Podcasts about american mind

Day Break | Liberty, Leadership & America's Future --- 00:00 - Monologue 19:10 – Carson Holloway, Chair and Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska Omaha and Washington Fellow at the Claremont Institute's Center for the American Way of Life. Holloway discusses his new book, No Liberty to Libel, examining the constitutional debate surrounding New York Times v. Sullivan and whether modern defamation law strikes the right balance between free speech and accountability. 28:08 – Joe Rieck, Vice President of Sales at Longevity. Rieck shares testimonials and success stories from Longevity users, discussing how improved nutrition, quality protein sources, and consistent healthy habits can support long-term wellness. The conversation focuses on practical steps people can take to improve their overall health and quality of life. 38:20 - Monologue 47:23 – John Gordon, host of The Truth with John Gordon, attorney, entrepreneur, and former Trump-endorsed candidate for Georgia Attorney General. Gordon discusses a federal court ruling blocking a proposed $100,000 H-1B visa fee and examines the broader debate surrounding immigration policy, foreign labor programs, and the American workforce. 57:32 – David Goodwin, educator, editor of The Classical Difference Magazine, and co-founder of The Ambrose School in Idaho. Goodwin discusses his new book, Forging the American Mind, exploring classical education, civic formation, and the principles he believes are necessary for cultivating thoughtful and engaged citizens. 1:06:26 – Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment. Kerpen discusses labor policy, union membership, and proposals that would expand union influence in the workplace. He explains why he opposes policies he characterizes as forms of compulsory unionism and argues for greater worker choice. 1:16:36 - Monologue 1:25:39 – Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and advisor to The Heartland Institute. Goreham discusses climate policy, energy markets, and what he sees as growing public skepticism toward climate-related political and regulatory agendas. 1:35:48 – Michael Van Beek, Director of Research at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Van Beek examines proposals to make Michigan's free school meals program permanent and potentially expand eligibility to private school students, discussing the fiscal and educational implications of the policy. 1:44:43 – Vincent Iweanoge, Principal Director of Havit Inc. Iweanoge discusses the ongoing persecution of Christians in Nigeria, including kidnappings, violence, government responses, and the broader international implications of religious persecution and instability in the region. --- Check out our brand new podcast, 'Forgotten America'... Episode 18 is live NOW at Steve Gruber on YouTube! Link below: https://youtu.be/nS_iwvO5SgY

This week, BJ is joined by Dr. Robert Lustig. A Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at UCSF, and the author of numerous books you should read, including The Hacking of the American Mind, which is the subject of this week's interview. Dr. Lustig had a lot to say about the power corporations wield over us, Citizens United, and why you should cut as much sugar from your diet as you can. That's because, like the end result of Citizens United, sugar could kill you. Politically speaking of course.

Greg Lukianoff is one of our nation's foremost defenders of free speech, co-author of "The Canceling of the American Mind," and president of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. His journey to this place wasn't easy, on a personal level, but the depressive spiral Greg eventually transcended gave him insight into the problems plaguing our public discourse. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, Tudor Dixon takes a fascinating journey back to the founding of the United States with Dr. Matthew Spalding, Kirby Professor in Constitutional Government at Hillsdale College and author of The Making of the American Mind. Together, they uncover the dramatic, often-overlooked stories behind the American Revolution — from Caesar Rodney’s overnight horseback ride that helped secure independence to the extraordinary moments many believed reflected divine providence during the fight for freedom. Tudor and Dr. Spalding also explore the deeper ideas that shaped America’s founding: the radical concept that “all men are created equal,” the influence of biblical and classical traditions, the role faith played in the Revolution, and why understanding these stories matters now more than ever. They discuss George Washington’s remarkable leadership, the founders’ views on liberty and government, and how these principles continue to shape the American story today. If you've ever wondered what really happened during America’s founding—or why the nation’s origins remain so important—this conversation offers a powerful look at the ideas, people, and moments that changed history forever.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guets Include: Conservative Caucus Jim Pfaff, American Mind's and the Federalist's Brooke Brandtjen, CFACT's Bonner Cohen, Attorney Mike Pugliese, Rep Scott Fitzgerald, Moms for Liberty's Scarlett Johnson

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

Matthew Spalding, vice president of Washington Operations and dean of Hillsdale in D.C.’s Van Andel Graduate School of Government, joins Hugh Hewitt on the Hillsdale Dialogues to begin a series on the intellectual foundations of the American Revolution.Release date: 01 May 2026See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matthew Spalding, Vice President of Washington Operations and Dean of Hillsdale in D.C.'s Van Andel Graduate School of Government, joins Hugh Hewitt on the Hillsdale Dialogues to begin a series on the intellectual foundations of the American Revolution. Release date: 01 May 2026 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matthew Spalding, vice president of Washington Operations and dean of Hillsdale in D.C.’s Van Andel Graduate School of Government, joins Hugh Hewitt on the Hillsdale Dialogues to begin a series on the intellectual foundations of the American Revolution.Release date: 01 May 2026See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

