforts, or their fragmentation. Social media spaces are very much like the physical built environment, and Forestal examines three different social media spaces, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, exploring how they are and are not hospitable spaces for democracy. Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments is an original analysis of how physical and virtual spaces provide individuals with barriers or openings to engagement, and how these spaces can shift our behavior and our priorities. Ultimately, democracy is an idea that must be translated by real people in real spaces and places, and how we all engage with one another is not just important, it is the basis for the implementation of this concept of self-government. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Political Theorist Jennifer Forestal's new book is a fascinating exploration of contemporary democracy and how it operates in different spaces. Forestal's avenue into the question of democracy and the space in which it functions comes out of the idea of how spaces are designed and for what reasons. This idea of built environments—be they city centers in urban areas, software architecture, or the existence and width of sidewalks—contribute to how we, as individuals and community members, operate in those spaces. Forestal is paying particular attention to participatory democracy, where community members come together to solve problems collectively.  Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments (Oxford UP, 2021)weaves together the concrete, the actual spaces where we can gather together or where we are pushed apart, and the theoretical, the way democracy, as a concept, draws on the will of the people to govern themselves. In examining democratic theory, Forestal integrates work from Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Dewey, all of whom provide frameworks for thinking about and understanding interactions between individuals and the effort to share responsibility to govern in common. Forestal unpacks the many ways that built environments guide our choices and behavior—from how the layout of a grocery store pushes us towards certain kinds of purchases, to the design of sidewalks or the absence of sidewalks as determining our public engagement or disengagement—and how this is an often overlooked or obscured exertion of power, especially political power. The power of the built environment trains us in a variety of ways, and this is an area where changing the design of the space in which we exist can also change our behavior and can shift our perspectives. Democratic theory is predicated on individuals acting together, and the space in which we do this contributes to the success of these efforts, or their fragmentation. Social media spaces are very much like the physical built environment, and Forestal examines three different social media spaces, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, exploring how they are and are not hospitable spaces for democracy. Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments is an original analysis of how physical and virtual spaces provide individuals with barriers or openings to engagement, and how these spaces can shift our behavior and our priorities. Ultimately, democracy is an idea that must be translated by real people in real spaces and places, and how we all engage with one another is not just important, it is the basis for the implementation of this concept of self-government. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Political Theorist Jennifer Forestal's new book is a fascinating exploration of contemporary democracy and how it operates in different spaces. Forestal's avenue into the question of democracy and the space in which it functions comes out of the idea of how spaces are designed and for what reasons. This idea of built environments—be they city centers in urban areas, software architecture, or the existence and width of sidewalks—contribute to how we, as individuals and community members, operate in those spaces. Forestal is paying particular attention to participatory democracy, where community members come together to solve problems collectively.  Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments (Oxford UP, 2021)weaves together the concrete, the actual spaces where we can gather together or where we are pushed apart, and the theoretical, the way democracy, as a concept, draws on the will of the people to govern themselves. In examining democratic theory, Forestal integrates work from Aristotle, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Dewey, all of whom provide frameworks for thinking about and understanding interactions between individuals and the effort to share responsibility to govern in common. Forestal unpacks the many ways that built environments guide our choices and behavior—from how the layout of a grocery store pushes us towards certain kinds of purchases, to the design of sidewalks or the absence of sidewalks as determining our public engagement or disengagement—and how this is an often overlooked or obscured exertion of power, especially political power. The power of the built environment trains us in a variety of ways, and this is an area where changing the design of the space in which we exist can also change our behavior and can shift our perspectives. Democratic theory is predicated on individuals acting together, and the space in which we do this contributes to the success of these efforts, or their fragmentation. Social media spaces are very much like the physical built environment, and Forestal examines three different social media spaces, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, exploring how they are and are not hospitable spaces for democracy. Designing for Democracy: How to Build Community in Digital Environments is an original analysis of how physical and virtual spaces provide individuals with barriers or openings to engagement, and how these spaces can shift our behavior and our priorities. Ultimately, democracy is an idea that must be translated by real people in real spaces and places, and how we all engage with one another is not just important, it is the basis for the implementation of this concept of self-government. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/architecture

The culture war! This topic may have been as familiar to Alexis de Tocqueville in 1830 as it is to us today. What makes for a stable government, and how do the morals and values of the citizens impact the success of a country? This is one of the central questions of Tocqueville's two volume work Democracy in America, and we discuss this work and much more in this episode! Join us as we compare the failure of France's revolutions to America's success, the nature of equality, and how America's people truly govern themselves. We also rant (as always) about whether God has a definite plan for individuals, the need for a national goal, and how federal judges are all just Emperor Palpatine!  Follow us on Twitter @UlmtdOpinions, and leave us a review to win a free Unlimited Opinions t-shirt!