People joke about bubble-wrapped children, but it's almost that bad. We've become obsessed with eliminating risk. But there's a cost. In this episode, we crack open a Lost Rhino stout and dig into the growing culture of safetyism: how it started with reasonable child-proofing, morphed into stranger danger hysteria, and ultimately produced a generation of emotionally fragile young adults.Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff addressed this question in The Coddling of the American Mind, namely, the unintended consequences of overprotective parenting, and how smartphones turbocharged the demand for emotional "safety." Along the way, we ask the questions nobody wants to ask — like whether COVID lockdowns were the ultimate safetyism stress test, and whether removing all risk from childhood is actually more dangerous than the risks themselves.As Thomas Sowell reminds us: there are no solutions, only trade-offs. So grab a beer, take off the helmet, and let's talk about it.Topics covered:* Growing up in the 70s & 80s vs. today* Haidt & Lukianoff's Coddling of the American Mind* Stranger danger, 24-hour news, and moral panic* Smartphones, social media, and emotional fragility* Campus speech restrictions and trigger warnings* COVID, safetyism, and government overreach* Why some danger is essential to raising resilient kids

Wednesday, April 29, 2026 Our host today is our own Kerby Anderson. First up, Kerby speaks with Matthew Spalding. Professor, Dean, and author, Dr. Spalding shares his insight into America's History, and he brings us his latest book, The Making of the American Mind. Connect with us on Facebook at facebook.com/pointofviewradio and on Twitter @PointofViewRTS with […]

In his new book, The Making of the American Mind: The Story of Our Declaration of Independence, Hillsdale College professor Dr. Matthew Spalding writes,“We must know the Declaration if we truly are to love America.” This week, Dr. Spalding explains how that's the case and how the Declaration expresses the American mind.    

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comGreg is a lawyer, journalist, and author. He's the president of FIRE — the best free-speech group out there. His books include The Coddling of the American Mind (written with Jonathan Haidt), The Canceling of the American Mind (written with Rikki Schlott), and War On Words (written with Nadine Strossen). You can find him on Substack at The Eternally Radical Idea.For two clips of our convo — on whether Biden or Trump has been worse on free speech, and how to decrease wokeness on campus — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: his Russian dad's 100th birthday the day we taped; how he fled the Soviets as an orphan and came to America speaking 7 languages; his British mom coming over as a nanny; growing up among immigrants in Danbury as both a football player and nerd; studying 1st Amendment law at Stanford; the wane of gifted-and-talented programs (which Greg once taught); the declining support for free speech; family breakdown and protecting kids from bad speech; the perils of social media; race wars on X; censorship against porn and age-restriction laws; where Greg disagrees with Jon Haidt; free speech as a form of bullying; Nick Fuentes; how banning people from X increases groupthink; Jon Rauch; sex changes for kids; gay promiscuity; Covid censorship; AI worries; the killing of Charlie Kirk; the infamous Larry Bushart case; the Ozturk case; Rubio's anti-speech crusade against immigrants; Israel and BDS; antisemitism on campus; heckling vs shout-downs; viewpoint diversity; the FCC and Carr; jawboning and merger threats; the Ellisons; Trump threatening law firms; “hate” crimes; mass arrests in UK over speech; the Varsity Blues cheating scandal; and South Park.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Tom Junod on his dad and masculinity, Jerusalem Demsas on the state of the left, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy in a liberal democracy, Adrian Wooldridge on “the lost genius of liberalism,” HW Brands on the life of George Washington, Ben Rhodes on Iran, Harvey Mansfield on modernity, John Gray on Trump's new world, and Robby George on everything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Nearly 50 years after he penned the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "This was the object of the Declaration of Independence, not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion." What was he trying to express? Dr. Matthew Spalding traces the big ideas of the Declaration in his book The Making of the American Mind, including the role of faith and revelation. In this interview, Cole and Dr. Spalding discuss the ideas of liberty, rights, and the theology of the Declaration 250 years later. 

Rod Dodson, hedge fund manager, global risk expert, and fellow Substacker is back on the podcast today to talk about the war with Iran and its strategic implications. In particular, Ron and I delve into what strategic objectives ought to be in a conflict like this one that pits a global superpower against a middle power that sits astride a global trade artery.e discuss the dynamics of alliance politics and how they influence decision making and may not always work in the interest of the stronger party. We both agree that while the war is demonstrating the value of a military alliance with Israel and the Arab states at the operational level, but disagree on the extent to which those alliances negatively impact America's grand strategy.We also discuss the information domain and the propaganda war that has emerged in the American media, and the Trump administration's apparent mishandling of the messaging. Ron rightly points out here and in his American Mind articles linked below that the constant reference to a nuclear threat hasn't done the administration any favors. Subscribe to Tim Talks Politics⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for the full show notes (30% off for podcast listeners)!

How have we allowed such a daring story as the American founding to become so flat? A history lesson so simple, tidy, and inevitable that it can be covered in one day's class? Dr. Matthew Spalding, dean of Hillsdale's Van Andel Graduate School of Government, wants to revive the living story of the American founding—and the Declaration of Independence, in particular. Calling it our nation's "epic poem," he sees in this document as a layered poetic, philosophical, and practical work of the American Mind. This week on HeightsCast, Dr. Spalding invites educators (and everyday citizens) to understand our nation's founding as so much more than just "an Enlightenment experiment." Chapters: 00:03:04 "The American Mind" in 1776 00:08:36 A better definition of patriotism 00:10:57 Declaration of Independence: our epic poem 00:14:43 How and why we teach history 00:16:36 Founding influences: more than the Enlightenment 00:21:46 The American synthesis 00:26:40 "Pursuit of happiness" in context 00:29:22 Why the founding narrative is mistold 00:38:06 New surprises in old studies 00:41:32 Finding common ground today Links: Dr. Matthew Spalding, Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government, Hillsdale College The Making of the American Mind: The Story of Our Declaration of Independence by Matthew Spalding We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future by Matthew Spalding The Founders' Almanac: A Practical Guide to the Notable Events, Greatest Leaders, and Most Eloquent Words of the American Founding by Matthew Spalding Also on the Forum: On the Importance of History, Part I featuring Dr. Matthew Spalding Why Arguments Make History by Mark Grannis Keeping the Story in History by Mark Grannis Featured Opportunities: Parents' Conference at The Heights School (April 25, 2026) Teaching Essentials Workshop at The Heights School (June 22-26, 2026)

In this podcast episode, I'm going to share the books that have been most impactful on my life.I've read a lot of books over the years, but these are the ones that truly changed me. They influenced how I see the world, how I make decisions, and even how I understand myself. Podcast Episode Highlights:These books have been impactful to me (and why)The Devil's Element by Dan Egan10x Is Easier Than 2x by Benjamin Hardy and Dan SullivanBraving the Wilderness by Brené BrownNourishment by Fred ProvenzaThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanThe Indifferent Stars Above by Daniel James BrownThe Pivot Year by Brianna WiestThe War of Art by Steven PressfieldThe Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan HaidtThe Worst Hard Time by Timothy EganUntamed by Glennon DoyleWeapons of Mass Instruction by John Taylor GattoFaith Unraveled by Rachel Held EvansThe Woman They Could Not Silence by Kate MooreFinal thoughtsResources Mentioned in This Podcast Episode:Find links to my favorite books here: https://bookshop.org/shop/theprairiehomesteadLearn more about Meal Craft here: https://mealcraftmethod.com/OTHER HELPFUL RESOURCES FOR YOUR HOMESTEAD:Sign up for weekly musings from my homestead: https://jillwinger.substack.com/Get my free homesteading tutorials & recipes here: www.theprairiehomestead.comJill on Instagram: @jill.wingerJill on Facebook: http://facebook.com/theprairiehomesteadApply to be a guest on the Old-Fashioned on Purpose podcast: https://www.theprairiehomestead.com/podcast-guest-applicationDid you enjoy listening to this episode? Please drop a comment below or leave a review to let us know. This can help other folks learn about this podcast and we also really appreciate the feedback! 

Kathleen O’Toole, associate vice president for K-12 Education at Hillsdale College, is joined by Matthew Spalding to discuss his new book, The Making of the American Mind: The Story of our Declaration of Independence, and the importance of teaching American history properly. Matthew Spalding is vice president of Washington Operations and dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College in Washington, D.C. Learn more: https://k12.hillsdale.edu/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Author and journalist Annalee Newitz looks at the history of psychological operations in their book, “Stories Are Weapons: Psychological Warfare and the American Mind.” It explores misinformation, propaganda and how the stories we hear can manipulate us. The book also features a chapter on the work the Coquille Indian Tribe has done to undo damage these operations did to some Oregon tribes in the past. “Think Out Loud” host Dave Miller spoke with Newitz in front of an audience at a Powell’s Books event on June 4, 2024.

Project Out Loud – Power is not neutral. Whoever controls culture wins the future. That is not theory. It is plain history. The left understood this a century ago. They built networks of publishing, entertainment, academia, and tech. Conservatives wandered into a comfort zone and assumed institutions would remain neutral. That was a fatal misread...

Brian T. Kennedy, president of the American Strategy Group, chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger: China, and a board member and senior fellow of the Claremont Institute, discusses his recent piece at Claremont's American Mind, “Why Attack Iran Now?.” They dive into the complexities of Iran's nuclear ambitions, the implications of a potential attack, and the moral imperative to defend the American homeland. Brian shares his expertise on the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and the need for a strong response.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In hour 1 of The Mark Reardon Show, Mark discusses the wild start to the NCAA Tournament. Mark is then joined by J. Peder Zane, an editor at Real Clear Investigations and Columnist for Real Clear Politics. He discusses his latest column in Real Clear Politics titled, "What Does America Owe Iran?" and also shares his take on the Illinois Gubernatorial race. He's later joined by Mark Hemingway, with Real Clear Investigations. He discusses his latest article in The American Mind titled, "What the Hell Happened to DOGE?" In hour 2, Mark is joined by Stephanie Rhea, the Coordinator of The St Louis Legends. The Legends Games kick off in May and registration is open. Sue then hosts, "Sue's News" where she discusses the latest trending entertainment news, this day in history, the random fact of the day and more. Mark is later joined by Stuart Rosenblum, the Owner of Stuart's American Mortgage. They discuss the current state of the market and more. In hour 3, Mark is joined by Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt. Senator Schmitt discusses the latest on the SAVE America Act, the War in Iran, Markwayne Mullin's hearing, March Madness and more. Mark is then joined by Bob Ramsey, the Voice of Saint Louis Billikens Basketball. Rammer previews SLU's 1st round NCAA Tournament game against Georgia and what they have to do to make a tourney run. They wrap up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

In this segment, Mark is joined by Mark Hemingway, with Real Clear Investigations. He discusses his latest article in The American Mind titled, "What the Hell Happened to DOGE?"