Hi! I am doing the stand up comedy in southeast PA on Friday Jan 13. Get tickets !  Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more   See John Fugelsang in Garrison NY on Jan 21    He's been murdered on CSI, interviewed 2 Beatles on separate continents in the same week, and famously once got Mitt Romney's advisor to call Governor Romney an 'etch a sketch' on CNN. Actor, comedian & broadcaster John Fugelsang hosts 'Tell Me Everything" weekdays on SiriusXM Insight #121. He recently performed in 'The Bill of Rights Concert" alongside Lewis Black & Dick Gregory which aired on AXS.   He's also appeared at Montreal's ‘Just for Laughs' Festival, HBO's U.S Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, hosted America's Funniest Home Videos for ABC and Bill Maher called him ‘one of my favorite comedians'.   Film/TV credits include 'Price Check' opposite Parker Posey, "Becker," "Providence," "Coyote Ugly,"  the religious standup performance film "The Coexist Comedy Tour" (which won Best Documentary at the NYC Vision Fest film festival).  He appears in the upcoming features "The Girl On The Train," "Maggie Black," and he plays two roles in the romantic comedy ‘The Whole Truth' starring Elisabeth Rohm and Eric Roberts.   He's interviewed Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Townshend, Brian Wilson, Yoko Ono, Willie Nelson, Tony Bennett, Alan Rickman, Joey Ramone, Carlos Santana, James Taylor, Bo Diddley, Stevie Nicks, Robbie Robertson, Ravi Shankar, Beyonce Knowles, Olivia Harrison, Garth Brooks, William Hurt, Helen Hunt, Ashanti, John Fogerty, William Shatner, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ed Asner, Nile Rogers, Michael Moore, JK Simmons, Valerie Plame, Ethan Hawke, Brian Dennehy, Mavis Staples, Joel Grey, David Crosby, Graham Nash, Lily Tomlin,  Dave Matthews, Terrence McNally, Stanley Tucci, Michael Shannon, Noel Gallagher,  Jeff Daniels, Rita Moreno, & Carl Reiner.  His interview with George Harrison included JF persuading George to play several songs on acoustic guitar.  This proved to be George's final televised appearance and was broadcast as "The Last Performance."   His new film "Dream On," a road trip in search of the American Dream, was named "Best Documentary" at the NY Independent Film Festival.   Directed by 2 time Oscar nominee Roger Weisberg, the film examines the current state of the American Dream while retracing the journey Alexis de Tocqueville made while writing 'Democracy in America.'   The film features 200 interviews in 55 cities in 17 states, including Mike Huckabee, Barney Frank & Paul Krugman and premieres on PBS Election Day Eve.   Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page

Tocqueville's Democracy in America is only partly a book on America. It's also a book of comparative thinking and it's a book of theoretical invention. So, Democracy in America is a theory of democracy. Part of it is about America and part of it is Tocqueville's theoretical genius pushing through.Olivier ZunzBecome a Patron!Make a one-time Donation to Democracy Paradox.A full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com.Olivier Zunz is the James Madison Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Virginia. He is among the foremost scholars of Alexis de Tocqueville and the author of The Man who Knew Democracy: The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:44Democracy in America - 2:21Tocqueville as Political Theorist - 15:56Tocqueville the Politician - 22:14Tocqueville's Legacy - 27:17Key LinksThe Man who Knew Democracy: The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville by Olivier Zunz"Cancel Tocqueville?" by Tarek Masoud in the Journal of DemocracyLearn more about Olivier ZunzDemocracy Paradox PodcastMichael Ignatieff Warns Against the Politics of EnemiesLarry Diamond on Supporting Democracy in the World and at HomeMore Episodes from the PodcastMore InformationDemocracy GroupApes of the State created all MusicEmail the show at jkempf@democracyparadox.comFollow on Twitter @DemParadox, Facebook, Instagram @democracyparadoxpodcast100 Books on DemocracyDemocracy Paradox is part of the Amazon Affiliates Program and earns commissions on items purchased from links to the Amazon website. All links are to recommended books discussed in the podcast or referenced in the blog.Support the show

PLEASE NOTE: Our Winter Term Registration is now OPEN! Four courses will be IN-PERSON at Noble Horizons; Only two courses will be on ZOOM. When you want to enter a TLC Zoom class, click here TLC is a non-profit membership organization providing the opportunity for lifelong learning to residents of the Northwest Corner of Connecticut and adjacent communities in New York and Massachusetts. TLC's courses cover a wide variety of academic subjects taught by volunteers, all experts in their fields. Click on Course Listings on the left to see what courses we offer. Annual membership dues of $60 per person are fully tax-deductible. There are no other set fees. Individuals may sign up for any number of courses. Classes lasting two hours are held once a week at one of our three conveniently located venues. Attendees are free to come and go as they like; there are no exams. Those taking advantage of TLC's program will rekindle the excitement of learning, expand their horizons, be able to share their knowledge, have fun and make new friends. TLC is a wonderful