In hour 1 of The Mark Reardon Show, Mark discusses the wild start to the NCAA Tournament. Mark is then joined by J. Peder Zane, an editor at Real Clear Investigations and Columnist for Real Clear Politics. He discusses his latest column in Real Clear Politics titled, "What Does America Owe Iran?" and also shares his take on the Illinois Gubernatorial race. He's later joined by Mark Hemingway, with Real Clear Investigations. He discusses his latest article in The American Mind titled, "What the Hell Happened to DOGE?"

Roger welcomes Dr. Matthew Spalding, Kirby professor in constitutional government and dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College, for a conversation about the ideas and intellectual traditions that shaped the Declaration of Independence. Drawing from his latest book, “The Making of the American Mind: The Story of Our Declaration of Independence,” Spalding explains how the American founding was influenced by classical philosophy, the Christian tradition and centuries of debate about law, liberty and self-government. They discuss the philosophical roots of the Declaration and the influence of thinkers such as Cicero, Aristotle, John Locke and Richard Hooker. Spalding also explores how sermons, pamphlets and debates in the Continental Congress helped shape public understanding during the revolutionary period. Additional topics include the role of natural law in American political thought, the founders' views on religion and liberty, debates surrounding slavery and the Declaration, and the importance of teaching younger generations the true story of America's founding. The conversation also looks ahead to the upcoming America 250 celebrations and the opportunity to renew public understanding of the nation's founding principles.The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS president Roger Ream and produced by Podville Media. If you have a comment or question for the show, please email us at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.Support the show

In this episode of, Jamison is joined by Dr. Matthew Spalding, a distinguished constitutional scholar and Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College. They discuss Dr. Spalding's award-winning book, The Making of the American Mind, which provides a clause-by-clause commentary on the Declaration of Independence. Spalding argues that while many Americans "venerate" the Declaration, few truly understand its deep philosophical and theological roots. The conversation explores the transition from instinctive patriotism—a natural love for one's home—to reflective patriotism, which is rooted in a deep understanding of the nation's founding principles. Spalding describes the Declaration as a "symphony" of legislative logic that synthesizes reason and revelation, drawing from Greek, Roman, and Christian traditions to establish the "laws of nature and of nature's God". For Christian educators, the episode offers profound insights into using storytelling and historical truth to help students transcend themselves and "know" the country they are called to love. Ultimately, the Declaration is presented as the "electric cord" that unifies all Americans through its timeless, universal claim that all are created equal.

The National Security Hour with Major Fred Galvin – America and the West are facing a sustained information warfare campaign designed to demoralize populations, divide societies, and destabilize governments without ever firing a shot. From classrooms and corporate training programs… to media, social media algorithms, and entertainment, narratives are seeded, amplified, and repeated until...

The National Security Hour with Major Fred Galvin – America and the West are facing a sustained information warfare campaign designed to demoralize populations, divide societies, and destabilize governments without ever firing a shot. From classrooms and corporate training programs… to media, social media algorithms, and entertainment, narratives are seeded, amplified, and repeated until...

Dr. Matthew Spalding joins Larry O’Connor to discuss his recently released book, The Making of the American Mind: Our Story of the Declaration of Independence. Discover the people, the history, and—in the words of Thomas Jefferson—the “expression of the American mind” that led to the Declaration and the nation’s Founding. Celebrate America’s 250th anniversary with Hillsdale in D.C. professors, co-hosted with WMAL radio host Larry O’Connor. Discover the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, American culture, and more. New episodes every other week! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What if the skill that makes you a stronger leader is the same skill that protects free speech? In this episode, I'm joined by Greg Lukianoff, First Amendment attorney, to talk about emotional reasoning, why discomfort isn't the same as danger, and what happens when we start treating speech as violence. Greg shares how his own battle with depression and suicidal thoughts led him to CBT and how learning to question his thoughts transformed both his mental health and his leadership. Get ready to rethink what makes us mentally strong and why protecting speech may also mean protecting our resilience. Check out our sponsors: Northwest Registered Agent - Protect your privacy, build your brand and get your complete business identity in just 10 clicks and 10 minutes! Visit https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/achieverfree Shopify - Sign up for a $1 per month trial, just go to http://shopify.com/anxiousachiever Talkiatry - Head to http://talkiaitry.com/achiever and complete the short assessment to get matched with an in network psychiatrist in just a few minutes. Working Genius - Take the working genius assessment today and get 20% off with code ACHIEVER at working http://genius.com Brevo - Meet brevo, the all in one marketing and CRM platform built to help you connect with customers, boost engagement and grow your business smarter. Go to brevo.com/achiever and use code ACHIEVER50 for 50% off.  In this Episode, You Will Learn 00:00 How cognitive distortions shape modern mental health. 07:30 Why Gen X values free speech differently. 13:15 Why words can hurt and still must be protected. 17:45 When does harmful speech cross the line? 21:00 What we lose when speech is treated as violence. 27:00 What does the First Amendment actually protect? 32:00 The emotional cost of defending unpopular speech. 37:00 How depression reshaped Greg's life and leadership. 41:30 Why CBT works for anxious achievers. 44:30 What is the connection between CBT and the mental health crisis among young people? 48:30 The 3 “great untruths” shaping modern anxiety. 51:45 Why great leaders stay intellectually humble. 55:00 Why meaningful work can stabilize mental health. 59:00 How to protect yourself from social media manipulation. 01:01:30 A CBT technique to challenge negative thoughts. Resources + Links Learn more about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) HERE Get your copy of The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff & Jonathan Haidt Get a copy of my book - The Anxious Achiever Watch the podcast on YouTube  Find more resources on our website morraam.com Follow Follow me: on LinkedIn @morraaronsmele + Instagram @morraam Follow Greg: on LinkedIn @greglukianoff + Instagram @glukianoff