way to stay involved and well informed. Join today! For more information, click on an item on the left, or contact us by mail or by phone. Taconic Learning Center, Inc. PO BOX 1752, Lakeville, CT 06039 Tel. 860-364-9363 Courses for Winter 2023 Please select "Registration" on the left to register. Click here to enter Zoom meeting for any of the Zoom-based TLC Courses For your Information: Meeting ID: 893 2055 3978. Passcode: 128295 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89320553978?pwd=Y3lSYk5jUHN5ZFhvOWp6azBOWHMwdz09 Location: Noble Horizons Times: Monday, 10am-Noon Dates: Jan 16 - Feb 20 Sessions: 6 decorative leaf MEN PLAN, THE GODS LAUGH, PART II Sessions One and Two: Gen. Burgoyne's campaign to take Albany, NY (ended at Saratoga) and Gen. Clinton's campaign to take Philadelphia, in the American Revolution. No cooperation! Sessions three and four: General Lee's two invasions of the North ending in the battle of Gettysburg. Bloody! Session five: Admiral Yamamoto's campaign to take Wake Island in WW II. A disaster! Session six: Examples of three important elements in waging war: -Tactics: Hannibal and the Battle of Cannae, 262 BC. -Weapons: Henry V and the Battle of Agincourt, 1415 AD -Misdirection: Invasion of Sicily, WW II, and "The Man Who Never Was" Instructor: Thomas Key See this instructor's bio Get Class List Location: Noble Horizons Times: Monday, 1-3pm Dates: Jan 16 - Feb 20 Sessions: 6 decorative leaf The Perennial Questions Why are we here? Who am I? What is true? Human beings have posed these questions as long as they have been able to think. In this six-week class we will take a look at a few of the most enduring approaches to these questions. We will consider ideas about the purpose of human life, the means and ends of self-knowledge, and the challenge of discerning what is really true. Instructor: Lyn Mattoon See this instructor's bio Get Class List Location: ZOOM Times: Tuesday, 1-3pm Dates: Jan 17 - March 7 Sessions: 8 decorative leaf Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville, a young French aristocrat, traveled to America and found the future. The nations of the earth, he concluded, or at least the enlightened part of them, were moving inevitably toward a condition of social equality that in the world of politics was taking the form of democracy. This new kind of polity was rising on the ruins of the old, hierarchical societies, and the young republic was the clearest example of it. Previous visitors from overseas had concentrated on the minutiae of daily American life, but Tocqueville was after bigger game. He wanted to tease out the broad implications of increasing social equality and democracy rather than focus on the details that were bound to differ from one nation to another. These implications then would have the widest possible relevance to the various societies of the emerging modern world. This new dispensation, Tocqueville realized, was full of both promise and peril, and he devoted himself to transmitting this balanced assessment to his European contemporaries. The book that resulted, Democracy in America, has been called the "greatest work ever written about one country by a citizen of another." Because his conclusions were so general and of such wide application his book appropriately addressed the Americans of his own time, his fellow citizens in France still trying to come to terms with the modern world, and, not least, speaks to our own distracted society today, the uneasy inheritor of the raw republic in whose image he saw the future. I'll include a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate my talks. Instructor: Robert Rumsey See this instructor's bio Get Class List Location: Noble Horizons Times: Wednesday, 1-3pm Dates: Jan 18 - Feb 22 Sessions: 6 decorative leaf Experimental Cinema: A six-session session course on the history and the development of Experimental Cinema This course attempts to present the participants a historical view of the genre, styles and the role of the filmmakers who developed and perfected the concept and the vision of Experimental Cinema. Invention of the movie camera offered a broad and diverse tool for artists to express their own interpretation of nature and life around them. Camera became another tool, a "brush" for artists to create moving images which projected their own aesthetic principles and perceptions. There will be a presentation of early cinema from France, Soviet Union, England and the United States. Early films by the Lumiere Brothers to Andy Warhol and how through ages, cinema has evolved from a vehicle to tell a story or document everyday life, to a tool expressing an individual artist's personal vision. Through the sessions of the lectures there will be an ongoing discussion about the goal for Experimental Films, which is to place the viewer in a more active and more thoughtful relationship to the film, which will be discussed. The 6 sessions will be an opportunity for the participants to understand this particular form of cinema and the various expressions and theorizations from various artists. The sessions will be coordinated with projections of stills from movies and at the end of each session there will be screening of a film, and an open discussion by the participants. During the entire sessions of the courses, informal and open-minded discussions of opinions will be encouraged. SPECIAL