In this episode of New Frontiers in Functional Medicine, Dr. Kara Fitzgerald speaks with Dr. Robert Lustig about the new USDA dietary guidelines and the broader forces shaping nutrition and metabolic health. Dr. Lustig brings a characteristically direct and nuanced perspective on sugar, ultra-processed foods, and food policy—raising important questions about what drives real change. It's a thoughtful conversation that challenges assumptions and invites deeper reflection. Full show notes + references: https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/fxmed-podcast/ GUEST DETAILS Robert H. Lustig, MD, MSL, is Emeritus Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at UCSF and a neuroendocrinologist with expertise in obesity, metabolism, and nutrition. Known for his influential work on sugar and ultra-processed foods, Dr. Lustig focuses on improving metabolic health through food system reform, research, and advocacy. He is the author of Fat Chance, The Hacking of the American Mind, and Metabolical, and a leader with Eat REAL, Biolumen, SnapRecall, and Perfact. Website: https://robertlustig.com/ Email: rlustigmd@gmail.com THANKS TO OUR DIAMOND SPONSORS DUTCH: https://dutchtest.com/for-providers Biotics Research: https://www.bioticsresearch.com/ Time—Line Nutrition: https://tinyurl.com/bdzx2xms EXCLUSIVE OFFERS FROM OUR SPONSORS Find out why MitoQ's mitochondria-targeting is a critical step for your healthspan and longevity strategy. http://mitoq.com/drkara CONNECT with DrKF Want more? Join our newsletter here: https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/newsletter/ Or take our pop quiz and test your BioAge! https://www.drkarafitzgerald.com/bioagequiz YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/hjpc8daz Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drkarafitzgerald/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DrKaraFitzgerald/ DrKF Clinic: Patient consults with DrKF physicians including Younger You Concierge: https://tinyurl.com/yx4fjhkb Younger You Practitioner Training Program: www.drkarafitzgerald.com/trainingyyi/ Younger You book: https://tinyurl.com/mr4d9tym Better Broths and Healing Tonics book: https://tinyurl.com/3644mrfw

WMAL GUEST 8:05 AM - INTERVIEW - DR. LUKE FOSTER - Assistant Professor of Government, Van Andel Graduate School of Government Dr. Foster recently published an op-ed in The American Mind titled, We Need Friends, Not Flatterers: https://americanmind.org/salvo/we-need-friends-not-flatterers/ Website: DC.Hillsdale.EDU TOPIC: The Franco-American alliance that helped the U.S. win the Revolutionary War. Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, and @heatherhunterdc. Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 / 8 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the 8 AM Hour: Larry O’Connor and Bethany Mandel discussed: WMAL GUEST 8:05 AM - INTERVIEW - DR. LUKE FOSTER - Assistant Professor of Government, Van Andel Graduate School of Government Dr. Foster recently published an op-ed in The American Mind titled, We Need Friends, Not Flatterers: https://americanmind.org/salvo/we-need-friends-not-flatterers/ Semi quincentennial Celebration Website: DC.Hillsdale.EDU TOPIC: The Franco-American alliance that helped the U.S. win the Revolutionary War. WMAL GUEST 8:35 AM - INTERVIEW - CHRIS SUNUNU - former NH Governor and President and CEO of Airlines for America TOPIC: Discuss the chaos and delays at airports due to partial DHS shutdown During an interview with MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY, TIMOTHEE CHAMELET said that he didn’t want theatrical movie going to end up like the “ballet or opera,” where artists want to “keep this thing alive” even though “no one cares” about it anymore. Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, @bethanyshondark and @heatherhunterdc. Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 / 8 AM Hour See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

(recorded on 3/1/26) - Breht went on Workers' Lit as a guest! "The American ruling class is at war. Physically, they are at war with Iran, pummeling the country with unrelenting airstrikes, slaughtering civilians, and doing their best to make yet another nation unlivable. But they are fighting another war: a psychological war against every one of us. They are building a world of declining literacy, misinformation, confusion, and fear. Combine those two wars and you get an apathetic American populace even as its own country murders untold innocents Breht O'Shea of RevLeft joins Aysha, Jen, and Jacob to discuss these dual wars and how we can fight back." Check out more from Workers' Lit here: https://www.workerslit.com/ Make a donation to Socialist Night School via Venmo @OmahaNightSchool

Jace Lington and Bennett Nuss chat with Adam White about the recent Supreme Court case, exploring the nuances of statutory interpretation, the major questions doctrine, and the implications for executive and legislative powers. The Gray Center team analyzes the court's opinions, historical context, and future legal debates.Notes:Learning Resources, Inc. v. TrumpMichael D. Ramsey making an originalist defense of the Major Questions DoctrineJohn Ehrett's article at The American Mind about the New Right and the Major Questions DoctrineAdam White on the Court's approach to presidential powerJohn Eastman on the tariff as an exercise of foreign policy

Find this episode on YouTube: Reupload** The internet spirits inhabited our audio on the previous upload - we think we have it fixed this time around.John and James tackle the modern technology empire that seems to be consuming all of us. James sums it up pretty well during our convo: "...we are all slowly becoming cyborgs."James Poulos is the Editor of The American Mind and author of multiple books including The Art of Being Free and Human Forever. He is also the host of Zero Hour at BlazeTV which will be returning soon.Zero Hour: https://www.blazetv.com/series/tHP3lVDtMZku-zero-hour-with-james-poulos?channel=seriesConrad's Deli - The best jerky you'll ever have: https://conradsdeli.com/ use promo code "FIRST THINGS" for 10% off.------------------------------------------------------------------------------✒ Substack: https://johnheersftf.substack.com/ⓧ https://x.com/johnfromftf

John and James tackle the modern technology empire that seems to be consuming all of us. James sums it up pretty well during our convo: "...we are all slowly becoming cyborgs."James Poulos is the Editor of The American Mind and author of multiple books including The Art of Being Free and Human Forever. He is also the host of Zero Hour at BlazeTV which will be returning soon.Zero Hour: https://www.blazetv.com/series/tHP3lVDtMZku-zero-hour-with-james-poulos?channel=seriesConrad's Deli - The best jerky you'll ever have: https://conradsdeli.com/ use promo code "FIRST THINGS" for 10% off.------------------------------------------------------------------------------✒ Substack: https://johnheersftf.substack.com/ⓧ https://x.com/johnfromftf

Dr. Robert Lustig—pediatric endocrinologist, bestselling author, and one of the clearest voices on what's happened to our food—joins host Ginny Yurich on The 1000 Hours Outside Podcast for a conversation that feels equal parts wake-up call and real hope. Lustig explains why so much chronic disease isn't really “druggable” but foodable, how ultra-processed food quietly sabotages the mitochondria that power everything, and why the “calories in, calories out” story is the perfect industry shield. Along the way, he breaks down the eight internal “pathologies” that turn our bodies from a shiny red Corvette into a jalopy, shows why kids are paying the price first (from school lunches to baby food), and offers a simple way forward that doesn't require perfection—just a steady return to real food. Mentioned in the episode: Eat Real schools initiative (eatreal.org), Lustig's fiber project BioLumen and Monch-Monch (monchmonch.shop), the grocery-filter tool Perfact (perfact.co), plus his books Metabolical, Hacking of the American Mind, and Fat Chance. Learn more about Dr. Lustig and all he has to offer here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

WMAL GUEST: DR. MATTHEW SPALDING (Vice President for Washington Operations & Dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College) on his new book, The Making of the American Mind: The Story of our Declaration of Independence WEBSITE: DC.Hillsdale.edu SOCIAL MEDIA: X.com/Hillsdale NEW BOOK: The Making of the American Mind: The Story of Our Declaration of Independence Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 / 8 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textLiberal education is for the man of leisure: Either a gentleman engaged in politics, or a philosopher engaged in contemplation. What role, then, can liberal learning have in a mass democracy? In the lecture "Liberal Education and Responsibility," the political theorist Leo Strauss defends his statement that "Liberal education is the ladder by which we try to ascend from mass democracy to democracy as originally meant. Liberal education is the necessary endavor to found an aristocracy within democratic mass society." Along the way, he also discusses religious education, the distinction between the gentleman and the philosopher, and the insufficiency of the great books movement. Wyoming Catholic College professor Pavlos Papadopoulos rejoins the podcast for another dive into Strauss.Leo Strauss's Liberal Education and Responsibility: https://archive.org/details/LeoStraussOnLiberalEducation/Strauss-LiberalEducationResponsibility/NH episode on Leo Strauss's What Is Liberal Education?: https://newhumanists.buzzsprout.com/1791279/episodes/18277048-big-bad-leo-strauss-feat-pavlos-papadopoulos-episode-ciAllan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781451683202Jonathan Swift's The Battle of the Books: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781507890530Mark A. Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780802882042Greg Lukianoff's and Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780735224919Pete Hegseth's and David Goodwin's Battle for the American Mind: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780063215054Robert R. Reilly's The Closing of the Muslim Mind: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781610170024Allan Bloom's translation of The Republic of Plato: https://amzn.to/49ZMPIsAlexis De Tocqueville's Democracy in America (trans. Harvey Mansfield): https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780226805368Cicero's Pro Archia Poeta: https://amzn.to/4buKd7WC.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780060652944Josef Pieper's Leisure The Basis of Culture: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781586172565New Humanists is brought to you by the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/Links may have referral codes, which earn us a commission at no additional cost to you. We encourage you, when possible, to use Bookshop.org for your book purchases, an online bookstore which supports local bookstores.Music: Save Us Now by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.comSupport the show