NOTE: Donald Sosin who is a well regarded musician and has composed musical scores for may experimental films will be appearing at the Wednesday, January 18th session for the Experimental Cinema. please see details below. Donald Sosin is one of the world's foremost silent film composers, performing his keyboard and instrumental scores all over the world. From 1971 to the present he has performed at many of the world's leading venues for silent film, including Lincoln Center, MoMA, BAM, the TriBeCa Film Festival, and many festivals including Telluride, Denver, San Francisco and Seattle, as well as AFI Silver, the Yorkshire Silent Film Festival, the Thailand Silent FIlm Festival, Italy's two major festivals in Bologna and Pordenone, and the Jecheon International Music and Film Festival in South Korea. Donald and his wife Joanna Seaton are the only people in the world who have created a repertoire of new songs for silent films, and have performed at many of the above venues, as well as at many colleges (Yale, Emory, Brown,etc.) They teach workshops in silent film music, and created scores for over 60 DVD/Blu-Ray releases on the Criterion, Kino, Milestone, Flicker Alley and other labels. With klezmer violinist Alicia Svigals, Donald has written and recorded three scores for Jewish-themed silents which they perform live all over the US and Europe under the auspices of the Sunrise Foundation for Education and the Arts. Donald grew up in Rye NY and Munich and played on Broadway for many years, after composition studies at Michigan and Columbia. His music has been heard on PBS, TCM, online, and in the concert hall. Donald and Joanna have two musical children and live in Lakeville CT. Website: oldmoviemusic.com Avant-garde filmography: Donald was commissioned to score the following films for two major collections of avant-garde films, Bruce Posner's Unseen Cinema collection, and Kino's Avant-garde DVD set. Piano except as indicated Anémic Cinéma (1924-26) Rrose Sélavy aka Marcel Duchamp Beggar on Horseback (fragment, 1925) James Cruze Bronx Morning, A (1931) Jay Leyda (chamber ensemble) Coney Island at Night (1905) Edwin S. Porter Enchanted City, The (1922) Warren Newcombe Ghost Train, The (1903) unknown Ghosts Before Breakfast (1928) Hans Richter H20 (1929) Ralph Steiner Hearts of Age, The (1934) William Vance & Orson Welles Jack and the Beanstalk (1902) Edwin S. Porter Life and Death of 9413: A Hollywood Extra, The (1927) Robert Flaherty & Slavko Vorkapich Looney Lens: Pas de Deux (1924) Al Brick Love of Zero, The (1928) Robert Florey & William Cameron Menzies Manhatta (1921) Charles Sheeler & Paul Strand (orchestra) Pie in the Sky (1934-35) Elia Kazan, Ralph Steiner & Irving Lerner Retour à la Raison, Le (1923) Man Ray Skyscraper Symphony (1929) Robert Flaherty Telltale Heart, The (1928) Charles Klein Twenty-Four Dollar Island (c. 1926) Robert Flaherty (voice and synthesized orchestra, percussion) Überfall (1928) Instructor: Varoujan Froundjian Get Class List Location: Noble Horizons Times: Thursday, 10am-Noon Dates: Jan 19 - March 9 Sessions: 8 decorative leaf Unsung Heroes of WWII We all know of Winston Churchill, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower; the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Bulge, and more. What most of us do not know of are the unsung heroes of World War II, those who contributed significantly to the Allies' victory: men and women who were critical to the war effort but engaged in clandestine operations; men and women who provided essential services to the Allied effort. This course is both a lecture by Lynne Olson (author of Citizens of London and other exceptional books) together with classes led by Larry and Carol Rand. Instructor: Larry&Carol Rand Get Class List Location: Zoom Times: Friday, 1-3pm Dates: Jan 20 - March 10 Sessions: 8 decorative leaf Shakespeare Playreading We'll read aloud and discuss Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night's Dream . The two plays are often called "festive" comedies because each commemorates a significant day marked by popular license in the Elizabethan calendar. Twelfth Night refers to the last night of the twelve days of Christmas, and in spite of its religious origin it was a thoroughly secular celebration. A Midsummer Night's Dream takes its title from the evening before midsummer day, the summer solstice and the longest day of the year, when the prospect of warmth and lengthening days inspired much misbehavior. If time permits, we'll also read Troilus and Cressida, one of Shakespeare's so-called "problem plays," which contain both tragic and comic elements and thus resist easy placement in the canon. I'll scroll the texts of the plays on your screens. Instructor: Robert Rumsey See this instructor's bio Get Class List

Fran Lebowitz has been compared to everyone from Dorothy Parker to Oscar Wilde, Alexis de Tocqueville to Mary McCarthy. In other words, she's an original – an idiosyncratic public intellectual who's also wickedly funny. She made a name for herself with her satirical pieces, which appear in her 1994 collection, The Fran Lebowitz Reader. More recently, she was the star and co-producer of the 2021 hit Netflix series, Pretend It's a City. Fran Lebowitz spoke to Eleanor Wachtel when she was in Edmonton for the University of Alberta's Festival of Ideas. *This episode originally aired November 25, 2012.