Roger Rosenblatt wrote a column for the NY Times called Before You Toss that Book… We already loved Roger's books, and this column moved us to reach out to him. We asked if he would come on our show to read the column for our audience and to talk to us about what makes books so important, what keeping books can do to grow your love for the written word. Roger is a national treasure and this conversation was both moving and insightful. If you love books, you must join us. Roger's column: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/28/opinion/favorite-books-cleaning-out.html Find books mentioned on The Book Case: https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/shop/story/book-case-podcast-reading-list-118433302 Books mentioned on this week's episode: Making Toast by Roger Rosenblatt Rules for Aging by Roger Rosenblatt The Man in the Water by Roger Rosenblatt The Boy Detective by Roger Rosenblatt Cold Moon by Roger Rosenblatt Unless it Moves the Heart by Roger Rosenblatt Anything Can Happen by Roger Rosenblatt Thomas Murphy By Roger Rosenblatt Life Itself: Abortion and the American Mind by Roger Rosenblatt Where We Stand by Roger Rosenblatt Lapham Rising by Roger Rosenblatt Beet by Roger Rosenblatt The Story I am by Roger Rosenblatt The Book of Love by Roger Rosenblatt Cataract Blues by Roger Rosenblatt A Steinway on the Beach by Roger Rosenblatt Children of War by Roger Rosenblatt Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov Frankenstein by Mary Shelley Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson Hamlet by William Shakespeare The Far Field by Theodore Roethke Great Expectations by Charles Dickens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Annalee Newitz is the author of Stories Are Weapons: Psychological Warfare and the American Mind, which traces the way disinformation, propaganda, and violent threats have evolved from military weapons deployed against foreign adversaries into tools of domestic culture war. For this episode, Annalee gives us a primer on the ways psychological warfare has long propped up the American colonial project, including the many men who have been the masters of its weaponized storytelling. In addition to providing historical context, I hope this conversation can remind us that while fighting against the world we do not want, we can also hold inside ourselves the world we envision, the one we are fighting for. Get a copy of Stories Are Weapons and Automatic Noodle ⁠Become a Patron⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to support our show and get early ad-free episodes and bonus content Or subscribe to American Hysteria on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Get some of our new merch at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠americanhysteria.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, all profits go to The Sameer Project, a Palestinian-led mutual aid group who are on the ground in Gaza delivering food and supplies to displaced families. Leave us a message on the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Urban Legends Hotline⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Producer and Editor: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Miranda Zickler⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Associate Producer: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Riley Swedelius-Smith⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Additional editing by ⁠⁠⁠Kaylee Jasperson⁠⁠⁠ Hosted by Chelsey Weber-Smith Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of The Right Side with Doug Billings, Doug explores a question sitting beneath today's biggest headlines: who really gets the final say when things go wrong?From America's decision to step away from the World Health Organization, to a Supreme Court case that could reshape the relationship between the President and the Federal Reserve, to the digital systems shaping how the next generation thinks and focuses, this is a wide-angle conversation about sovereignty in the modern age.This episode examines how authority flows through institutions, how accountability and independence create tension in a constitutional republic, and why attention, cognition, and culture may be as important to America's future as law, economics, and national security.Support the show

American college students can't do basic math – and the problem didn't start in college. In this episode of The Deep, Erika breaks down shocking new data from UC San Diego, exposes how grade inflation and dishonest standards hollowed out education, and explores whether the “Mississippi Miracle” is the solution to America's math crisis.Timestamps:0:00 - Intro: college freshman lack high-school math skills2:33 - What the UCSD report uncovered4:18 - Standardized tests and grade inflation7:18 - The system is broken10:07 - Getting at the root to solve the math crisis13:35 - Conclusion: putting the soul back in educationSources:Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987.Horowitch, Rose. 2025. “American Kids Can't Do Math Anymore.” The Atlantic, November 19, 2025. Accessed December 5, 2025. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/math-decline-ucsd/684973/.Piper, Kelsey. 2025. “When Grades Stop Meaning Anything.” The Argument, November 18, 2025. Accessed December 5, 2025. https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/when-grades-stop-meaning-anything. theargumentmag.comRawat, Saannidhya, and Vikram K. Suresh. 2024. GPT Takes the SAT: Tracing Changes in Test Difficulty and Students' Math Performance. SSRN Working Paper, August 3, 2024. Accessed December 5, 2025. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4915452. SSRNSalzman, Matthew, and Tyler Cowen. 2024. “Math, SAT Scores May Be Doing Worse Than We Had Thought.” Marginal Revolution, August 2024. Accessed December 5, 2025. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/08/math-sat-scores-may-be-doing-worse-than-we-had-thought.html.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Matthew Spalding, vice president of Washington Operations and dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle on the brink of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence to discuss the pivotal creed and explain why 'the making of the American mind' is key to understanding the nation and its founding. You can find Spalding's book The Making of the American Mind: The Story of our Declaration of Independence here.The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Matthew Spalding, vice president of Washington Operations and dean of the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle on the brink of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence to discuss the pivotal creed and explain why ‘the […]