Heavy Head season three episode one, "Our First American Kin." is written and produced by Tanner Hinds.   - Christopher Columbus voiced by Augustin Sanchez   - Pope Alexander VI, Chaplain, Colonist One, Colonist Two, Thomas Jefferson, Georgia Volunteer, Reporter, and General Sherman voiced by Tanner Hinds   - George Washington, James Mooney, and Alexis de Tocqueville voiced by Loren Hutton   - Narration/Art Design by Evan Verrilli   Award winning original music by Real Blue Heartache Kids. Their music is available wherever you buy or stream music. Follow Real Blue Heartache kids on Instagram using the handle: @realblueheartachekids.   TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains adult language, situations, and graphic depictions of genocide, forced indigenous removal, and racism that may be a trigger for some listeners. Listener discretion is advised.   If you or a loved one is experiencing a psychiatric emergency and live in the United States, please call or text 988 or 1-800-273-8255 or text HOME to 741741 for free and confidential support 24/7/365 from the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and The Crisis Text Line.   Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram using the handle: @heavyheadpod. You can follow creator Tanner Hinds using the handle: @thindscomic. Be sure to subscribe to our official YouTube channel, Heavy Head Podcast. You can email us at heavyheadpod@gmail.com. Please be sure to rate and review us on iTunes. If you enjoy the show, please share us with a loved one!   Merch is available online at https://heavyhead.bigcartel.com

In this episode I speak with Flagg Taylor about the life and writing of Vaclav Benda, and his idea of the parallel polis, decentralization, and creating space in society for culture, the family, charity, education, and human flourishing. Though he was writing under communist regimes, Benda's writings are very relevant today in light democratic pressures to conformity, de-platforming, and especially as a new ontology of the person is being written into law — and dignity is used as weapon against religious and cultural liberty. Benda's idea of the parallel polis was not a siege mentality, nor so much a reform existing structures that had ossified or were corrupted, but a call to build new, innovative, and better structures and social institutions that would activate people's participation in civil, cultural, and commercial life, and give people a sense of purpose and agency. Examples today include decentralized technologies or classical education - which is not running away, but creating better alternatives to mediocre state run schools. We discuss Benda's ideas in the context of Czech communism and also in contemporary America, especially the overlap with Alexis de Tocqueville's warnings about individualism, centralization, and soft-despotism. We examine his engagement with various thinkers including Roger Scruton and J.R.R. Tolkien, and talk about contemporary movements towards decentralization including The Network State by Balaji Srinivasan and its relation to the idea of a parallel polis. We discuss the need for social and commercial alternatives built on a rich understanding of the human person and the family including healthcare, mutual aid societies, banking, payment, insurance and more. Benda's idea of the parallel polis demonstrates that the solution to totalitarianism and centralization is not more centralization or another totalitarianism, but de-centralization and humanization. We discuss a number of Benda essays including: The Parallel Polis, The Meaning Context Legacy of the Parallel Polis, The Family and Totalitarianism, A Critique of the Idea of a Christian State, and his personal reflections that illustrate the constant social pressure of living under communist totalitarianism. Themes and Topics include Albert Hirshman: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Peter Berger on Plausibility Structures Vaclav Havel: Power of the Powerless Greengrocers of the World Unite! Aristotle's Moral and Intellectual Virtues Vaclav Havel Living in Truth Benda focus on resisting the lies of totalitarianism by inhabiting a social spaces and plausibility structures that make living in truth possible. MMM Lecture How to Build a Moral Imagination — new and better ways of live are actually plausible Provide space for dissidents and their children who were excluded by the official social spaces Balaji - The Network State - Network Union - Network Archipelago — cloud first, then land Catholic Variation: Land - Cloud -Land New Ontology of the Person Totalitarian redefinition of biology and sociological reality Dignity as a weapon against religious liberty Testing the Limits in Communism vs Testing the Limits in Modern Democracy De-platforming Cancel Culture Underground Seminars led by Roger Scruton Roger Scruton and Jan Hus Foundation Ortega y Gassett: The Spoiled Child of History Second Culture Charter 77 Essay at Foreign Policy Magazine   VONS Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Prosecuted Religious practice in Slovakia vs Czech Republic vs. Poland Church Persecution by Communists in the 40s - 70s Communist infiltration of Church and official Church collaboration with Communists 70s and 80s. Critique of the Christian idea of a state How politicalization of religion can lead to unbelief Benda compared to contemporary Catholic integralists / post liberal thinkers Pappin, Ahmari, Pecknold on Cultural Christianity and Politics MMM commentary to this essay: Political Catholicism, Liberalism and the Myth of Neutrality Secularism is not neutral J.R.R Tolkien —Benda on the Lord of the Rings as as an analysis of totalitarianism The Scouring of the Shire — See Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt The Hobbit Party link in Resources The family is always a thorn to totalitarian states Marriage and family as essential The Family as the source of 3 fundamental gifts that a person can receive Fruitful fellowship of love Freedom Dignity and unique role of the individual Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) and George Orwell on tenderness as a resistance to totalitarianism Family as a space for freedom, failures, learning How rebellion against parents is modern fashion that the totalitarian or centralizing state desires Authority and Hierarchy Hannah Arendt on Authority and Education (see link in resources) Biography Dr. F. Flagg Taylor IV is an Associate Professor of government at Skidmore College serves on the Academic Council of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. in political science from Fordham University and a B.A. from Kenyon College. Taylor's specialty is in the history of political thought and American government, especially the question of executive power. He is the co-author of The Contested Removal Power, 1789-2010, author of numerous articles, and editor of The Great Lie: Classic and Recent Appraisals of Ideology and Totalitarianism and The Long Night of the Watchman: Essays by Václav Benda, 1977-1989. Resources Flagg Taylor Website Vaclav Benda Biography   The Enduring Interest Podcast on Apple Flagg Taylor Podcast at Podbean MMM talk at Catholic Crypto Conference: Building a Parallel Polis: Social and Technological Decentralization Peter Fiala Flagg Taylor podcast interview on Hannah Arendt Key Quotes From “The Meaning Context Legacy of the Parallel Polis” There is, however, a fundamental difference between the natural resistance of life to totalitarianism and the deliberate expansion of the space in which the parallel polis can exist.  The former is a cluster of flowers that has grown into place accidentally sheltered from the killing winds of totalitarianism and easily destroyed when those winds change direction. The latter is a trench whose elimination depends strictly on a calculated move by the state power to destroy it.  Given the time and means available only a certain number of trenches can be eliminated. If, at the same time, the parallel polis is able to produce more such trenches than it loses ,a situation arises that is morally dangerous for the regime; it is a blow at the very heart of its power — that is, the possibility of intervening anywhere without limitation.  The mission of the parallel polis is to constantly conquer new territory to make its parallelness constantly more substantial and more present. Benda p. 233 From “The Family and Totalitarianism” I consider marriage and the family to be so essential that I am unwilling to accept the regular clichés about liberation from these obligations. So, in the Christian version as we know it, which for centuries dominated the western world, the family was, as well as many other good things, a visible embodiment of the three most fundamental gifts or dignity is that a person could receive… Benda lists three gifts: “Fruitful fellowship of love in which we are bound together with our neighbor without pardon by virtue simply of our closeness; not on the basis of merit rights and entitlements, but by virtue of mutual need and its affectionate reciprocation” “Freedom and the ability to make permanent, eternal decisions … and acts of fidelity…that stand in radical defiance of our finitude” “Dignity and the unique role of the individual

On this episode of the Global Exchange, Colin Robertson talks about Mexico, four years into Andrés Manuel López Obrador's presidency with Andrés Rozental. Participant's bio: Andrés Rozental is a retired Mexican diplomat and the founding President of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations – https://apcoworldwide.com/people/andres-rozental/ Host bio: Colin Robertson is a former diplomat, and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, https://www.cgai.ca/colin_robertson Read: "Mexico's Dying Democracy: AMLO and the Toll of Authoritarian Populism" by Denise Dresser – https://www.foreignaffairs.com/mexico/mexico-dying-democracy-amlo-toll-authoritarian-populism-denise-dresser The Solitude of Latin America by Gabriel Marcía Márquez – https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1982/marquez/lecture/ Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville – https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm America Through Foreign Eyes by Jorge G. Castañeda – https://global.oup.com/academic/product/america-through-foreign-eyes-9780190224493?cc=ca&lang=en& Recording Date: 10 Nov 2022. Give 'The Global Exchange' a review on Apple Podcast! Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Joe Calnan. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

Mark Featherstone joins us for this episode of Collective Intellectualities. Mark is Professor of Social and Political Theory at Keele University, UK. He is author of Tocqueville's Virus: Utopia and Dystopia in Western Social and Political Theory (Routledge, 2007), Planet Utopia: Utopia, Dystopia, and the Global Imaginary (Routledge, 2017), and editor of The Sociology of Debt (Policy, 2019), and Writing the Body Politic: A John O'Neill Reader (Routledge, 2019). He is also editor of Cultural Politics (Duke University Press). We chat about the disenchanted university, themes of utopia and dystopia, and how growing up in Hull in the 1970s influenced the direction of his research.Links to select works:Tocqueville's Virus: Utopia and Dystopia in Western Social and Political Theory (Routledge, 2007)https://www.routledge.com/Tocquevilles-Virus-Utopia-and-Dystopia-in-Western-Social-and-Political/Featherstone/p/book/9780415542470Planet Utopia: Utopia, Dystopia, and the Global Imaginary (Routledge, 2017)https://www.routledge.com/Planet-Utopia-Utopia-Dystopia-and-Globalisation/Featherstone/p/book/9780367864255The Sociology of Debt (editor, Policy, 2019)https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/the-sociology-of-debtWriting the Body Politic: A John O'Neill Reader (editor, Routledge, 2019)https://www.routledge.com/Writing-the-Body-Politic-A-John-ONeill-Reader/Featherstone-Kemple/p/book/9780367726805

Could anyone have predicted the future of America 200 years ago? Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw a society fraught with materialism and “soft despotism" in his classic study of self-governance, freedom, and equality, Democracy in America. Pete Peterson, Dean of the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, and Michael Knowles discuss what we can learn from de Tocqueville's prophetic words.

In this episode I speak with Jonathan Bi about the ideas of Rene Girard, social pressure, authentic and false desires, victims and scapegoats, persecution, and Girardian theories on imitation and violence. We also discuss how Girard's work sheds light on woke capitalism, right and left totalitarianism, Max Scheler, Hannah Arendt, Alexis de Tocqueville, and more. We discuss many themes including: Christianity and Girard's theory and the secularization and falsification of Christian values such as how humanitarianism and pacificism replace charity and peace and justice and more. Evangelical Counsels and The Rule of St. Benedict as a response to metaphysical desire Different views of the problem of evil: Hegel, Rousseau, Ratzinger, Solzhenitsyn, Girard Human Perfectibility and Utopianism Hope and Progress Benedict XVI Spe Salvi On the goodness of being in the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and St. Augustine. There is no technical solution to the problems of evil, suffering, of death Embedded complexity, the dignity of labor, linear time, and how we live in a Christian civilization Girard's explanation of how scapegoating others for their behavior reveals that we too would be guilty — and why it is folly to think with confidence that we would not go along with the crowd if we lived under the Nazis or a slaveholding society We begin a discussion on the atonement, Girard's views and how to think about sacrifice — that we'll have to finish in more detail We also have a discussion about Christianity and Buddhism and religious belief. I hope you enjoy. Biography Jonathan Bi is an entrepreneur working on a startup in FinTech and a philosopher focusing on Buddhist philosophy, Continental philosophy, and specifically the work of Rene Girard. Among his many projects he and David Perell have created a seven session video course on the ideas of Rene Girard. Originally from China, Jonathan also grew up in Canada, and studied computer science at Columbia.   https://johnathanbi.com/   Resources Jonathan Bi and David Perell Lectures on Girard On the Atonement — we just got into this briefly, but didn't have enough time or preparation to address it sufficiently. I am going to have another episode on the atonement, and also on Girard and the atonement, but here are two links to Catholic resources view of the atonement  New Advent Catholic Catechism    

De Tocqueville On Christian Nationalism Video of De Tocqueville On Christian Nationalism at Rumble or YouTube In so many ways, ‘Democracy in America was clearly De Tocqueville's views regarding the principles of America and he makes many references to what … Continue reading → The post Episode 379: De Tocqueville On Christian Nationalism appeared first on Sam Adams the 'Puritan Patriot' Returns.

Indian society, the Indian state and the Indian economy are all complex beasts that defy simple narratives. Suyash Rai joins Amit Varma in episode 307 of The Seen and the Unseen to describe how he has tried to make sense of it all -- and how he tries to make a difference. (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. Suyash Rai at Carnegie India, Twitter and The Print. 2. Ideas and Institutions -- The Carnegie India newsletter co-written by Suyash Rai. 3. Interpreting India -- The Carnegie India podcast sometimes hosted by Suyash Rai. 4. Carnegie India's YouTube Channel. 5. Demonetisation -- Episode 2 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Suyash Rai). 6. Religion and Ideology in Indian Society — Episode 124 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Suyash Rai). 7. Suyash Rai on GDP growth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 8. Suyash Rai on public finance: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 9. Suyash Rai on the financial system: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 10. Suyash Rai on changes in state-capital relations in recent years: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 11. Suyash Rai on the judiciary: 1, 2. 12. Suyash Rai on utopian laws that do not work in practice: 1, 2, 3. 13. Suyash Rai on Demonetisation: 1, 2, 3, 4. 14. Paper Menagerie — Ken Liu. 15. Natasha Badhwar Lives the Examined Life -- Episode 301 of The Seen and the Unseen. 16. Conquest and Community: The Afterlife of Warrior Saint Ghazi Miyan -- Shahid Amin. 17. Understanding Gandhi. Part 1: Mohandas — Episode 104 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ram Guha). 18. Understanding Gandhi. Part 2: Mahatma — Episode 105 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ram Guha). 19. The Undiscovered Self: The Dilemma of the Individual in Modern Society -- CG Jung. 20. A Memoir of Mary Ann -- By Dominican Nuns (introduction by Flannery O'Connor). 21. Nathaniel Hawthorne on Amazon and Wikipedia. 22. Flannery O'Connor and “A Memoir of Mary Ann” -- Daniel J Sundahl. 23. GK Chesterton on Amazon and Wikipedia. 24. Alasdair MacIntyre on Amazon, Wikipedia and Britannica. 25. The Moral Animal -- Robert Wright. 26. Gimpel the Fool -- Isaac Bashevis Singer (translated by Saul Bellow). 27. George Orwell on Amazon and Wikipedia. 28. Frédéric Bastiat on Amazon and Wikipedia. 29. Reflections on Gandhi -- George Orwell. 30. Interview of Harshal Patel in Breakfast With Champions. 31. The Double ‘Thank-You' Moment — John Stossel. 32. The Facts Do Not Matter — Amit Varma. 33. The Hippocratic Oath. 34. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart -- Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M Todd and the ABC Research Group on 'fast and frugal heuristics'). 35. The Right to Property -- Episode 26 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan). 36. The World of Premchand: Selected Short Stories — Munshi Premchand (translated and with an introduction by David Rubin). 37. The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood -- Howard Pyle. 38. Ivanhoe -- Walter Scott. 39. The Swiss Family Robinson -- Johann David Wyss. 40. Treasure Island -- Robert Louis Stevenson. 41. One Hundred Years of Solitude — Gabriel Garcia Marquez. 42. Saul Bellow on Amazon and Wikipedia. 43. Dangling Man -- Saul Bellow. 44. Salman Rushdie, Philip Roth, Isaac Bashevis Singer and Bernard Malamud on Amazon. 45. Aristotle on Amazon, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 46. Plato on Amazon, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 47. Gorgias -- Plato. 48. The Dialogues of Plato. 49. Ramayana, Mahabharata and Amar Chitra Katha. 50. Nausea -- Jean-Paul Sartre. 51. The Gita Press and Hindu Nationalism — Episode 139 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Akshaya Mukul). 52. Political Ideology in India — Episode 131 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rahul Verma). 53. Against Sainte-Beuve and Other Essays -- Marcel Proust. 54. What Have We Done With Our Independence? — Episode 186 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Pratap Bhanu Mehta). 55. The Gentle Wisdom of Pratap Bhanu Mehta — Episode 300 of The Seen and the Unseen. 56.  The Aristocratic Liberalism of Alexis de Tocqueville -- Suyash Rai.   57. Narendra Modi takes a Great Leap Backwards — Amit Varma. 58. Ronald Dworkin on Amazon and Wikipedia. 59. Immanuel Kant on Amazon, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 60. Beware of the Useful Idiots — Amit Varma. 61. Don't Choose Tribalism Over Principles -- Amit Varma. 62. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ajay Shah: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 63. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do And Why They Do It -- James Q Wilson. 64. The Moral Sense -- James Q Wilson. 65. Karthik Muralidharan Examines the Indian State -- Episode 290 of The Seen and the Unseen. 66. State Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century — Francis Fukuyama. 67. The Origins of Political Order — Francis Fukuyama. 68. Political Order and Political Decay — Francis Fukuyama. 69. Going from strong as in scary to strong as in capable -- Suyash Rai and Ajay Shah.   70. The Life and Times of Montek Singh Ahluwalia -- Episode 285 of The Seen and the Unseen. 71. Anna Karenina -- Leo Tolstoy. 72. Utilitarianism on Wikipedia, Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 73. Practical Ethics -- Peter Singer. 74. Reasons and Persons -- Derek Parfit. 75. The Repugnant Conclusion. 76. Governing the Commons -- Elinor Ostrom. 77. A Pragmatic Approach to Data Protection -- Suyash Rai. 78. Technology and the Lifeworld -- Don Ihde. 79. Postphenomenology -- Don Ihde. 80. Kashi Ka Assi — Kashinath Singh. 81. Looking at Lucas's Question After Seventy-five Years of India's Independence -- Suyash Rai. 82. India's Lost Decade — Episode 116 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Puja Mehra). 83. The Lost Decade — Puja Mehra. 84. The Importance of the 1991 Reforms — Episode 237 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Ajay Shah). 85. The Art and Science of Economic Policy — Episode 154 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vijay Kelkar & Ajay Shah). 86. In Service of the Republic — Vijay Kelkar & Ajay Shah. 87. Douglass North and Albert O Hirschman. 88. The Intellectual Odyssey of Albert Hirschman -- Suyash Rai. 89. India's Problem is Poverty, Not Inequality — Amit Varma. 90. Democracy in America -- Alexis De Tocqueville. 91. Tocqueville and the Nature of Democracy -- Pierre Manent. 92. The Populist Century -- Pierre Rosanvallon. 93. The Theory of Populism According to Pierre Rosanvallon -- Suyash Rai. 94. After Virtue -- Alasdair MacIntyre. 95. Philosophy of Technology -- Don Ihde. 96. Technology and the Virtues -- Shannon Vallor. 97. Nihilism and Technology -- Nolen Gertz. 98. Lant Pritchett on Amazon, Google Scholar and his own website. 99. Harnessing Complexity -- Robert Axelrod and Michael D Cohen. 100. Mahabharata, Odyssey, Divine Comedy and Rashmirathi. 101. Kishore Kumar, Mohammed Rafi and Lata Mangeshkar on Spotify. 102. Andrei Rublev -- Andrei Tarkovsky. 103. Andrei Tarkovsky, Luis Buñuel, Akira Kurosawa and Satyajit Ray. 104. Mission Impossible, Bad News Bears and Anand. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘The Past and the Future' by Simahina.