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemy.We were excited to record and share this conversation with Matt Dinan, a professor who teaches in a Great Books program at St. Thomas University, a liberal arts college in New Brunswick, Canada. It brings together longtime preoccupations of the show — Saul Bellow's late novel, Ravelstein, Allan Bloom, Straussian political philosophy — with the fraught emergence of LLMs like ChatGPT. This past semester, Dinan took a fairly radical approach to confronting AI in the classroom, and it seemed to work. We consider the art of teaching, the qualities of great teachers, and what it all reveals about an insidious technology's effect on how we live and learn as citizens in, at least for now, a democratic republic.Listen again: "Unraveling Allan Bloom and Saul Bellow," June 21, 2021Sources:Saul Bellow, Ravelstein (2000)Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (1987)Matt Dinan, "Saul Bellow's Ravelstein," Hedgehog Review, Spring 2025— "Permission Structures," Prefaces, Dec 10, 2025— "It's Not Just a Calculator," Prefaces, Aug 28, 2024Jorge Luis Borges, "The Lottery in Babylon," Collected Fictions (1999)Jonathan Malesic, "ChatGPT Is a Gimmick: AI cannot save us from the effort of learning to live and die," Hedgehog Review, May 21, 2025— "Taming the Demon: How desert monks put work in its place," Commonweal, Feb 2, 2019

Mary Danielsen Well, we told you so: 2026 was coming. And we even counted it down on headline days. So while that’s not terribly profound, we all get a week or two to remember to number our days and God says that’s wisdom. While we’re thinking about it, we often resort to New Year’s resolutions to ease the pain of past fails. It might be related to our behaviour, our self-discipline or lack thereof, but we all understand starting fresh, turning a page. But outside of Christ, is wholesale change really just a fantasy? By February, how’s it going? If the answer is “not so well”, we have a far better way: Christian maturity. Growing up in all things unto Christ our Head. The template for all this is the church, but how is THAT going? Not so well. Nevertheless, Christ is the Head, our ever-living Head who sanctifies us by His blood, by His grace. Today we look at some perspectives on how the culture at large has returned to using pacifiers like media and self-love to go the other direction, also known as the Eternal Adolescence of the American Mind. We need grown ups in the culture, and in the church particularly. How does one influence the other? A long look at the 20th century youth cult and what we need to do to grow up. Stand Up For The Truth Videos: https://rumble.com/user/CTRNOnline & https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQQSvKiMcglId7oGc5c46A

America has a big anniversary coming up. And you know it's set to be grand when people give it a name like "semiquincentenial." To help us prepare for the big 250th, Matthew Spalding, Dean of Hillsdale College's School of Government in DC, joins to discuss his just-published book: The Making of the American Mind. He and the gang get into the story of how a group of iron men came to declare war with and independence from the greatest empire on earth. They delve into the many attacks against the Declaration and the founding that are coming in from all angles these days. Remember, these self-evident truths are not obvious, so order your copy today!Plus, Señor Lileks wonders what we're supposed to call this escalating series of adventures near Venezuela; the Honorable Hayward weighs in on the stunningly titled Trump v. Slaughter SCOTUS case and Justice KBJ's startling comments; and, lastly, Captain Cooke has a bone to pick with Europe! - Sound from the open this week: The EU fines X and Trump talks Europe with Politico

You probably know Jonathan Haidt as the guy trying to save your kids from smartphones and social media apps. Likely you've read The Anxious Generation, which has been translated into 44 languages and sold nearly 2 million copies. One might say that Jon is Elvis for 21st century moms who don't understand Discord.  But when Haidt gets written about decades from now, it will be for much more than this book and the powerful movement that came out of it. He will be regarded as one of the most important writers of this epoch.  Because he has this remarkable ability to understand—and explain—our social condition. He holds up a mirror to us. He did it with his book The Righteous Mind, which explained why people are so passionately divided over politics and religion. He did it again with The Coddling of the American Mind, cowritten with Greg Lukianoff, which explored why young people—especially on college campuses—can become totally intolerant of opposing views. And in his latest book, The Anxious Generation, he asked the obvious question: Why are teens suddenly so unhappy? Why are they losing attention, self-confidence, and the ability to socialize? Perhaps it has something to do with the mesmerizing device in their hands. In a world gone mad, Haidt has turned common sense into a radical mission. Bari sat down with him in front of a live audience in New York City to talk about how we got here—and where we go from here. Learn more about Anthropic's AI assistant Claude at: Claude.ai/honestly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices