Podcasts about american republic

This week we explore violence in the early American Republic. We look at factors which may have contributed to rising violence, such as alcoholism, and how this manifested across the nation.

In Washington, a rare flicker of institutional resistance is lighting up the political gloom. As the Supreme Court sides 7-2 against mass deportations and Harvard takes legal aim at executive power, Roifield Brown and his panel ask the awkward but necessary question: Is the American Republic finally growing a spine? Panelists Denise Hamilton and Mike Donahue agree that while Trump's pressure tactics aren't new, the scale of legal and educational defiance certainly is. Meanwhile, they also highlight the existential threat: America's fragmented information ecosystems mean citizens no longer even start from the same facts, making any comeback for democratic norms a grinding uphill struggle.Across the Atlantic, a different kind of existential crisis unfolds. Robert Jenrick, already measuring the curtains for Tory leadership, hints at a tactical realignment between the Conservative Party and Reform UK. Cory Bernard and Steve O'Neill dissect the fine line between electoral pragmatism and political self-destruction. They warn that while Britain's political history favours the Conservative Party's survival, wealth inequality and voter volatility could easily tear up the rulebook. Roy Field, clearly unimpressed by complacency, reminds everyone that assuming Britain's institutions are immune to collapse is dangerously naive.The panel closes with a lighter moment: each guest picks a hometown hero worthy of a street name. Harriet Tubman, Jackie Robinson, and Clement Attlee are among the choices, though Steve O'Neill's initial bid for "Roger Federer Street" suggests some people should stay away from naming contests. Throughout the episode, the tone is bracing: whether it's executive overreach in the U.S. or far-right drift in the U.K., democracy's defenders will need a lot more than nostalgia and wishful thinking to hold the line.5 Selected Quotes:“I think what we're seeing is a stiffening of the spine and a bigger commitment to holding up our institutions.” — Denise Hamilton“It's not left versus right anymore — it's institutions versus chaos.” — Roifield Brown“You can't rationalize with people who aren't working with the same facts.” — Mike Donahue“Britain's political history doesn't guarantee immunity from collapse.” — Roifield Brown“One street at a time, we still get to choose who we celebrate.” — Denise Hamilton Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, Bram & Sandi continue a new Friday series focused on world events and the ‘Kingdom Response'. Through scripture, word and song, we'll put a whole new spin on what's happening in the world, right now. Today: For those of us who have the honor of citizenship in this American Republic, what does it mean […]

  Visit our website - A Brief History of Power Thanks to our sponsor, Gnesio Health Dr Koontz - Redeemer Lutheran Church Pr. Willie Grills - Zion Lutheran Church Music thanks to Verny

In this podcast I summarize some of the main ideas from my 10 part examination of Let Nobody Turn Us Around: An African American Anthology while describing briefly why America needs a new left or must form a new coalition, like it did in the past, to confront the political and economic crisis it is facing today. If you are interested in a particular period please refer to the 10 part series including an introduction and conclusion remarks in my playlist "Black History Month February 2025- Let Nobody Turn Us Around: An African American Anthology (10 part series)"Black History Month February: The 10 part podcast on Let Nobody Turn Us Around: An African American AnthologyJoin me in my ten part series on YouTube, my channel is Sunny Sharma@IndiaInsightMovement (and coming to my audio podcast soon called “India Insight with Sunny Sharma”) to examine the history of black intellectual, social and political thought since 1768, around the founding of the American Republic in 1776, through 5 periods of history outlined below extending all the way up to the seminal election of Barack Obama, who boasted a rainbow coalition, to the presidency in 2008.1. Introduction2. Section 1- Foundations: Slavery and Abolitionism, 1768-18613. Section 2- Reconstruction and Reaction: The Aftermath of Slavery and the Dawn of Segregation, 1861-19154. Section 3- From Plantation to Ghetto: The Great Migration, Harlem Renaissance, and World War, 1915-1954 Part 1 and Part 25.  Section 4 Monday February 24- We Shall Overcome: The Second Reconstruction, 1954-1975 Part 1 and Part 26. Section 5- The Future in the Present: Contemporary African-American Thought, 1975 to the Present Part 1 and Part 27. Part 10 Concluding Remarks on Let Nobody Turn Us Around: An African American Anthology8. Bonus: Major Themes and Lessons from Black History and President Barack Obama

So what's the most revolutionary invention in the history of the American Republic? The internet, maybe? Or the electric bulb or the motor car? Perhaps. But according to the Harvard historian Joyce Chaplin, it might be the Franklin Stove, Benjamin Franklin's innovation which she claims in an eponymous new book, represents an unintentional American revolution. What's really important about the Franklin Stove, she explains, is that it democratized heating, thereby enabling ordinary Americans to survive the “Little Ice Age” of the late 18th century. In an 21st century America where research into global warming is now under threat, Chaplin's intriguing The Franklin Stove is a convincing argument for the popular benefits of environmental science.Here the 5 Keen On America takeaways in our conversation with Joyce Chaplin* Franklin as a climate scientist: Chaplin reveals how Benjamin Franklin's work with his stove led him to understand atmospheric convection, which he then applied to explain larger climate systems like storm movements and the Gulf Stream. He essentially became an early climate scientist through his practical inventions.* The Little Ice Age context: Franklin invented his stove during the Little Ice Age (1300-1850), particularly in response to the severe winter of 1740-41. Unlike today's climate crisis, there was virtually no "denialism" about climate change during this period - people openly discussed and sought solutions to the cooling climate.* Franklin's environmental legacy: While Franklin initially created his stove to conserve wood and trees in Pennsylvania, his later models burned coal. This shift toward fossil fuels contributed to what Chaplin calls "an unintended industrial revolution" that ultimately led to our current climate warming crisis.* Franklin's political evolution: Though a monarchist for most of his life, Franklin underwent a radical transformation later in life, becoming head of Pennsylvania's abolition society after having previously owned enslaved people. This challenges the notion that historical figures were simply "products of their time."* Franklin's complex character: Chaplin, who has written extensively on Benjamin Franklin, portrays him as a self-cultivating narcissist who carefully crafted his public image and desperately sought fame from a young age. However, she acknowledges his genuine accomplishments and contributions to science and society, creating a more nuanced view of the founding father.Joyce E. Chaplin is the James Duncan Phillips Professor of Early American History at Harvard University, where she also holds affiliations with the Graduate School of Design and Center for the Environment. She is the author of The First Scientific American: Benjamin Franklin and the Pursuit of Genius, among other books, and her writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the London Review of Books. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this explosive episode, Michael Jaco sits down with former deputy sheriff Shawn Taylor, a relentless truth-seeker known as the "Conspiracy Cop," to unveil a chilling web of corruption that spans governments, banks, and elite institutions. From massive money laundering operations in Canada to election fraud, human trafficking, and political warfare, this discussion pulls no punches in exposing the dark forces working to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and the American Republic. Shawn reveals shocking details about how TD Bank, RBC, and other financial giants are funneling illicit funds, enabling cartels, the Chinese Communist Party, and global power players to manipulate real estate markets, rig elections, and tighten their grip on society. The conversation dives deep into Canada's hidden role as a hub for criminal enterprises, and how these schemes are fueling everything from the 2008 financial crisis to today's political chaos. But that's just the beginning. The speakers expose how human and drug trafficking rings are thriving in Nashville, where corporate-backed urban development threatens to turn the city into a controlled hive of surveillance and social engineering. They connect the dots between Ukrainian operatives, deep state agendas, and the financial war being waged against the American people. Facing relentless media smear campaigns, government intimidation, and even threats to their own safety, Shawn and Michael refuse to back down. They're sounding the alarm before it's too late—calling on patriots, truth warriors, and everyday citizens to rise up, take action, and reclaim their country. Will you wake up before the system locks you down?

Take a deep dive into the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, the man who forever altered America's trajectory. In this insightful episode, we explore the pivotal year of 1913, when transformative changes like the 16th and 17th Amendments and the creation of the Federal Reserve reshaped the American Republic. Was Wilson the worst president in history? We present a critical examination of his legacy, from his centralization of power and controversial wartime policies like the Espionage and Sedition Acts to his role in global conflicts and the League of Nations. Gain a unique perspective on how Wilson's presidency laid the groundwork for modern governance, influencing issues of sovereignty, national pride, and America's future. With historical context, such as the 1912 election dynamics and Wilson's upbringing, this must-watch analysis connects the dots between past decisions and their lasting impact on today's society. Join the conversation—share your thoughts on Wilson's legacy in the comments! Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this video to help us spark deeper discussions. Together, we explore the moments and figures that define our history. Thank you for watching and supporting our journey to uncover America's untold stories.#seditionact #espionageact #16thamendment #federalreserve #1913massacre#monetarypolicy #historychannel #federalreserve #1913americanpolitics #impactofwilsonpresidency___________________________________________________________________________⇩ SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS ⇩THE WELLNESS COMPANY: Health without the propaganda, emergency medical kits before you need it. Get 15% off now by using our link: https://twc.health/jrsCOMMAND YOUR BRAND: Legacy Media is dying, we fight for the free speech of our clients by placing them on top-rated podcasts as guests. We also have the go-to podcast production team. We are your premier podcast agency. Book a call with our team https://www.commandyourbrand.com/book-a-call MY PILLOW: By FAR one of my favorite products I own for the best night's sleep in the world, unless my four year old jumps on my, the My Pillow. Get up to 66% off select products, including the My Pillow Classic or the new My Pillow 2.0, go to https://www.mypillow.com/cyol or use PROMO CODE: CYOL________________________________________________________________⇩ GET MY BEST SELLING BOOK ⇩Unremarkable to Extraordinary: Ignite Your Passion to Go From Passive Observer to Creator of Your Own Lifehttps://getextraordinarybook.com/________________________________________________________________DOWNLOAD AUDIO PODCAST & GIVE A 5 STAR RATING!:APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-create-your-own-life-show/id1059619918SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/5UFFtmJqBUJHTU6iFch3QU(also available Google Podcasts & wherever else podcasts are streamed_________________________________________________________________⇩ SOCIAL MEDIA ⇩➤ X: https://twitter.com/jeremyryanslate➤ INSTAGRAM https://www.instagram.com/jeremyryanslate➤ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/jeremyryanslate_________________________________________________________________➤ CONTACT: JEREMY@COMMANDYOURBRAND.COM

Here's your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecSave up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the show

E264: Saving the American Republic   E264 Introduction Wow, well I had a great interview all teed up but President Trump and Elon Musk are moving so fast I had to speak with you solo...

President Trump is making big moves to shrink and reshape the federal workforce. He's offered buyouts, instituted a hiring freeze, and called for prioritizing job seekers who are "passionate about the ideals of our American Republic." While his actions have drawn criticism, some see an opportunity for the new administration to improve the federal hiring process. Today on the show, Jennifer Pahlka, Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center, tells us why, in her view, government hiring has been broken for a long time while sharing her thoughts on Trump's proposals to fix it. Related episodes:What happens when Social Security runs out of money? (Apple / Spotify)Why Trump's potential tariffs are making business owners anxious (Apple / Spotify)For sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator from Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Fact-checking by Sierra Juarez. Music by Drop Electric. Find us: TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Newsletter. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In this episode, our guest (an AP U.S. History teacher) and our host (an AP Government teacher) delve into the worthy American most likely missing from your U.S. history or government class. Orestes Brownson was a nineteenth-century political thinker who wrote about the American project through his unique lens as a post-Civil War American-Catholic. He was well known in his time but is often only featured in the footnotes for the Election of 1840, the Transcendental Movement, and the Emancipation Proclamation. Brownson's essays, though, belong in the classroom. They seek to answer with optimism and insightful reflection: what is this country all about? For what did our sons die in this great Civil War? Chapters: 4:20 Why read Brownson? 10:11 A religious and political wanderer 14:01 Arrives at the Catholic Church 17:00 Magnus opus: The American Republic 21:57 “Territorial democracy” 27:44 History as human experience 28:51 Territorial democracy and American Union 32:31 Missteps of democracy 36:54 Brownson's vision: “Freedom of each with advantage to the other” 37:41 Yet history repeats itself 41:47 America's role in the story of history 44:55 “Unwritten constitution” 49:36 The task of the modern teacher 54:24 One's development of ideas over time Links: The American Republic by Orestes Brownson “Democratic Principle” by Orestes Brownson Orestes Brownson Symposium hosted by the American Family Project “Catholic Lives: Orestes Brownson, the American Newman” on Controversies in Church History Featured opportunities: On Faith and Beauty in Churches talk by Joe Cardenas at The Heights School (February 1, 2025) Series for Heights Fathers: Accompanying Our Sons as They Grow in Understanding of Human Sexuality at The Heights School (Thursdays in February 2025) Parents' Conference: Freedom and Addiction at The Heights School (April 12, 2025) link coming soon Teaching Men's Conference at The Heights School (October 2025) link coming soon Also on the Forum: ChatGPT Holds These Truths to Be Self-Evident by Mark Grannis The Importance of Ugly History by Mark Grannis Keeping the Story in History by Mark Grannis Seeing History: On Using Images in the History Classroom by Kyle Blackmer Patriotism and Piety: Honoring Founders and Fathers featuring Matthew Mehan

Dr. Matthew Mehan of Hillsdale College The Higher Purpose of Children in American Society The post The Value of Children to the American Republic – Dr. Matthew Mehan, 1/9/25 (0091) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Here's your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiecSave up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to https://www.MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the show

As Elon Musk continues to plot, with Trumpian glee, against the American Federal government, it is important to remind ourselves of the essential value of this state bureaucracy. As the founding president and CEO of the Washington DC based Partnership for Public Service, Max Stier has spent the last quarter century focused on making American government more efficient and accountable. And Stier's warning about the incoming administration is critically important. Yes, he acknowledges, some of Musk's misgivings about the inefficiencies of the Federal bureaucracy are fair, but that isn't an excuse for a descent into what Stier describes as the patrimonial politics of MAGA in which the interests of Trump and of the American state are treated identically. The American Republic was founded against the 18th century absolutist conceit that L'État, c'est moi. So all Max Stier is doing, at the Partnership for Public Service, is defending the values of the Founders who, wanted to protect the Republic from a patrimonial state.Max Stier is the founding president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Under his leadership, the Partnership has been widely praised as a first-class nonprofit organization and thought leader on federal government management issues. Max has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government. In 1982, he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim Leach. Max clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 and clerked for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in 1994. Between these two positions, Max served as Special Litigation Counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman at the Department of Justice. In 1995, Max joined the law firm of Williams & Connolly where he practiced primarily in the area of white collar defense. Max comes most recently from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, having served as the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School, Max is a member of the Inaugural Advisory Council of the National Institute of Social Sciences, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States and the National Advisory Board for Public Service at Harvard College.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this masterful, deeply researched biography, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: A Man for the Whole People (Dutton), historian and award-winning author Randall Woods peels back the many layers of John Quincy to expose a complex man under the pressure to live up to his voluntary family name, a rich and complicated family saga, and a political legacy that transformed the American Republic. Randall Woods is a John A. Cooper Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Arkansas, where he has taught since 1971. His books include LBJ: Architect of American Ambition and Fulbright: A Biography, which won the Robert H. Ferrell Prize.

Jon Michaels is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. His scholarly and teaching interests include constitutional law, administrative law, national security law, the separation of powers, presidential power, regulation, bureaucracy, and privatization. Michaels is a graduate of Williams College, Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, and Yale Law School, where he served as an articles editor for the Yale Law Journal. Michaels clerked first for Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court. Immediately prior to his appointment at UCLA, Michaels worked as an associate in Arnold & Porter's National Security Law and Public Policy Group in Washington, DC. A two-time winner of the American Constitution Society's Cudahy Award for scholarly excellence in administrative law and an elected member of the American Law Institute, Michaels has written essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Foreign Affairs, Time Magazine, and the Guardian. He is a frequent legal affairs commentator for national and local media outlets. His 2017 book, Constitutional Coup: Privatization's Threat to the American Republic, was published by Harvard University Press. Michaels's second book, titled Vigilante Nation: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens Our Democracy will be published by Simon & Schuster/Atria in October 2024.

Send us a textWhat makes the American Republic not just a fleeting experiment but an enduring beacon of freedom and unity? Join us as we unravel the secrets behind its resilience and durability, drawing insights from Richard Salter Storrs' Centennial Oration. We reflect on monumental events, like the Civil War and the seamless transition of power following a presidential assassination, which tested the nation's mettle and showcased the robustness of its institutions. Like unyielding natural phenomena, the Republic has weathered every storm, proving its permanence and ability to integrate adversaries while expanding across vast territories.As we journey through history, we also tackle the critical role of labor and industry in sustaining the fabric of this great nation. Together, we emphasize the need for a civil service driven by integrity, transcending partisanship, and ensuring the prosperity of American enterprise. By cherishing the legacy of freedom and faith that defines our citizenship, we have a collective obligation to uphold these values for future generations. This episode is a call to action, urging us all to preserve the core principles of peace, liberty, and unity, ensuring that the spirit of the American eagle soars wherever commerce thrives.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Few Americans have been as consistently critical of Donald Trump's morality than the New York Times and Atlantic columnist Peter Wehner. How to prevent the worst happening, Wehner thus wrote, in his final Atlantic column before the election. So now that the worst has actually happened, how exactly is Wehner - who worked in several Republican administrations - feeling about the future of the American Republic? More optimist than one might. American self-renewal is a wonder of the world, Wehner explained to me, which is why, he believes, we should still be remain cheerful about American democracy.Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. His books include The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, which he co-wrote with Michael J. Gerson, and Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism. He was formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and his work also appears in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Affairs.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Transcript“What we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is.” -Pete WehnerAK: Hello everybody. Election was two weeks ago, but we're trying to figure out the implications of the Trump/Vance win in the presidential election. We've done a number of shows, one with my old friend Jonathan Rauch. Rauch believes that November 5th represents what he calls a "moral catastrophe." And I'm curious as to what my guest today will say, whether he'll try to trump his old friend John Rauch. Wehner I've always seen as the conscience of American conservatism. He wrote a piece in The Atlantic—he writes a lot both for The Atlantic and The New York Times. Before the election, he wrote a piece for The Atlantic about preventing the worst from happening. He's joining us now two weeks after the election. Pete, did the worst happen? Is it a moral catastrophe?PETE WEHNER: Well, I see the worst happened in terms of what the binary choice was for this this election. Obviously, it's not the worst that could conceivably happen to a country, but given the circumstances, it's the worst that happened. Is it a moral catastrophe? You know, it's a moral blow. And I think it's a moral indictment, actually, of of much of the country as well. Whether it's a moral catastrophe remains to be seen. I mean, events will write that story. But I'm certainly concerned about where we are politically in terms of classical liberalism, in terms of the moral life and moral compass of America.AK: Immediately after the election. Peter Baker, New York Times writer, one of your one of your companions, colleagues on The Times, wrote an interesting piece about Trump's America, suggesting that this is the America who we are. Kamala Harris argued that we were different. But Baker believes that this is the America. It's Trump's America. As you know, Pete, he quoted you in the piece. You said, "This election was a CAT scan on the American people. And as difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption." Tell me more about this CAT scan. What does it tell us about the America of late 2024?PETE WEHNER: Well, I think it tells us things that are disturbing. It doesn't mean—and I wouldn't say and I didn't mean to imply—that people who themselves voted for Donald Trump are morally corrupt. But what I do mean to argue is that everybody who voted for Donald Trump voted for a man of borderless corruption, a man of moral depravity. And that's disturbing.AK: It's more than disturbing, Pete, the way you put it. "Moral depravity." In what way is he depraved?PETE WEHNER: Well, let me count the ways. I mean, the man was found liable to sexual assault. He's adulterer, porn star. He's cheated on his taxes and charitable giving. He tried to coerce an ally to find dirt on his opponent. He invited a hostile foreign power in the election. He instigated an insurrection against the Capitol. He tried to urge a violent mob to hang his vice president. He's a man who says racist things. He's a misogynist. He surrounds himself with people who are themselves deeply problematic, including picks that he wants for his cabinet. I would say that corruption has touched every area of his life, personal, professional, and in the presidency. So I don't think that that's a difficult argument to make. I think there's empirical evidence for it. But if there is a counter argument, I'm open to hearing it.AK: Well, I'm certainly not going to make that counter argument. You seem on the one hand, Pete, a little...tentative about, shall we say, morally smearing all Trump voters with his depravity. On the other hand, you know that everybody knows everything about Trump. There are no secrets here.PETE WEHNER: Right.AK: Can one then vote for Trump and not be in any way smeared by this moral depravity?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, it's a good question and I've thought a lot about it, Andrew. The way I think about it is that for Trump supporters, many of them, in any event, look, I know them. I mean, we've friends throughout our life, and I wouldn't deny that you can be a Trump voter and be a wonderful parent or neighbor and a person of high moral quality in a lot of areas in your life. On the other hand, I would say that this was an important election, and that Trump's depravity was undisguised. In fact, he kind of hung a neon light on it. And for an individual to cast a vote for that kind of man, who has done the things that he's done, and he's promised to do the things that he's done, I do think reflects on the person's character. And I don't think it's says everything about a person's character. I don't think this is the most important thing about a person's character. But I do think it says something. And I think that the people who voted for him should at least own up to who he is and the kind of man that that they cast their vote for. So if that's the tentativeness that you hear from me, that's an effort to explain why it's both tentative but something that I have fairly strong convictions on.AK: Pete, you and I talked about this a lot. You've been on the show many times. So it's a wonderful opportunity to talk to you. Is the church/state division in your head as sharp as it should be? For you, is politics essentially an extension of morality? I've always suspected there's an element of that, and I don't necessarily mean that as a criticism. It's just a reality of how you think.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I don't take it as a criticism. I do think that politics is an extension of of morality. I don't think it's the most important extension of morality. And I do believe that the people who are indifferent to politics, you know, their morality expresses itself in different ways. But yeah, I think from my youngest days, at least in junior high and high school and on, I've always had a sense that politics, at its core, is about justice and the pursuit of justice. And it's about a lot of other things. And it's an imperfect means to achieve justice; there's other ways to achieve justice. But I do think that that's what politics is about. And politics is also the expression of a set of moral beliefs. I mean, that, after all, is what law is in many cases. So I do think that morality and politics are tied. The last point I'll make on it, Andrew, is that if politics goes bad, if it goes really bad, it can have catastrophic human consequences. Gulags and killing fields and genocide and a lot of things less bad than that but that are bad enough. And so I just feel like that matters. And that's certainly a manifestation of morality.AK: What about the argument, Pete, that for all the immorality, the depravity, to use your word, of Trump, most of the voters are voting for change. There's a photo in one of your pieces, I think it may be in the Baker piece, of a Trump supporter on a motorbike with a "Trump 2024" flag, and the suggestion that the rules have changed. It seems to be clear in the two weeks after the election that Trump is determined to change the rules. I mean all his appointments seem to be challenging the current assumptions, institutions, elites, and conventions. Isn't that a good thing? America seems bogged down—I mean, I know you're a conservative, but there were many areas from health care to foreign policy to the environment, and they need to be fundamentally changed. It was a very odd election in the sense that Kamala Harris was supposed to be the progressive, and yet she turned out to be the conservative. She seemed to be suggesting that not much in America needs changing. She didn't seem to want to distance herself too much from Joe Biden, whereas Trump is the candidate of change. Is that a credible argument?PETE WEHNER: No, I don't think it's credible. At least let me qualify that. He's certainly a candidate of change. I think whether it's positive or negative change is really what matters. I think it's one thing to say that institutions need to be reformed, which I agree with and have agreed with for many years and have been part of various efforts, throughout the years, to advocate for the reform of institutions. It's another thing to try and destroy institutions, to burn them down. And I think that Trump and the MAGA world is in the latter category. I think that that is the ethos which defines them. So, you know, in terms of people who voted for Trump out of the country, 50%, whatever, the number is going to end up being, vote for him. I understand the impulse, some of the frustrations that have been expressed. So that is its own topic of conversation, which we can get into. But to me, the idea that Donald Trump is the solution to the problems is not plausible. And I point out too, Andrew, that he did have one term prior to it. And in many respects, the things that people are unhappy about got worse, not better, under his watch. So if you compare what his promises have been to what his record was in the first term, I just don't think it squares. And in addition to that, the kind of things that he's promoting now, I think will make things worse. Just to take one specific area, the manufacturing crisis. There's no question that, for a whole variety of reasons, that there's people who have been in the manufacturing industry have suffered. But actually, it was worse during Trump's watch than it was under Biden's watch. So I don't think that Donald Trump is is the answer to the to the question, even a legitimate question, that's being presented or posed.AK: Pete, you've always described yourself as a conservative. You believe that now you're homeless as a conservative. I wonder what you made, though, of the Harris campaign. Her association with Liz Cheney, of course, represents the conservative wing of the Republican Party that you've been involved with all your life. You work with Cheney and Bush and Reagan. Do you blame Harris for losing the election? Did she make a series of mistakes? And what does it tell us about the Democratic Party? I mean, it's always easy—you've written extensively about the crisis of the Republican Party and its Trump-ification. But is there a similar crisis within the Democratic Party?PETE WEHNER: Well, I think there's a crisis, or at least a challenge, in the Democratic Party, which I'll turn to in a second. I mean, they've they've lost two of the last three elections to Donald Trump. So that is a cause for for self-reflection, for for sure. In terms of the Harris campaign, I'm not as critical as a lot of people are of her. I thought she ran a much better campaign than I thought that she would. It wasn't a perfect campaign by any means, but given the tasks she faced, given her own history, I thought that she did extremely well. And I don't blame her for the loss. I think there were certain intrinsic disadvantages that she had. I mean, she was essentially an incumbent in an election where the impulse for the public was change. Joe Biden's approval rating was 41%. She's going to end up with about 48% of the popular vote. That actually, to me is pretty impressive. The idea that she could have beaten, or have been ten points better, in the popular vote from the Biden approval rating would have been a spectacular achievement. I don't think it was achievable. She made mistakes. She didn't distance herself sufficiently from the Biden administration, but I don't think she ever really could have, because she was vice president. I think that the biggest stage, the biggest moment with the largest audience of all, she absolutely obliterated Donald Trump in the debate. I thought her convention speech was good. I'd sort of graded it at a B plus. I thought the convention itself made a lot of sense. I thought her rallies were very good. She was better on the stump than I thought. She had a huge amount of of energy. I thought she was not so good on interviews. And I think she stumbled at a few points, particularly when she was asked on The View where she differed from Joe Biden. She couldn't come up with anything. I think that she should have been prepared for that.AK: But to put it mildly, I mean, that was the most obvious question that everyone wanted to know. How could she have been so unprepared?PETE WEHNER: Well, I don't know if she was unprepared, I assume—AK: Or unwilling or unable to answer this fundamental question.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I'm guessing that what was going through her mind, and probably the mind of the people that she spoke with, was that there was still a lot of loyalty to Joe Biden. And so she had to be careful in how far she distanced herself from him and whether that would create some unhappiness among Biden supporters. Secondly, she was vice president. And so there's a plausibility issue here, which is: how much can you separate yourself from a president if you're vice president? That said, look, I think she should have had 2 or 3 things that she could have named. And there was a relatively easy explanation, various explanations she could have offered: look, I believe in learning. When facts change, people change. I think that, you know, in my in my earlier life, I was wrong on certain issues and name what they were, and say that hopefully I've learned from that, I hope to continue to learn. I mean, there are all sorts of ways you could answer that. But look, Andrew, I will say this, too, which is having worked on several campaigns and having observed a lot of them over the decades, it's a lot harder to run as a candidate than people can imagine. And every candidate, no matter how good they are, whether you're Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, have made mistakes. And the prism through which people view it is completely based on whether you win or not. If Trump had lost, you can imagine all of the things that we would say about, you know, really, was it wise to to close the argument talking about the penis size of Arnold Palmer or feigning masturbation with a microphone? I mean, there are there are dozens and dozens of things we would have said.AK: Yeah, I take your point, but of course he didn't. Let's talk about conservatism. You always made the argument—you were on MSNBC recently talking about why Trump is an enemy of conservatism. Is now, shall we say, the Harris wing, which is the center/right of the Democratic Party, which seems to have got into bed, so to speak, with Liz Cheney, are they really the conservatives now in America? I mean, they seem to think that America works pretty well. They always talk about America being American, and we're better than that. Is your conservative Republican Party, has it been swallowed by the Democratic Party?PETE WEHNER: I don't think it's been swallowed by the Democratic Party. And of course, it depends on what aspects of conservatism one is talking about. I would say that given the current constellation of reality in the two main parties in America, that conservatives have a better home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party right now. But I don't think it's a natural home, and it's certainly not the kind of home that conservatives have been used to in the Republican Party pre-Donald Trump. I'd say the main point in terms of the question you asked is to underscore how fundamentally unconservative the Republican Party, Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, are. You know, there's a line in the movie The Dark Knight, the Batman movie, in which Alfred is talking to Bruce Wayne, and Bruce Wayne is trying to explain the criminal mindset to Alfred. And Alfred is saying, but you don't understand. And here he's talking about the Joker. He says, some people can't be bought, bribed, coerced. Some people just want to watch the world burn. And I think that Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have within them that kind of sensibility. I don't think it's defining to all of them, and I don't think it's completely defining to them. But I think that there is a nihilistic impulse, this effort not to reform, as I said earlier, institutions, but just to burn them to the ground, to take a wrecking ball. But, you know, Matt Gaetz as attorney general, or Pete Hegseth as defense secretary or Tulsi Gabbard as the head of the intelligence agencies, and just, out of anger, grievance, try and destroy them, try and destroy the so-called deep state. That's so fundamentally unconservative, in my estimation, that a conservative couldn't, in good conscience, find a home there. And right now, the alternative is the Democratic Party. And I don't think, on that central question of disposition and temperament, the Democrats are nearly as unconservative, nearly as radical, nearly as revolutionary, as the current-day Republican Party.AK: It all reminds me a little bit of a cowboy movie, The Magnificent Seven (or perhaps the Un-Magnificent Seven.) Talk about a natural party, Pete, but does that really work in American politics, where most African-Americans now vote for a Democratic Party that was in favor of segregation?PETE WEHNER: I'm sorry, say that again.AK: You talk about a natural party. You said, well, conservatives said that the Democrats aren't the natural party of conservatism. But can we use this term convincingly in American politics? After all, most African-Americans vote for the Democratic Party, which was the party of segregation.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. And they changed in the end, you know, it took them longer than it should have. No, I don't think that there's anything, you know, endemic or intrinsic to parties that makes them a natural home to any political movement or political philosophy. Because parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that. I do think that you can take a step back and say, look, over the last 50 years, when you chart the trajectory of the Democratic and Republican Party, there are certain trends that you can see. And so for some period of time, I think that the Democratic and Republican parties were natural homes to certain movements.AK: Is there anything we should celebrate about the election? There were a lot of warnings beforehand that there was going to be a massive gender split, and it didn't turn out to be true. Trump promised that he would get a lot of Hispanic and African-American voters. He got a lot of Hispanic and quite a few African-Americans, especially men. Could one argue that November 5th, 2024 was the first post-identity politics election? Is that something to be encouraged about?PETE WEHNER: Well, in this case, I'd say no, because I think the results of that post-identity politics is going to have really damaging consequences. I see your point, and I do think that to the extent that political parties can't count on certain groups constituencies, that's probably, as a general matter, good. It means you have to go out and earn their vote rather than reflexively rely on them. But as somebody who's been a Trump critic, and who has predicted what four more years under Donald Trump is going to be like, I just think that that overwhelms whatever good that could have come out of it. I suppose I would add, there's one good thing that's come out of this, which is there hasn't been violence. But honestly, I think that's because Donald Trump lost, and the Democratic Party believes in the peaceful transfer of power, and they're not going to do in 2024 what Donald Trump and his supporters did in 2020. I'm glad that's not happening, but I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that violence won't happen because the Democratic Party is the more responsible and civilized party in that respect.AK: How are you doing personally? Trump hasn't been shy to boast about his revengefulness. You've being one of his most articulate critics in The Times, in The Atlantic, certainly from the right, or from traditional conservatism, a very strong moral critic. How are you dealing personally with this situation?PETE WEHNER: You know, I think I'm probably dealing with it better than a lot of people would imagine given my own views on Trump. I think just disposition, temperamentally, I'm not a person who has found politics to be overwhelming or disorienting. I don't want to pretend that it's not a difficult moment, both in terms of what I think it means for the country and for what, as I said earlier, what I think it says about the country. And for somebody who grew up loving America and probably, to some extent, mythologizing America, seeing this happen is difficult. But most of my life and the spirit of my life and is based on my relationships mostly with family and with friends. And those, to me, are the things that really determine what my mood is on any given day or any week. I will say that my wife Cindy and I, in the last two weeks, have really been struck by the number of people that we have heard from who are deeply grieved and fearful of what's happening. We saw somebody a week ago Sunday, and Cindy asked this person, how are you doing? And she burst into tears. She had been abused by her husband. And she said that Donald Trump was a person just like her husband, and she couldn't fathom that America elected him. And we have a friend who's a family therapist, and she said she had spent the week before with sexual abuse victims, and the fact that Trump had been elected and that people in her family were celebrating that...other people who felt like much of what they had given their lives to was shattering. So we've really felt more, I suppose, in a listening mode, in a comforting mode, trying to help people to sort through it. It's different, Andrew, I will say, in my experience and the experience of the people around me, I think, in the country now than it was in 2016. I think 2016 could be argued that that was an aberration, a parenthesis, and I think it's clearly not the case. This is the Trump era, and I think that's hard for a lot of people to come to terms with. Other people are celebrating it. They think that this is wonderful. Donald Trump is, to them, the personification of what they want in a leader and a human being. And now we've got it.AK: Yeah, we will see. You wrote an interesting piece in The Atlantic after the election suggesting that 2024 is different from 2016. It's less shocking, more a confirmation. You wrote an interesting piece in response to what happened, "Don't Give Up on the Truth," in The Atlantic. We are where we are. But there is, if not reason to celebrate, reason to, at least, resist. Are you part of a moral resistance, in some ways, Pete, do you think, to Trump, or at least Trumpism, in America?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I think that's fair. I think some people who have been critical of Trump are going to dial back their criticism, or they just might find other things to think about or talk about or write about. And I understand that. That's not where I am. I mean, I have to think about what my posture is going to be in the Trump era. That's not clear to me yet. And I think it'll become clear to me as circumstances unfold. But, you know, what I wrote, I believed, and I continue to believe in, and the fact that Donald Trump won the election doesn't allay my concerns, it deepens them. I hope I have enough intellectual independence that if he is different than I think, and if he does things that I agree with, that I'm willing publicly to say that. I tried to do that in the first term. And I hope I can do it in a second term and I hope I'm given reasons to do it, and I hope that my foreboding of what this means for America is wrong. But I can't shake what I believe to be true. And I read the opposite views of mine and critiques of mine and try to understand what I'm getting wrong about Donald Trump. And I may be blinded on this, but I don't think I have been wrong about him. I think all of the things that I've been writing about him since 2015—actually, 2011, and go back to the birther moment—I think they've been validated. And I feel like given my role in life and the outlets that I have, that I can't help but give voice to those concerns. And whether that makes a difference or not, time will tell. It certainly didn't have an impact this time around, that's for sure.“Parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that.” -PWAK: Well, you certainly have a natural home on this show, Pete. And in your excellent Atlantic piece, you talk about the importance of truth telling. You are a truth teller, that goes without saying. What do you think is the most effective way, though, to tell the truth these days? I don't think you're a big social media guy, you're not going on X or Instagram or TikTok. How does one most effectively tell the truth in Trump's America?PETE WEHNER: That's such a good question, Andrew, and a deep one. I'm not sure what the answer is. I think in terms of what each individual has to do, they just have to find within the circumstances of their life the places that they can tell the truth. Some of that just may be with family and friends, maybe in neighborhoods and community groups. It may be in churches. It may be, if you're a writer, in The Atlantic, in The New York Times. You know, I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process. And if you're dealing with a person—for example, in my estimation of Donald Trump and what I do believe is this moral depravity, I just think that is true about him—how do you say that? How do you say that without crossing lines? How do you engage with people who are Trump supporters, as I have, many of them, and to try and point out and argue for my position, and to do so in a way that isn't disrespectful or dehumanizing? Those aren't easy questions. I'm sure I haven't gotten them right. But I think you just try the best you can in the world that you live in to try and give voice to the truth. And probably it helps to look back to others who have faced far more difficult circumstances than we have. I mentioned in my most recent Atlantic essay Solzhenitsyn and Havel who were great dissidents and spoke, in the case of Solzhenitsyn, when the Soviet Union was a country to which he was hostage to, and for Havel, there was a communist movement in Czechoslovakia. And they and so many others, Orwell in a different way, and Jesus in a different way, said that the important thing to do was to speak the truth. It doesn't mean you succeed, necessarily, when you do it, but it's important to do. Times change. Circumstances change. Inflection points can happen. And sometimes speaking the truth can create those moments. And other times when those moments open up, people who spoke the truth have a capacity to shape events in a way that they didn't before that. I should say one interesting example that apposite, maybe, you and your own history knowledge: you take someone like Winston Churchill. And Churchill was the same man in the 30s as he was in the 40s, and in the 30s he was viewed as a social pariah, an alarmist, a kind of ridiculous figure, he had very, very little influence. But events changed, the war came, and all of a sudden Churchill became arguably the greatest person of the 20th century. So there's probably a lesson in that for people who want to be truth tellers.AK: Yeah, I've always thought of you, Pete, as the moral conscience of America, although you've been involved in politics, but I can't imagine you ever running for political office. You talked about Solzhenitsyn and Havel in particular as an activist, as someone who stood up very bravely and indeed humorously to the Russian colonialists in Czechoslovakia or Soviet colonialism. Does the anti-Trump movement need a Havel, a Solzhenitsyn, a Winston Churchill? Seems to be lacking, Harris clearly wasn't. I've always wondered whether Michelle Obama could have been that person. And I know that everyone says, well, she couldn't have run. She doesn't like politics, but maybe she had almost a moral responsibility as an American. But where are we going to get an America? Where are we going to get our Churchill, our Havel, our Solzhenitsyn? All of course, white men. Maybe we need some women, too.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, you know, those are rare people. And it's not a dime a dozen. Yeah, I felt like Liz Cheney was that person in this moment more than Harris, more than others. I think I felt that way about Liz, because there was a cost, there was a very concrete and practical cost, to what she had done. And that, to me, is a sign and a symbol of courage, which is: if you do the right thing when there's a cost to doing the right thing. And I thought her articulation of why she broke with Trump and voted for Harris was extremely powerful. So I'd say of the people in the landscape in American politics right now, Liz Cheney would be supreme for me, but of course, she was tossed out of the Republican Party. She was beaten in a primary. And the Democratic Party's not a natural home for her either. So these are her wilderness years, Churchill had his, I'm not saying that Liz is Churchill, Churchill was Churchill and that's about it. But she showed enormous courage and articulation. I think the fact that for a person of my view, she made such a powerful and persuasive case, and it just didn't win over enough voters. And I think that that's an indictment not of Liz, but I think it's an indictment of an awful lot of voters in America. But that would make sense, because I see the world in a certain way, and the majority of Americans saw it differently. And this is a democracy. And so now we've got Trump and the people who voted for him, and the rest of us get to live with them.AK: Are there hierarchies of morality, Pete? There's a great deal of revisionism now on on Churchill reminding us all that he was an overt racist, a colonialist, a warmonger in some ways, although, of course, we don't use that word in terms of his opposition to Hitler. Trump made that point about Cheney, I mean, in his own vulgar way, but Cheney, of course, was also a warmonger—or, certainly her father was, millions of people—well, certainly hundreds of thousands of people—in the Middle East lost their lives because of catastrophic American wars in the region. Could one argue that Cheney's support for these catastrophic wars are equally immoral, if not more immoral, than Trump's moral transgressions?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, if you believe that narrative, I mean, I think that narrative is flawed. I don't mean that the wars weren't mistaken, but I think the way you framed it is is a caricature. But if you believe that, if you're right and I'm wrong, sure, then, of course. And there is a moral hierarchy. I mean, you know, morality is judged by the actions that you take in the moment that you live and the consequences that they create. And if a person or an individual does an action that creates massive harm and the destruction of human lives, human civilizations, if someone is advocating maliciousness and malevolence on a wide scale, that obviously has to be judged differently than if you lose your temper as a boss or somebody who works for you. So morality is a complicated subject. You also have to take into account, to some degree, the circumstances in which people lived. If you lived in the 14th century, if you lived in the 18th century, if you lived in the 20th century, if you lived in the 21st century, there were different moral standards and moral ethics and moral norms. That doesn't mean, in the case of the American founders, the slave holders, that was a grave sin, and I think probably traditionally on the on the American right, because there's been almost a defecation of the founding fathers, that they've been excused too much for tolerating slavery. Lincoln himself, who I think is the greatest American in history, his history was somewhat spotty. I think he was a magnificent figure. And he grew, but that happens. But just to come back to what you said earlier, if you were to say to me, Liz Cheney versus Donald Trump on any reasonable moral spectrum, I would say that that Liz Cheney has him beat by a country mile, by virtually any metric that you want to judge her and him on.AK: In that excellent Atlantic piece, Pete, you talked about this being a moment where we, and I'm quoting you, we need to guard our souls. But what about for those of us who might not believe in the existence of souls?PETE WEHNER: Yeah. Then I would use a different word.AK: What word would you use?PETE WEHNER: Your inner life, your interior life, your sense of humanity, how you view others. I think most people, whether soul is the word that they use, I think most people aren't strict materialists, or they don't believe in scientism. They believe that there are parts of human life, human existence, human reality that aren't materialistic, that has to do with beauty and esthetics and love and = humanity and caring for the least of these. And, you know, many people that I know that are not believers personify those high virtues, honestly, in ways that are more impressive than people I know who claim to be followers of Jesus. So I use the word soul because I think it speaks to something that is true for human life and human beings. But I understand if you're not a believer that you wouldn't use that term. But I imagine that there's some other term that would get at essentially the same thing, which is your core humanity. What makes you an estimable human being. Compassion, honor, dignity, being a peacemaker, and so forth.AK: You're also more cheerful in the sense that you want to remind everyone that, of course, we want to cultivate hope, humanistic hope. But all this needs to be understood within the historical context. You argue that, in the Atlantic piece, presumably Trump's only going to be around for four years. Things change, there are always party realignments, so, cheer us up, Pete. Why might this just be a blip in the history of humanity rather than the end of it in some way?PETE WEHNER: Yeah. It's not going to be the end of humanity. Even if my most dire warnings are realized. Look, I would say that there can be a kind of catastrophism that happens on all sides and that we need to be careful about it. Life is complicated. Human history is complicated. There are moments of glory and moments of catastrophe and disaster. You know, in the American experience, we had the 1850s that lead up to the Civil War. We had the Civil War. We had the profound difficulties in reconstruction. We had segregation, child labor laws, women can't vote. Just enormous challenges in this country. The first election, really contested election in America between Adams and Jefferson in 1800, was a vicious affair. So, you know, we've we've faced a lot. And that's just America. And, you know, you look at world history, I quote it at the end of my essay, "Don't Give Up on the Truth" in The Atlantic, a speech, one of my favorite speeches, that Bobby Kennedy gave in 1966 at University of Cape Town in South Africa, where he talked about the ripples of hope, and how the ripples of hope can overcome the worst and highest walls of oppression. Now, when Kennedy gave that speech, it was 66. It was at the apex of of apartheid, and eventually apartheid was overthrown, and—AK: Yeah, it's worth repeating the RFK quote, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." Of course, it's particularly resonant given that his son is involved in the Trump administration and is probably not someone you're particularly keen on.PETE WEHNER: No, he's, no pun intended, but I'm not particularly keen on his son. But the father I admired, and I think those words are timeless words. And we shouldn't forget them. Look, the other thing I'd say, Andrew, is that what we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is. I mean, honor is living a life—an imperfect life. We all struggle, we're all fallen, we're all flawed—But trying to advance that. And the other thing I would emphasize again is that human life, human history, the progression of countries, are not straight lines. There's forward and backward, there's zigs, there's zags, inflection points develop, and things change in ways that a person may never anticipate. You mentioned John Rauch earlier, and he and Andrew Sullivan were leading the campaign for same sex marriage. When they started that campaign, especially, Andrew, in 1989, I think he wrote a cover story in The New Republic on the conservative case for gay marriage. Now, if you would have asked either of them in the late 80s, 90s and so forth, whether gay marriage would be prevalent or even be found to be a constitutional right, they would have said that's inconceivable. It couldn't happen. And it happened. Whether you agree or not with same sex marriage, it shows capacity of events to change. And you and I could name a lot of things in which that's happened. So you don't know when those moments come, when those inflection points happen. And I also believe the American capacity for self-renewal is a kind of wonder of the world and that people will—AK: Say that again: American self-renewal is a wonder of the world.PETE WEHNER: Yeah. I think the American capacity for self-renewal is extraordinary. I think it's shown itself throughout history. Again, it's a mixed history, but—AK: But where does that come from, that American self-renewal? Is it a spiritual thing? Is it an economic thing? “I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process.” -PWPETE WEHNER: You know, I'd imagine part of it is part of the American DNA. The things that shape anybody in any country, the factors, the history...there's certainly something, I think it's reasonable to say, in America, about freedom and liberty, that is part of the American character. You know, people could go back and read Tocqueville, which is still relevant to what Americans are like. I think our political history has helped shape us. Civil society has helped shape us. So, you know, each country has a certain kind of a DNA. And I think by and large, America's has been good. So there's history to give you hope, and not just American history. So, I just think you need to keep putting one foot in front of the other. I think you have to call out things that happen that are wrong, immoral or illegal as they as they happen, and hope that over time you bend events enough in your direction. Martin Luther King Junior had that quote, which is pretty well known, about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, but that does not—AK: It's not natural, is it? As you suggest, it requires human agency, doesn't bend on its own. Finally, Pete, and you've been very generous, as always, with your time. A lot of comparisons, there always have been, with America and the Roman Republic, this shift into, sort of, decadence. There's also a fashion these days for stoicism. Some of the ideologies or the intellectual movements of the late Roman decadent, not the republic, but imperial Rome. What would you say to people—won't say necessarily Stoics formally, but people who are espousing a kind of stoicism—who will say, "Well, I'm just not going to watch the news for the next four years, Trump doesn't really affect me. I'm just going to ignore him. I'm going to go to sleep for four years, and when I wake up, things will have changed." Do we all need to stay awake? Is the stoical response to essentially ignore the political world, is that healthy in Trump's America?PETE WEHNER: I think some people need to stay awake. You know, it really would depend on the facts and circumstances, Andrew. I mean, if you're an individual who feels overwhelmed by what Trump represents and really can't process it in a very healthy way, and you find your spirit being pulled down and obsessing on him and just, you know, casting shadows over your life, then I'd say, yeah, just to the degree that you can pull the plug. Don't follow, you know, the unfolding events, and attend to your life, your inner life, and the people that you love and care for. On the other hand, if that happens more broadly, and just people shut up and don't speak out, I think that that would be a great tragedy, because I think it's important to speak the truth in its own terms. I think it's important that there are individuals who give voice to what people believe and the moral concerns that they have when they don't have the capacity to do it on a large scale. And as I said, you know, I mentioned earlier, Solzhenitsyn and Havel, and I don't pretend that America is in a situation like the two of them faced. So the challenges and sacrifices that are called on Americans today who are in the so-called resistance isn't comparable to what Solzhenitsyn and Havel and many others have faced. But you need to speak out, and you can't go to sleep. Democracy is, as you said earlier, about human agency. We're not corks in the ocean. We're not fatalistic. We shouldn't be fatalistic. We can create movements and trends and moments and trajectories and moments of and periods of honor and and virtuous chapters in the American story. But they don't happen accidentally. And you can be discouraged, but you've got to stay at it. A friend of mine once said that you could be a theoretical pessimist, but you should be an operational optimist.AK: That's a nice way of putting it. Peter Wehner, I'm not sure about American self-renewal being a wonder of the world, certainly your self-renewal is a wonder of the world. It's wonderful to have you around, and we will be calling on your wisdom, your ethical spirit of resistance against injustice, over the next four years. Keep well, keep safe, Pete, and we will talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.PETE WEHNER: Thanks. It's great to be with you, Andrew. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

As the author of The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, the Cambridge University historian Gary Gerstle was one of first people to recognize the collapse of neoliberalism. But today, the real question is not about the death of neoliberalism, but what comes after it. And, of course, when I sat down with Gerstle, I began by asking him what the Trump victory tells us about what comes after neoliberalism.Gary Gerstle is Paul Mellon Professor of American History Emeritus at the University of Cambridge. Gerstle received his BA from Brown University and his MA and PhD from Harvard University. He is the author, editor, and coeditor of more than ten books.  He is currently the Joy Foundation Fellow at the Harvard-Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, where he is working on a new book, Politics in Our Time: Authoritarian Peril and Democratic Hope in the Twenty-First Century.  He resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Named as one of the "100 most pivoted men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's most pivotal broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the pivotal author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two cats, both called Pivot.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. TRANSCRIPT“It's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world.” -Gary GerstleAK: Hello everybody. As we try to make sense of the aftermath of the US election this week, there was an interesting headline today in the Financial Times. Donald Trump apparently has asked, and I'm quoting the F.T. here, the arch-protectionist Robert Lighthizer, to run U.S. trade policy. You never know with Trump, he may change his mind tomorrow. But nonetheless, it suggests, and it's not a great surprise, that protectionism will define the Trump, presidency or certainly the second Trump presidency. And it speaks of the structural shift in the nature of politics and economics in the United States, particularly given this Trump victory. One man who got this, I think before anyone else, is the Cambridge historian Gary Gerstle. He's been on the show a couple of times before. He's the author of a wonderful book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era. It's a profound book. It's had an enormous impact on everybody. And I'm thrilled and honored that Gary is back on the show. This is the third time he's been on the show. Gary, is that important news? Have we formally come to the end now of the neoliberal order? GARY GERSTLE: I think we have, although there's an element of neoliberalism which may revive in the Trump administration. But if we think of a political order as ordering political life so that all participants in that order have to accept its ideological principles, we have moved out of that order. I think we've been out of it for some time. The critical election in this case was 2016, and the critical move that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders made in 2016, the two most dynamic presidential candidates in that year, was to break with the orthodoxy of free markets, the orthodoxy of globalization, the orthodoxy of a world without borders where everything was free to move and the market was supreme. And the only role of government in the state was to ensure as full access to markets as was possible in the belief that if governments got out of the way of a private capitalist economy, this would spur the greatest growth for the greatest number of people everywhere in the world. This was governing orthodoxy, really from the time of Reagan until 2016. Trump broke it. Sanders broke it. Very significant in this regard that when Biden came into office, he moderated some of the Trump tariffs but kept the tariffs on China substantially in place. So there's been continuity for some time, and now we're going to see an intensification of the protectionist regime. Protectionism used to be a dirty word in American politics. If you uttered that word, you were excluded from serious political discourse. There will be other terms that are used, fair trade, not just because protectionism has a negative connotation to it, but we are living in an era where governments assert the right to shape markets as they wish to in the interests of their nation. So, yes, we are living in a different era, although it must be said, and we may get into a discussion of this at some point, there are sectors of the Trump coalition that want to intensify deregulation in the domestic market, that want to rollback government. And so I expect in the new Trump administration, there is going to be tussles between the protectionists on the one hand and those who want to, at least domestically, restore free trade. And by that I mean the free operation of private capital without government regulation. That's an issue that bears watching.AK: Is that a contradiction though, Gary? Can one, in this post-neoliberal order, can governments be hostile to regulation, a la Elon Musk and his association with Trump, and also be in favor of tariffs? I mean, do the two—can the to go together, and is that the outline of this foggy new order coming into place in the second quarter of the 21st century?GARY GERSTLE: They can go together in the sense that they have historically in the past gone together in the United States. In the late 19th century, the US had very high tariffs against foreign goods. And domestically, it was trying to create as free a domestic market as possible. What was known as the period of laissez-faire domestically went along with a commitment to high tariffs and protection of American laissez-faire against what we might call global laissez-faire. So it has been tried. It did work at that time. But I think the Republican party and the constituencies behind Donald Trump are divided on this question. As you noted, Elon Musk represents one pole of this. He certainly wants protection against Chinese imports of electric cars and is probably going to get that because of all the assistance he gave Trump in this election. But domestically, he wants no government interfering with his right to conduct his capitalist enterprises as he sees fit. So that's going to be one wing. But there's another wing of the Republican Party under Trump that is much more serious about industrial policy that says we cannot leave the market to its own devices. It produces too many human casualties. It produces too many regions of America left behind, and that we must use the government to help those people left behind. We must structure free enterprise industry in a way that helps the ordinary working-class man. And I use the word “man” deliberately in this context. Interestingly, JD Vance, the vice president, embodies both these tendencies, sees, on the one hand, a creature of venture capital, Silicon Valley, close to the Musks and Peter Thiels of the world. On the other hand, he has talked explicitly, as in his vice-presidential acceptance speech, about putting Main Street over Wall Street. And if he's serious about putting Main Street over Wall Street, that's going to involve a lot of government intervention to displace the privileged position that finance and venture capital now has in the American economy.AK: Gary, you're a historian, one of the best around, you're deeply versed in the past, you bring up Vance. He presents himself as being original, even has a beard. But I wonder whether his—I don't know what you would call it—a Catholic or Christian socialism, or at least a concern with the working class. Is it in any way new, for you, historically? I mean, it certainly exists in Europe, and there must be analogies also in American history with him.GARY GERSTLE: Well, if he is a convert to Catholicism, I don't know how well-versed he is in the papal doctrines of years past. Or decades. Or even centuries passed. But there was a serious movement within the Catholic Church in the late 19th and early 20th century to humanize capitalism, to declare that free market capitalism produced too many human casualties. Too many ordinary Catholic workers and workers who are not Catholic were hurt by unemployment, poverty, being thrown out of work in the troughs of business cycles, having no social welfare to fall back on, as a result of injury or misfortune in life. And so there was a profound movement within Catholic churches, in the United States, and in Europe and other parts of the world as well, to humanize capitalism. Whether this very once important Catholic tradition is an active influence on Vance, I don't know, because he's a recent convert to Catholicism, and I don't know how deeply has imbibed its history or its doctrine. But there is a rich tradition there. And it's possible that this is one of the sources that he is drawing on to shape his contemporary politics.AK: We were talking before we ran live, Gary, I said to you, and I think you agreed, that this use of the word "fascism" to describe Trump isn't always particularly helpful. It reflects a general hysteria amongst progressives. But I wonder in this context, given the way in which European Catholicism flirted, sometimes quite openly, with fascism, whether the F-word actually makes a little more sense. Because after all, fascism, after the First World War, was a movement in the name of the people, which was very critical of the capitalism of that age and of the international market. So, when we use the word fascism now, could it have some value in that context as a kind of a socioeconomic critique of capitalism?GARY GERSTLE: You mean fascism offering a socioeconomic critique of U.S. capitalism?AK: Yes. For better or worse.GARY GERSTLE: I'm reluctant to deploy the term fascism, since I think most people who enter the conversation or who hear that word in the United States don't really know what it means, and that's partly the consequence of historians debating its meaning as long as they have, and also suggesting that fascism takes different forms at different times and in different places. I prefer the term authoritarianism. I think that tendency is clearly there and one can connect that to certain traditions within the church. The United States once had a intense anti-Catholic political tradition. It was unimaginable in the 19th century. AK: Yeah, it drove the KKK. I mean, that was the Klan hated the Catholics probably more than they hated the Jews.GARY GERSTLE: It drove the Klan. And the notion in the 19th century—I'm not remembering now whether there are 5 or 6 Catholics who sit on the Supreme Court—but the notion in the 19th century that 5 or 6 Catholics would be the chief custodians and interpreters of America's most sacred doctrine and document the Constitution was simply unthinkable. It could never have happened. There was a Catholic seat. As for a long time, there was a Jewish seat on the Supreme Court, but understood that this would be carefully cordoned off and limited and that, when push came to shove, Protestants had to be in charge of interpreting America's most sacred doctrine. And the charge against Catholics was that they were not democratic, that they vested ultimate power in God and through an honest messenger on Earth, who was the pope. John F. Kennedy, in 1960, became the first Catholic president of the United States. Biden is only the second. Vance is the first Catholic vice president. Before in the campaign that Kennedy was running in 1960, he had to go in front of thousands of Protestant ministers who had gathered in Houston so he could persuade them that if he became president, he would not be handing America over to the pope, who was seen as an authoritarian figure. So for a long time, Catholicism was seen as a carrier of authoritarianism, of a kind of executive power that should not be limited by a human or secular force. And this promoted, in the United States, intense anti-Catholic feeling, which took the country probably 200 years to conquer. Conquered it was, so the issue of so many Catholics on the Supreme Court is not an issue. Biden's Catholicism is not an issue. Vance's Catholicism is not an issue. But Vance himself has said, talking about his conversion, that of his granny—I forget the term he uses to describe his granny—were alive today, she would not be able to accept his conversion because she was so deeply Protestant, so evangelical, so—AK: A classic West Virginian evangelical. So for me, the other contradiction here is that Vance is unashamedly nationalist, unashamedly critical of globalization. And yet, by embracing Catholicism, which is the most international of face, I don't quite understand what that suggests about him, or Catholicism, or even history, that that these odd things happen.GARY GERSTLE: Well, one thing one can say in history is that odd things happen and odd couples get together. I don't know myself how fully Vance understands his Catholicism. I believe Peter Thiel led him to this. Vance is still a young man and has gone through a lot of conversions for a young man. He was—AK: Well, he's a conversion expert. That's the narrative of his life, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Yes. Yes. And he began as being a severe anti-Trumper, almost a Never-Trumper. Then he converted to Trumpism. Then he converted from Protestant to Catholicism. So a lot of major changes in his life. So, the question you just posed is a fascinating one. Does he understand that the church is a catholic church, meaning small c catholic in this case, that it's open to everyone in the world? Does he really understand that? But I would extend my puzzle about religion beyond Catholicism to ask, for all the evangelical supporters of Trump: where is Jesus's message of peace and love? Where did that go? So there are puzzles about the shape of Christian religion in America. And there's no doubt that for its most devout supporters in the United States that has taken a very hard nationalist turn. And this is true among Protestants, and it is true among many Catholics. And so, I think the question that you posed may be one that no one has really confronted Vance with.“What we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine.” -Gary GerstleAK: And I would extend that, Gary. I think that the most persistent and credible critics of Trump also come from the religious community. Peter Wehner, for example, former—I don't know if you're familiar with his work. He writes a lot for the Times and The Atlantic. Very religious man, is horrified—worked in the Bush and the Reagan administrations. Let's go back to—I was looking at the cover of the book, and obviously authors don't pick the covers of their books—GARY GERSTLE: I did. I picked this.AK: Okay. Well, when you look at the—GARY GERSTLE: This is this is not the original cover.AK: Right, so, the book I'm looking at, and for people just listening, I'm going to describe. The dominant picture is of the Berlin Wall being knocked down in the evening of November 1989. It's odd, Gary, isn't it, that...for the rise and fall of the neoliberal order, which is an economic order in a free market era, you should have chosen the image of a political event, which, of course, Fukuyama so famously described as the end of history. And I guess, for you as an economic historian who is also deeply interested and aware of politics, is the challenge and opportunity to always try to disentangle the economics and politics of all this? Or are they so entangled that they're actually impossible to disentangle, to separate?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think sometimes you need to disentangle them, sometimes they move in different directions, and sometimes they move in the same direction. I think to understand the triumph of the neoliberal order, we have to see that politics and economics move in tandem with each other. What makes possible the neoliberal triumph of the 90s is the fall of communism between 1989 and 1991. And no picture embodies that better than the taking down of the Berlin Wall. And that connotes a message of freedom and escape from Soviet and communist tyranny. But the other message there is that tearing down of those walls opens the world to capitalist penetration to a degree that had not been available to the capitalist world since prior to World War One, prior to the war, and most importantly, to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. And where communists came to power everywhere, they either completely excluded or sharply curtailed the ability of capitalist business to operate within their borders. Their message was expropriate private property, which meant expropriate all corporate property. Give it over to the state, let the state manage it in the interest of the proletariat. This was an extraordinary dream that turned into an awful tyrannical outcome. But it animated the world, as few other ideas did in the 20th century, and proposed a very, very serious challenge to capitalist prerogative, to capitalist industry, to free markets. And so the collapse of communism, which is both the collapse of a state—a communist state, the Soviet Union—but perhaps more importantly, the collapse of the belief that any governments could structure the private economy in ways that would be beneficial to humankind. It's what opened the way in the 1990s to the neoliberal triumph. And it's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world. And in the long term—we're in the mid-term—that was going to create inequalities, vulnerabilities to the global financial and economic systems, that were going to bring the global economy down and set off a radically different form of politics than the world had seen for some time. And we're still living through that radically different form of politics set off by the financial crash of 2008/2009, which, in my way of thinking, was a product of untrammeled capitalism conquering the world in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's and communism's collapse.AK: Yeah, and that's the other thing, isn't it, Garry? I mean, it goes without saying that the bringing down of the war fundamentally changed the old Soviet economy, the East European economies, Poland, Hungary, eastern part of Germany. But what no one—I think very, very few people imagined in '89 was that perhaps the biggest consequence of this capitalist penetration wasn't in Warsaw or Moscow or the eastern part of Berlin, but back in West Virginia with guys like JD Vance. How did the bringing down of the wall change America, or at least the American economy? I've never really quite understood that.GARY GERSTLE: Through the mass exporting of manufacturing to other countries that—AK: Wasn't that before? Wasn't that also taking place before '89, or did it happen particularly in the '90s?GARY GERSTLE: It began before 1989. It began during the Great Recession of the 1970s, where the first districts of manufacturing in the U.S., places like Buffalo, New York steelmaking center, began to get hollowed out. But it dramatically intensified in the 1990s, and this had to do with China permitting itself to be a part of this global free market. And China was opened to capitalist penetration from the United States and Europe. And what you saw in that decade was a massive shift of manufacturing to China, a shift that even intensified in the first decade of the 21st century with the admission of China in 2001 to the World Trade Organization. So China was a big factor. Also, the passage of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which rendered the northern half of the Western Hemisphere one common market, like the European Common Market. So, enormous flight of jobs to places like Mexico. And the labor costs in places like China and Mexico, and then East Asia already leaving Japan for Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, parts of the South Asian subcontinent. The flight of jobs there became so massive, and the labor costs there were so cheap, that American industry couldn't compete. And what you begin to see is the hollowing out of American industry, American manufacturing, and whole districts of America just beginning to rot. And no new industries or no new economies taking the place of the industries and the jobs that had left. And this America was being ignored, largely in the 1990s and first decade of the 21st century, in part because the ideology of neoliberalism said, we understand that this global free market is going to increase inequality in the world, it's going to increase the distance between rich and poor, but the distance between rich and poor is okay because all boats will rise. All people will benefit. This is not just an American story, this is also the story of other parts of the North Atlantic economy. Britain certainly, Germany was a partial exception, France, other places, and this was the ideology...growth would benefit everyone, and this was not the case. It was a fallacy. But the ideology was so strong that it held together until the financial crash of 2008/2009. After that crash, it became impossible to make the point that all boats were rising under the neoliberal regime. And this is when the forgotten Americans and the forgotten Brits of the northern part of the of Great Britain. This is when they began to make their voices heard. This is when they began to strike a very different note in politics. And this is where Donald Trump had his beginnings with these forgotten, angry people who felt ignored, left behind, and were suffering greatly, because by the early decades of the 21st century, it wasn't just jobs that were gone, but it was healthy marital life, divorce rates rising, rampant drug use. Two Cambridge economists wrote a book called Depths of Despair.AK: Yeah, that book comes up in almost every conversation. I once went down to Princeton to interview Angus Deaton. Like your book, it's become a classic. So let's fast forward, Gary, to the last election. I know you're writing a book now about politics in our time of authoritarianism, and you're scratching your head and asking whether the election last week was a normal or an apocryphal one, one that's just different or historical. And I wonder, in that sense, correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to have been two elections simultaneously. On the one hand, it was very normal, from the Democrats' point of view, who treated America as if it was normal. Harris behaves as if she was just another Democratic candidate. And, of course, Trump, who didn't. My interpretation, maybe it's a bit unfair, is that it's the progressives. It's certainly the coastal elites who have become, implicitly at least, the defenders of the old neoliberal order. For them, it kind of works. It's not ideal, but it works and they can't imagine anything else. And it's the conservatives who have attacked it, the so-called conservatives. Is there any truth to that in the last election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think the Democrats are certainly seen by vast sectors of the population as being the defenders of an old order, of established institutions controlling the media, although I think that's less and less true because the legacy media has less and less influence and shows like yours, podcasting and rogue Fox Television and all kinds of other outlets, are increasingly influential. But yes, the Democrats are seen as a party of the establishment. They are seen as the party of the educated elite. And one of the factors that determines who votes for who now is now deeply educational in the sense of, what is your level of educational achievement? If you are college educated, you're much more likely to vote Democratic, regardless of your income. And if you're high school educated or less, you're much more likely to vote Republican. I don't think it's fair to say that the Democrats are the last protectors of the neoliberal order, because Biden broke with the neoliberal order in major, consequential ways. If the defining characteristic of the neoliberal order is to free the market from constraints and to use the state only to free up market forces—this was true, to a large extent, of Obama and of Clinton—Biden broke with that, and he did it in alliance with Bernie Sanders, set of task forces they set up in 2020 to design a new administration. And his major pieces of legislation, reshoring CHIPS manufacture, the biggest investment in clean energy in the country's history. $1 trillion infrastructure bill, the biggest infrastructure project since the interstate highway system of the '50s, and arguably since Roosevelt's fabled New Deal. These are all about industrial policy. These are all about the government using its power and resources to direct industry in a certain way so that it will increase general happiness, general welfare, general employment. So this represents a profound change from what had come before. And in that way, the Biden administration can't be seen as the last defenders.“The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims?”AK: And let me jump in here, Gary, there's another really important question. There was a very interesting piece, I'm sure you saw it, by Nicholas Lemann in the New Yorker about Bidenomics and its achievements. You talked about the New Deal, the massive amount of investments—it was post COVID, they took advantage of the historical crisis. Trillions of dollars have been invested in new technologies. Is Bidenomics new in any way? Or is it basically just a return to the economics, or the political economy, of FDR?GARY GERSTLE: Well, it certainly draws inspiration from FDR, because at the core of the New Deal was the conviction that you could use government to direct industry to positive uses that would benefit not just the corporations, but the population as a whole. But there was nothing like the Green Energy Project in the New Deal. The New Deal, except for hydroelectric projects, was primarily about prospering on a cheap fossil fuel economy. The New Deal also was very comfortable with accepting prevailing gender and race conceptions of the proper place of women and African Americans in American life in a way that is unacceptable to Bidenomics. So there are redirections under Bidenomics in ways that modify the New Deal inspiration. But at its core, Bidenomics is modeled on the New Deal conviction that you need a strong federal government to point industry in the right direction. And so in that sense, there's a fundamental similarity in those two progressive projects. And I think people in the Biden administration have been quite conscious about that. Now, the particular challenges are different. The world economy is different. The climate crisis is upon us. So, it is going to take different forms, have different outcomes. But the inspiration clearly comes from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal.AK: Well, let's go over to the other side and Trump. You scratching your head and figuring out whether this is unusual. And of course, it's the second time he's won an election. This time around, he seems to be overtly hostile to the state. He's associated with Musk, who's promised to essentially decimate the state. In historical terms, Gary, is there anything unusual about this? I mean, certainly the opponents of FDR were also very hostile to this emergent American state. As a historian, do you see this as something new, the pleasure in essentially blowing the state up, or at least the promise of blowing the state up?GARY GERSTLE: That impulse is not new. There have been members of the Republican party who have been talking this language since the New Deal arrived in America in the 1930s and '40s during the '50s and '60s and early '70s, they were marginal in American politics. And then with the neoliberal order coming into being in the '70s and with Reagan as president, their voice has gained enormous traction. One of Reagan's key advisors in the 1980s and 1990s, one of his favorite lines was, “I want to shrink the size of the federal government until we can drown it in the bathtub.” It's a wonderful image and metaphor, and captures the intensity with which conservative Republicans have wanted to eliminate the strong centralized state. But they have not been able to do it to a degree that makes that have satisfied them. It turns out that Americans, for all their possible ideological opposition to big government like big parts of it, like Social Security, like Medicare, like a strong military establishment that's gonna protect the country, like clean air, clean water. So it's proved much more difficult for this edifice to be taken down than the Reaganites had imagined it would be. So, the advocates have become more radical because of decades of frustration. And what we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine, as the abortion issue signifies. What they have in mind is corporate freedom. The freedom of Elon Musk's companies to do whatever they want to do. The freedom of the social media companies to do whatever they want to do. The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims? Peter Thiel has said, very forthrightly, that democracy no longer works as a system, and that America has to consider other systems in order to have the kind of prosperity and freedom it wants. And one thing that bears watching with this new Trump administration is how many supporters the Peter Thiel's and the Elon Musk's are going to have to be free to tear down the edifice and the institutions of the federal government and pursuit of a goal of a reconfigured, and what I would call rogue, laissez-faire. This is something to watch.AK: But Gary, I take your point. I mean, Thiel's been, on the West Coast, always been a convenient punchbag for the left for years now, I punched him many times myself. I wanted to. But all this seems to be just the wet dream of neoliberals. So you have Musk and Thiel doing away with government. Huge corporations, no laws. This is the neoliberal wet dream, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Well, partly it is. But neoliberalism always depended on a structure of law enforced by government that was necessary to allow free markets to operate in a truly free and transparent manner. In other words, you needed elements of a strong government to perfect markets, that markets were not perfect if they were left to their own devices. And one of the dangers of the Elon Musk phase of the Trump administration is that this edifice of law on which corporations and capitalism thrives will be damaged in the pursuit of a radical libertarianism. Now, there may very well be a sense that cooler heads prevail in the Trump administration, and that this scenario will not come to fruition. But one certainly has to be aware that this is one of the possible outcomes of a Trump administration. I should also say that there's another very important constituency in the Republican party that wants to continue, not dismantle, what Biden has done with industrial policies. This is the other half of JD Vance's brain. This is Tom Cotton. This is Marco Rubio, this is Josh Hawley, senator from Missouri. And they want to actively use the government to regulate industry in the public interest. And there's a very interesting intellectual convergence going on between left of center and right of center intellectuals and policymakers who are converging on the importance of having an industrial policy, because if Elon Musk is given his way, how is the abandoned heartland going to come back?AK: It's cheering me up, Gary, because what you're suggesting is that this is a fairly normal moment. You've got different wings of the Republican Party. You've got the Cottons and the Rubios, who were certainly not revolutionary. Why should we believe that this is a special moment then?GARY GERSTLE: January 6th, 2021. That's the reason. Trump remains the only president in American history to authorize an attack on the very seat of American democracy. That being: Congress sitting in the Capitol. And once he authorized the attack, he waited for three hours hoping that his attackers and his mob would conquer this building and compel the legislators inside to do—AK: And I take your perspective. I'm the last person to defend that. But we're talking about 2024 and not 2021. He won the election fairly. No one's debating that. So, why is 2024 a special election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, here's the key. Well, maybe it's a special election in two ways. It may signify the reconfiguration of a genuinely populist Republican party around the needs of ordinary working-class Americans. And we should say, in this regard, that Trump has brought into his coalition significant numbers of Latinos, young blacks. It has the beginning of a look of a multiracial coalition that the Democrats once had, but now appear to be losing. So it may be an epochal moment in that regard. The other way in which it may be an epochal moment is: what if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way? That's how January 6th, 2021, still matters. I'm not saying he's going to do that, but I think we have to understand that that is a possibility, especially since he has shown no remorse for the outcome of the last election. If I read into your comments, I hear you saying: he won this time. He doesn't have to worry about losing. But Trump is always worried about losing. And he is a man who doesn't really know the Constitution, and the parts that he knows and understands he doesn't especially like, because his dream, along with Elon Musk's dream, and this is one reason why I think they are melding so tightly, at the apex of American government should be unbounded executive power. This is not how the country was set up. And as Congress and as the courts begin to push back, will he accept those limits, that there must be bounds on executive power? Or will he try and break through them? I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's something that we have to be concerned about.AK: I wonder, again, wearing your historical cap you're always doing, the more you talk, the more Trump and Trump's Republican party is Nixonian. This obsession with not being responsible for the law. The broadening of the Republican party. Certainly the Republican party under Nixon was less singularly white than it became later. Isn't, in some ways, Trump just a return to Nixon? And secondly, you're talking about the law and Trump ransacking the law. But on the other hand, everything he always does is always backed up by the law. So, he has a love hate relationship with the law himself. He could never have accomplished anything he's done without hiring all these expensive lawyers. I don't know if you saw the movie this year, The Apprentice, which is built on his relationship with what's with Roy Cohn, of course, who schooled him in American politics, who was McCarthy's lawyer. So, again, I'm not trying to defend Trump, but my point is: what's different here?GARY GERSTLE: Well, a key difference from Nixon is that when push came to shove, Nixon submitted to the rule of law, and Trump did not. Nixon did not unleash his people on Congress when a group of senators came to him and said you're going to be impeached if you stay in office, you should resign. He resigned. So the '70s was a moment of enormous assertion of the power of Congress, and assertion of the power and authority of the Constitution. That is not the story of Donald Trump. The story of Donald Trump is the story of the Constitution being pushed to the side. If you ask, is there anything new about Americans and politicians trying to manipulate the law in their favor? There's nothing new about that. And Trump, having made his fortune in New York real estate, knows there's no such thing as perfect markets, knows that judges can be bought and corrupted. And so, he has very little regard for the authority of courts. Everything's a transaction. Everything can be bought and sold. So, he understands that, and he has used the law to his advantage when he can. But let me bring you back to his first inauguration speech. There was no mention of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution in what he had to say that day. I think we'd be hard pressed to find another inaugural speech that makes no reference to the sacred documents having to do with the founding of the American Republic. And so I think in that way, he is something new and represents, potentially, a different kind of threat. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's certainly possible. And let me add one other element that we have to consider, because I'm suggesting that he has a fondness for forms of authoritarian rule, and we have to recognize that hard rights are on the march everywhere in the world right now. The social democratic government of Germany has just fallen. Britain may soon be alone in terms of having a left-center party in control and upholding the values of liberal democracy. The world is in a grip of an authoritarian surge. That is not an American phenomenon. It is an international phenomenon. It is not a phenomenon I understand well enough, but if we're to understand the kind of strongman tendencies that Trump is exhibiting, the appeal of the strongman tendencies to so many Americans, we have to understand the international context in which this is occurring. And these movements in these different countries are fully aware of each other. They draw strength from each other's victories, and they get despairing from each other's defeats. So this is an international movement and an international project, and it's important, in that regard, to set Trump in that historical context.AK: Final question, Gary, there's so much here, we'll have to get you back on the show again in the new year. There's certainly, as you suggested, a great deal of vitality to conservatives, to the Cottons, the JD Vances, the Steve Bannons of the world. But what about on the left? We talked earlier, you sort of pushed back a little bit on the idea that the progressive elites aren't defenders of the neoliberal order, but you kind of acknowledged there may be a little bit of truth in that. In response to this new conservatism, which, as you suggested, is in some ways quite old, what can and should progressives do, rather than just falling back on Bidenomics and reliance on a new deal—which isn't going to happen now given that they had the opportunity in the COVID crisis to spend lots of money, which didn't have any impact on this election, for better or worse. Is there a need to re-architect the progressive politics in our new age, the age of AI, a high-tech age? Or do we simply allow the Bernie Sanders of the world to fall back on 20th-century progressive ideas?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I'm not sure where AI is taking us. AI may be taking us out of democracy altogether. I think one of—AK: You're not giving it any chance, if that's the case.“What if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way?”GARY GERSTLE: Well, there are different versions of AI that will be coming. But the state of the world right now suggests that democracy is on the defensive, and authoritarianism is is on the march. Those who predict the death of democracy have been wrong in the past. So I'm not predicting it here, but we have to understand that there are elements of life, technology, power in in private hands today, that make democracy much harder to do effectively. And so, this is a period of reflection that groups who care about democracy at all points on the political spectrum have to be thinking very seriously about. As for the here and now, and politicians don't think in terms of 10 or 20 years—or you have to be a leader in China, where you can think in terms of 10 or 20-year projects, because you never have to face any election and being tossed out of office—but in the here and now, I think what Democrats have to be very aware of, that the party that they thought they were is the party that the Republican Party has become, or is becoming: a multiracial, working-class party. And if the Democrats are to flourish—and in that regard, it's very significant—AK: It's astonishing, really.GARY GERSTLE: It is astonishing. And it's important to to note that Trump is the first Republican nominee for president since George W. Bush in 2004 to get a majority of votes. And the only person to do it before him in the last 30 years was his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988. Kamala Harris came within 200,000 votes of becoming president of the United States. That's not well enough understood yet. But if 200,000 votes had changed in three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she would be the president elect of the United States. However, she would have been the president elect while losing the popular vote. And one has to go very far back in history to find the Democrats being the beneficiaries of the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. And I think the fact that they lost the popular vote for only the third time in the last 50 years, maybe? I mean, when they elected someone...has to suggest that they have to do some serious thinking about how to reclaim this. Now, Bernie Sanders is coming out and saying, they should have gotten me on the public stage rather than Liz Cheney, that going after suburban Republican women was the wrong route. You should have stuck with me. We had a left/center alliance that worked in 2020. We could have done it again. But that's not my reading of the situation. My reading of the situation is that Bernie-style politics is distinctly less popular in 2024 than it was in 2020. The Democrats have to figure that out, and they have to figure out what they have to do in order to reclaim majorities in American life. And in order to do that, I think their economic programs are actually on the right track, in that respect, under the Biden administration. I think they probably have to rethink some of their cultural policies. There were three issues in this election. The economy was number one. The immigration issue was number two. And then, the trans issue was number three. The Republicans ran an estimated 30,000 ads declaring that the Democratic party was going to take your children away by turning them from boys to girls or girls to boys. The Democratic party has to do some hard thinking about how to have a progressive policy on immigration and how to have a progressive policy on issues of trans matters without losing a majority of the American people, who clearly are, at this moment, not with them on those important issues.AK: It's an astonishing moment, Gary. And I'm not sure whether it's a revolutionary moment or just surreal.GARY GERSTLE: Well, you've been pressing me, on a number of occasions, as to whether this is just the normal course of American politics, and if we look in that direction, the place to look for normality is...incumbents always do badly in high-inflationary times. And Ford and Carter lost in the 1970s. Every incumbent during COVID and during the inflationary period in Europe seems to have lost a recent election. The most normal course of politics is to say, this is an exceptional moment having to do with the enormity of COVID and what was required to shut down the economy, saved people, and then getting started up again, and we will see something more normal, the Democrats will be back to what they normally do, in 2028. That's a possibility. I think the more plausible possibility is that we are in the midst of some pretty profound electoral realignment that is giving rise to a different kind of political order. And the Democrats have to figure out if that political order is going to be under their direction, what they have to do to pull that off. AK: And maybe rather than the neoliberal order, we're talking about, what, a neo-authoritarian order? Is that—GARY GERSTLE: Well, the Trump forces are maybe neo-authoritarian, but we don't have a name for it. Pete Buttigieg—AK: Well, that's why we got you on the show, Gary. Don't you have a name for it?GARY GERSTLE: No. You know—AK: We're relying on you. I hope it's going to be in your next book.GARY GERSTLE: Well, I have till January 20th, 2025, to come up with the name. Pete Buttigieg called it the Big Deal rather than the New Deal. I don't think that cuts it. And there's some other pundits who are arguing about building from the middle out. That doesn't cut it.AK: That sounds terrible. That sounds like—GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's—AK: Designing political parties by committee. It's like an American car.GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's problem. You can't name, effectively, in a positive way, what he's done. One thing that's going to happen—and this may be a sign that things will continue from Biden to Trump, in terms of industrial policy. Do you have any doubt that Trump is going to plaster his name on every computer chips plant, every battery factory? Trump brought this to you, he's got to be there for every opening. He's not going to miss a beat. He'll see this as a grand publicity tour. I think there's a good chance he will take credit for what Biden has started, and that's going to upset a lot of us. But it may also signify that he may be loath to abandon many of these industrial policies that Biden has put in place, especially since the Biden administration was very clever in putting most of these plants, and chip plants, and battery plants, in deep red Republican districts.AK: Well, Gary, I know you're not particularly cheerful. I don't suppose most of our audience are, but you actually cheered me up. I think things are a little bit more normal than some people think. But we will get you back on the show after January—what did you say—January 25th, when you'll have a word to describe the New World Order?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I said after January 20th, 2025, you can expect me to have a name. I probably should—AK: Gary, now, we'll have you back on the show. If you don't have a name, I'm going to report you to Trump.GARY GERSTLE: You'll have to bury me.AK: Yeah. Okay. Well, we're not burying you. We need you, Gary Gerstle, author of Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, a man who makes sense of our present with historical perspective. Gary, as always, a pleasure. Keep well and keep safe. And we'll talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.GERSTLE: Thank you. A pleasure talking with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

From February 10, 2018: In his recent New York Times bestseller “Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic,” David Frum, senior editor of The Atlantic, lays out a compelling account of how President Donald Trump's tendencies could push the United States toward the illiberalism that many Americans believe the republican system of government to be immune to. In an event on Feb. 7 at the Brookings Institution, Frum sat down with Jonathan Rauch, Elaine Kamarck, and Lawfare's Benjamin Wittes for a conversation and Q&A on the book and Trump's threats to democracy.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, Bram & Sandi continue a new Friday series focused on world events and the ‘Kingdom Response'. Through scripture, word and song, we'll put a whole new spin on what's happening in the world, right now. Today: For those of us who have the honor of citizenship in this American Republic, what does it mean […]

Manisha Sinha discusses Reconstruction. Manisha is the Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut and the author of The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860-1920 alongside The Slave's Cause: A History of Abolition and The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina. 

I can't control the nature or message of the Ads this podcast distributor expresses. They are not my views, and I don't endorse them.COMMERCIAL FREE VIDEOS/PODCASTS and Exclusive Content: Become a Patron. https://Patreon.com/DisguisetheLimitsToday, Wed 10.25.2024 -Grab your coffee, drop your Lincoln Logs, flush and get ready to watch! We're going to take a short break from the Pasteurian Virus Lies coverage to discuss the Evils of the Last Days of Constitutional America. I'm referring to Abraham Roman-Agent Lincoln and the divide and conquer strategy that was carried out on the homeland. The Frankist Banking Family has had us fully since the last True Americans surrendered at Appomattox Court House.JOIN His Site!DR PETER GLIDDEN, ND Health Recovery Site:https://leavebigpharmabehind.com/?via=pgndhealthUse Code baalbusters for 50% OFF - LIMITED TIME Just For UsFor the 90 Essential Nutrients, Contact Brenda here: 888 618 1796 ext. 101 Mention the Show!YOU ARE the CHANGE. You ARE the Sponsors.Support the Show Here: https://GiveSendGo.com/BaalBustersEuropean Viewers You can support here: https://www.tipeeestream.com/baalbusters/GET My Clean Source Creatine-HCL Use Coupon Code FANFAVORITE for 5% Offhttps://www.semperfryllc.com/store/p126/CreatineHCL.htmlGo to https://SemperFryLLC.com to get all the AWESOME stuff I make plus use code Victory for 11% OFF just for BB viewers!Quick Links to Dr Monzo and Dr Glidden are found on my website.Want to send me something?Baal Busters Broadcast#1029101 W 16th Street STE AYuma, AZ 85364BE ADVISED: If you are compelled to mail a check for show support, it must be written out to Semper Fry, LLC.Thanks!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ba-al-busters-broadcast--5100262/support.

I can't control the nature or message of the Ads this podcast distributor expresses. They are not my views, and I don't endorse them.COMMERCIAL FREE VIDEOS/PODCASTS and Exclusive Content: Become a Patron. https://Patreon.com/DisguisetheLimitsToday, Thursday 10.26.2024 -Grab your coffee, drop your Lincoln Logs, flush and get ready to watch! We're going to take a short break from the Pasteurian Virus Lies coverage to discuss the Evils of the Last Days of Constitutional America. I'm referring to Abraham Roman-Agent Lincoln and the divide and conquer strategy that was carried out on the homeland. The Frankist Banking Family has had us fully since the last True Americans surrendered at Appomattox Court House.JOIN His Site!DR PETER GLIDDEN, ND Health Recovery Site:https://leavebigpharmabehind.com/?via=pgndhealthUse Code baalbusters for 50% OFF - LIMITED TIME Just For UsFor the 90 Essential Nutrients, Contact Brenda here: 888 618 1796 ext. 101 Mention the Show!YOU ARE the CHANGE. You ARE the Sponsors.Support the Show Here: https://GiveSendGo.com/BaalBustersEuropean Viewers You can support here: https://www.tipeeestream.com/baalbusters/GET My Clean Source Creatine-HCL Use Coupon Code FANFAVORITE for 5% Offhttps://www.semperfryllc.com/store/p126/CreatineHCL.htmlGo to https://SemperFryLLC.com to get all the AWESOME stuff I make plus use code Victory for 11% OFF just for BB viewers!Quick Links to Dr Monzo and Dr Glidden are found on my website.Want to send me something?Baal Busters Broadcast#1029101 W 16th Street STE AYuma, AZ 85364BE ADVISED: If you are compelled to mail a check for show support, it must be written out to Semper Fry, LLC.ThanksBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ba-al-busters-broadcast--5100262/support.

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageWhat if the fate of a nation hinged on a single election? What if the American Republic has created its own antidote to fraudulent elections?Discover how pivotal US presidential contests have sculpted the American Republic, starting with the Revolution of 1800—a heated rivalry between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson that resulted in America's first peaceful transfer of power. This historic shift not only led to the creation of the 12th Amendment but also set precedents for future elections. As we journey through time, we'll dissect the dramatic 1824 election and its notorious "corrupt bargain," which fractured political parties and redefined the landscape of American democracy by 1828.In "Fraud of the Century" we learn of the intense election of 1876, where disputed results between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden almost tore the nation apart. This election's resolution, the Compromise of 1877, ended Reconstruction and redefined the political climate in the South, laying the groundwork for the era of Jim Crow. We'll also touch on the narrow victory of James A. Garfield in 1880, a contest that highlighted the vulnerabilities of electoral integrity. Finally, we invite you to explore the Theory to Action podcast recap, packed with key insights and practical takeaways to keep you motivated and informed. Don't miss out on the engaging stories and critical lessons from these transformative moments in American history.Key Points from the Episode:Revolution of 1800: The election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson marked the first peaceful transfer of power between political parties in the U.S., establishing a crucial precedent for future elections and reinforcing democratic stability.Election of 1824: Known for the "corrupt bargain," this election saw John Quincy Adams become president despite Andrew Jackson winning the most votes, leading to political fallout and Jackson's eventual victory in 1828.likewise the elections of 1860 and 1864 and 1960 and 1964 even to the point of reinforcing our theory that the very close elections are always followed by a decisive election afterward which is the result of American Resilience.   the outlier was the Election of 1876: The disputed results between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden led to the Compromise of 1877, ending Reconstruction and paving the way for Jim Crow laws in the South.followed by the Election of 1880: James A. Garfield's narrow victory highlighted electoral vulnerabilities and underscored ongoing political issues, including tariffs and civil service reform.These pivotal elections set precedents for peaceful transitions, exposed electoral process vulnerabilities, and influenced significant policy shifts with lasting societal impacts.all this is to say, we need to make it To Big To Rig in 2024.Other resources: Want to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!Because we care what you think about what we think and our website, please email David@teammojoacademy.com, 

Sorry for the Political Ad barrage.  I can't control what they do, nor do I condone the messages these ads may promote. GET COMMERCIAL FREE VIDEOS/PODCASTS and Exclusive Content: Become a Patron. https://Patreon.com/DisguisetheLimitsToday, Wed 10.25.2024 -Grab your coffee, drop your Lincoln Logs, flush and get ready to watch! We're going to take a short break from the Pasteurian Virus Lies coverage to discuss the Evils of the Last Days of Constitutional America. I'm referring to Abraham Roman-Agent Lincoln and the divide and conquer strategy that was carried out on the homeland. The Frankist Banking Family has had us fully since the last True Americans surrendered at Appomattox Court House.JOIN His Site!DR PETER GLIDDEN, ND Health Recovery Site:https://leavebigpharmabehind.com/?via=pgndhealthUse Code baalbusters for 50% OFF - LIMITED TIME Just For UsFor the 90 Essential Nutrients, Contact Brenda here: 888 618 1796 ext. 101 Mention the Show!YOU ARE the CHANGE. You ARE the Sponsors.Support the Show Here: https://GiveSendGo.com/BaalBustersEuropean Viewers You can support here: https://www.tipeeestream.com/baalbusters/My Clean Source Creatine-HCL Use Coupon Code FANFAVORITE for 5% Offhttps://www.semperfryllc.com/store/p126/CreatineHCL.htmlGo to https://SemperFryLLC.com to get all the AWESOME stuff I make plus use code Victory for 11% OFF just for BB viewers!Quick Links to Dr Monzo and Dr Glidden are found on my website.Want to send me something?Baal Busters Broadcast#1029101 W 16th Street STE AYuma, AZ 85364BE ADVISED: If you are compelled to mail a check for show support, it must be written out to Semper Fry, LLC.Thanks!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ba-al-busters-broadcast--5100262/support.

In perhaps the most convoluted chapter of Orestes Brownson's The American Republic, we discuss secession, and how that relates to modern American politics. We discuss why secession does not make a state an independent sovereign, and instead is the state giving up its existence as a state and becoming a territory once more. We also discuss abortion, immigration, and much more!Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UlmtdOpinionsGive us your opinions here!

David checks in with Gary Gerstle one more time before November to explore where things now stand with the US presidential election. In a conversation recorded in the immediate aftermath of the Walz/Vance debate, they discuss dead cats, October headwinds, comparisons with 2016 and a president missing in action. Plus, if the result really is too close to call, can the American Republic survive the fallout?There is another bonus episode out now to accompany our recent series on Thinking Machines: David and Shannon Vallor talk about where AI is really taking us, sorting the reality from the hype. Sign up now for just £5 per month or £50 a year for 24 bonus episodes https://www.ppfideas.com/join-ppf-plusNew PPF merch is available on our website: choose from a canvas tote bag or a bone china mug https://www.ppfideas.com/merchNext time: Michael Lewis on Sam Bankman-Fried and Effective Altruism Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tech podcaster Dwarkesh Patel joins Kevin Roberts at the “Reboot: The New Reality” conference in San Francisco, an event hosted by the Foundation for American Innovation. In this engaging conversation, they explore how the rapidly evolving tech industry and conservative policy can find common ground to foster innovation while safeguarding American values. They delve into […]

Tech podcaster Dwarkesh Patel joins Kevin Roberts at the "Reboot: The New Reality" conference in San Francisco, an event hosted by the Foundation for American Innovation. In this engaging conversation, they explore how the rapidly evolving tech industry and conservative policy can find common ground to foster innovation while safeguarding American values. They delve into pressing issues like free speech on digital platforms, the role of government regulation in tech, and how to balance technological advancements with the preservation of individual liberties.

Happy Monday! Sam and Emma speaks with Manisha Sinha, Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut, to discuss her recent book The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860-1920. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the major death toll coming out of Lebanon, the sending of US forces and aid to support Israel, US airstrikes in Syria, Hurricane Helene's death toll and destruction, presidential polling, Gavin Newsome's pro-Private Equity and Big Tech moves, labor news, Eric Adams' legal woes, and the passing of Kris Kristofferson, before reading a message from Matt Strackbein AKA The Letterhack on the devastation of Hurricane Helene. Professor Manisha Sinha then joins, diving right into the major expansion of the typical Reconstruction time frame in her work, with the 1865-77 period failing to incorporate the initial challenge for interracial democracy in the South or the decades of challenges to the progressive project of Reconstruction that were required to overthrow this effort fully, and exploring the mythologizing of this era as an abject “failure” and the “Lost Cause” revisionist history that plays into. Expanding on the importance of understanding the project to unwind Reconstruction, Professor Sinha tackles the role of the Gilded Age and the late 19th Century revolution in Industrial Capitalism in pushing a shift in the Republican Party from Lincoln to anti-labor, laisse-faire liberal Republicans aligned with southern capitalists, all but abandoning the abolitionist project, stepping back from the South as domestic racial terror campaigns and targeted political violence ran wild. After touching on the particular crackdown on the public and civic institutions in the South – via both state and vigilante violence – and expanding on the role of economic populism in bolstering the white supremacist project against Reconstruction, Manisha walks Sam and Emma through the direct relationship between the anti-Black and anti-democratic violence of the era and the then-ongoing project of imperialist expansion and the genocide of Native Americans. Wrapping up, Professor Sinha tackles the glaring parallels with today's fight for democracy and against White Supremacy, particularly regarding party politics and the Supreme Court, and centers the importance of knowing what you're fighting against. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma dive into the obscene, excessive, and indiscriminate nature of Israel's bombardment of Beirut and assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, and watch the Foreign Minister of Jordan respond to Bibi's UN speech. Joe Rogan walks through his big conspiracy of Democrat corruption and accidentally gets all the facts wrong along the way, Donald Trump wants to do a “the Purge,” and Charlie Kirk fights the oligarchy with the power of oligarchy.   Follow Professor Sinha on Twitter here: https://x.com/ProfMSinha Check out Professor Sinha's book here: https://wwnorton.com/books/9781631498442 Find more information on how to assist those in need as a result of Hurricane Helene here: https://x.com/why_sophie_why/status/1839789991075164483/photo/1 Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityrep ort Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

In this episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano sits down with renowned filmmaker and author Dinesh D'Souza to discuss his latest film, Vindicating Trump. Together, they explore why Donald Trump remains one of the most polarizing figures in modern history and examine the systemic efforts to undermine his presidency. The conversation highlights the growing threat of the entrenched bureaucracy and its potential to erode the foundations of the American Republic. D'Souza makes a compelling case for Trump as a defender of the Constitution, while exposing the tactics used by his opponents to maintain control. This episode sheds light on the political warfare shaping the future of the nation.   Episode Highlights: Dinesh D'Souza explains the film's argument that Trump's adversaries, not Trump, are the real threat to the Republic. The role of the entrenched bureaucracy in undermining democratic processes and promoting lawlessness. A discussion on Trump's enduring impact and why he is both revered and reviled in American politics.   Be sure to subscribe and tune in to stay informed on the critical issues affecting America!   More Information If you enjoyed this episode and found it useful, please give The P.A.S. Report Podcast a 5-star rating and take 30 seconds to write a review. Make sure to hit the follow button so you never miss an episode. Please share this episode on social media and with your family and friends. Support The P.A.S. Report Podcast by Visiting Our Advertisers Don't forget to visit https://pasreport.com. Visit The Wellness Company for 10% off your order by using code PAS at check out, visit https://www.twc.health/PAS *PA Strategies, LLC. may earn advertising revenue or a small commission for promoting products or when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.

Michael Shermer and Matthew Stewart explore the heretical philosophical roots of the American Republic, including Enlightenment influences and the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs. They discuss Epicurean and ancient Greek ideas, slavery's moral contradictions, and its role in causing the Civil War, with figures like John Brown and Frederick Douglass shaping abolitionist movements that ultimately led to emancipation. Matthew Stewart is an independent philosopher and historian who has written extensively about the philosophical origins of the American republic, the history of philosophy, management theory, and the culture of inequality. His work has appeared in The Atlantic, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Harvard Business Review, among other publications. In recent years he has lived in Boston, New York, and Los Angeles, and is currently based in London. He is the author of Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic and An Emancipation of the Mind: Radical Philosophy, the War over Slavery, and the Refounding of America.

Doug takes a look at the decisions made by the radical liberal party - from Kamala Harris being bequeathed the nomination, to the choice of Tim Walz rather than Josh Shapiro. And the results of liberal policies throughout the American Republic.----------Please prayerfully consider supporting my show at www.DougBillings.us by setting up a monthly recurring donation. I never charge a price to watch the show... But I am a viewer-funder podcaster. I'm not monetized on social media and your donations are the only way I can keep the show going.-------You can watch the show LIVE every Monday-Friday from 5:00-6:00pm Central Time on X or YouTube!Support the show

Doug takes a look at the decisions made by the radical liberal party - from Kamala Harris being bequeathed the nomination, to the choice of Tim Walz rather than Josh Shapiro. And the results of liberal policies throughout the American Republic. ---------- Please prayerfully consider supporting my show at www.DougBillings.us by setting up a monthly recurring donation. I never charge a price to watch the show... But I am a viewer-funder podcaster. I'm not monetized on social media and your donations are the only way I can keep the show going. ------- You can watch the show LIVE every Monday-Friday from 5:00-6:00pm Central Time on X or YouTube! Support the show

Assassin's Creed III offers players a glimpse into the room where it happened - the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But was the Declaration more than just a document? Who wrote it? And what were the immediate and lasting impacts of making such a Declaration?To answer these questions and more, Matt Lewis is joined by Prof Frank Cogliano, whose latest book A Revolutionary Friendship: Washington, Jefferson, and the American Republic is available now.Echoes of History is a Ubisoft podcast, brought to you by History Hit. Hosted by: Matt LewisEdited by: Robin McConnellProduced by: Matt Lewis, Robin McConnell, Peta StamperSenior Producer: Anne-Marie LuffProduction Coordinator: Beth DonaldsonExecutive Producers: Etienne Bouvier, Julien Fabre, Steve Lanham, Jen BennettMusic:Philadelphia by Lorne BalfeEpilogue by Lorne BalfeIf you liked this podcast please subscribe, share, rate & review. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://uk.surveymonkey.com/r/6FFT7MK Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Joey Taylor & Sam Pressler speak with Pete Davis about Join or Die, which he directed with Rebecca Davis.The Lost Prophets PodcastPete's Interview with SamDedicated by Pete DavisBowling Alone by PutnamThe Upswing by PutnamSum of Us by McGheeAgainst Everyone with Conner Habib PodcastWeird Studies PodcastLindy Effect - Nicholas Nassim TalebThe MaintainersQuest for Community by NisbetFebruary 2nd, 1968 by Wendell Berry Small is Beautiful by SchumacherThe Creation of the American Republic by WoodOur Divided Political Heart by DionneTriplets of Evil Speech by KingBoy in the Bubble by Paul SimonJane Macelevy, Eddie Glaude, Frederick Law Olmsted, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Jane Jacobs, Buckminster Fuller, Ralph Nader, Paul Goodman, Ella Baker, Ivan Illich, Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, Marshal McLuhan, Tony Judt, Thomas Merton, Michael Lind, Frank Capra, Elias Krim, Roberto Unger, Alexis De Tocqueville, Priya Parker

Get ready to rethink everything you know about the Democratic Party! In this explosive episode of Connecting the Dots, I sit down with historian and author Jeremy Kuzmarov to reveal how the party's messaging has quietly embraced militarism—and what it means for America's future. This isn't just another political chat; we're diving deep into the hidden history behind today's headlines, exposing the bipartisan grip of the military-industrial complex on both parties. Jeremy and I break down how Democrats have shaped U.S. foreign policy, fueling wars and global interventions that have real-world impacts on immigration and international relations. If you're ready for a raw, eye-opening conversation on how our political system prioritizes power over peace, you won't want to miss this! Tune in for insights that challenge the status quo and uncover the urgent need for a more balanced, humane approach to politics, both at home and abroad. Watch or Listen now to join the conversation! Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!   Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey! Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:00): Hey, here are a couple questions. Has the messaging from the Democrats changed over the past few years? Is the messaging more jingoistic, more saber rattling, have they become the party of militarism? Let's find out Announcer (00:00:22): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:30): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, thus enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issue before is militarism and messaging. My guest is a man who holds a PhD in American history from Brandeis University. He's the managing editor of Covert Action Magazine. He's the author of five books on US Foreign Policy. He's the author of a piece at Covert Action entitled DNC Convention Features former CIA director who was in charge of drone programs that killed thousands. He is Dr. Jeremy Komaroff. Jeremy, welcome to the show. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:01:39): Thanks so much for having me. Great to be with you. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:01:41): You open your peace in covert action as follows, Leon Panetta was drowned out by anti-war activists when he spoke at the 2016 convention, but not this time. Former CIA director, Leon Panetta, who was the director from 2009 to 2011, was among the featured speakers on the final day of the DNC in Chicago on August 22nd when Kamala Harris accepted the party's nomination as its presidential candidate. Jeremy, does this represent just a shift in rhetoric, or is this a shift in policy and a shift in direction? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:02:25): Well, I think we see a lot of continuity. I mean, Panetta was there in 2016. He's giving the same kind of speech eight years later. In 2016, he was really promoting these anti-Russia themes, anti Putin. This was the forerunner of the Russia gate. They were already attacking Donald Trump as a Russian agents. And his speech in 2024 was the same kind of thing. It was really very jingoistic militaristic in that speech. He was invoking the glory of the Obama administration assassination of Osama Bin Laden or alleged assassination because there are a lot of different theories about what really might've gone on there. And the official story was shown to be a lie. Seymour Hirsch had a piece that was very good, and he compared it to Alice Wonderland, and their rhetoric was so far out there as to what really is known to have happened. And yeah, there are a lot of question mark or they dumped the body at sea, so there are no autopsy and some question if that was even Bin Laden. (00:03:31): Some people believe he died years earlier from renal failure. But in any event, that's the kind of thing they were doing just touting the War on terror. The US military Panetta said something that America made mistake of trying to be isolationist in the 1930s. And there's this kind of insinuation, you can't appease Putin as if he the new Hitler and America was not really isolationist. It was a global empire starting the late 19th century when it acquired the Philippines and Puerto Rico and Cuba and function as a global empire from that time period. So it never really isolationist. And FDR had this major naval buildup in the Asia Pacific that essentially provoked the Pacific War. It was a horrific war. So I mean, he obviously doesn't know his history that well, but this is just theater. Yeah, it's a very hawkish theme. He's a dancing and his speech echoed Kamala Harris' speech, anti-Russia themes, pro-military themes. (00:04:36): So that's what you get nowadays out of the Democratic party. And yeah, I mean there were booze of Panetta in 2016, but it was quiet this time around. It seems that people are just trying to mobilize around Harris and the EM of the anti-war movement. I mean, there were protestors outside of the convention. A lot of that centered exclusively on Israel Palestine. So I don't know. I mean, I think the protestors in 2016 were part of the Bernie Sanders faction. Maybe they had some hope in the party then, but now I think anti-war people have no hope in the Democratic Party. So they left or somewhere outside protesting. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:05:21): Well, in fact, that was really the crux of my question, Panda's rhetoric versus the convention's response. And does the convention's response, or some might say lack of response, indicate that there's a serious shift in the party, particularly as we look at how easily war mongering legislation gets passed through Congress, through the democratic elements of Congress as it relates to funding for Ukraine and funding for Gaza and more jingoistic rhetoric as it relates towards China? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:06:01): Absolutely, and I think it's telling that Robert Kennedy and Tulsa Gabbard are considered more peace candidates and they've made a lot of statements critical of US foreign policy, especially regarding Ukraine. Less so for Kennedy, and I think also Gabbard, Israel, Gaza, but definitely Ukraine. They've both been very critical and called for easing of relation with Russia. And they've warned about the threat of nuclear war and that we're in an era and new Cuban missile crisis, they've compared it to, and they were booted out of the party. I mean, Tulsa, they were treated horribly beyond just debate. I mean, Gabbard, she was in one of the CNN debates or televised debates in 2020 as she was running in the primary. And she was viciously attacked by Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris and others who dominate the party in kind of Neo McCarthy I term, and they called her a Putin stooge. (00:07:01): And a Bashir saw theologist because she wanted to, she was against the covert operations in Syria and the escalation of conflict. And somehow they called her all these kind of names and really treated her in the way that Joseph McCarthy would recognize or victim of McCarthyism with reminiscence of that. So she was totally driven out of the party. Now you find they're more on Fox News. I mean, I think the Republican, they're trying to capitalize on the disinfection of many pacifists and peace oriented people with the Democrats, and they're trying to recruit them and draw them into the fold. And that's why they brought in Kennedy and gather. But personally, I think that they're just, they're very cynical operative and their Republican party are just trying to get that vote. But they're not really peace oriented party either. And Trump's foreign policy was very bellicose and aggressive in many ways, certainly toward Latin America. (00:08:00): The drone war, Trump escalated the drone war, escalated war in Somalia, and he's very aggressive and very xenophobic and threatens a major escalation, I think with China. So I think it's just a cynical ploy by the GOP to try and get these disaffected people are disaffected with the Democrats and by recruiting Kennedy and Gabbard to create this persona as a new peace party. But I don't think they really are a peace party. And so those of us who are really committed to pacifism, anti imperialistic politics really have nowhere in the mainstream American politics, and I think we should work on developing our own independent parties. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:08:47): Before I get back to your piece, you mentioned in your earlier answer a reference to people trying to compare former President Trump to Hitler. And I was at the RNC when JD Vance was, his name was placed in nomination and he accepted the nomination. And I was doing my standup after the nomination. And I was saying as I was closing my analysis, I said, I find it very interesting, if not ironic, that a guy who just a couple of years ago was comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler is now his vice presidential nominee, and we'll be standing next to him on stage. I said, how does that happen? And when I said that, there was a guy standing next to me who turned to my cameraman and said, you guys have to leave. You have to leave right now. He was allowing us to use his space, so he was able to tell us that. But my point is, as soon as I said that, you guys got to go, you got to go right now. Explain that because I find it amazing. And only now would something like that happen in our politics. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:10:11): Yeah, well, I think it is increasingly out of the Twilight Zone. I mean, well, firstly, I think a lot of the rather is a bit overblown. I mean, I think Trump, there are a certain fascist theme in the GOP and there are concern about ascendant fascism and authoritarianism both among both parties. I mean the scapegoating of immigrants in the GOP, the extreme nationalism, ultra militarism like veneration of the military, that bears fear that the GOP leaning the fascist direction. I mean, I think some of the rhetoric about Hitler may be overblown, but yeah, it's totally ironic that he was calling him Hitler, as you say, and then he's the nominee. So that's just insane. But why did they kick you out? I mean, you were just repeating a fact that is known to be a fact, and that goes to the growing authoritarianism we see that can't, the kind of conversations we're having are not tolerated in the mainstream. And just a journalist doing his job and just reporting on something is being removed that Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:11:22): And can get you arrested and detained in airports and have your home raided by the FBI, as with Scott Ritter and O'Malley Yella and the three, Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:11:37): Yes, this is, yeah, I think what we're seeing is, yeah, more overt form of authoritarianism. And I think it's showing the flaw of American democracy. I mean, on paper there has been a democracy, but in reality for years and generation dissidents have been ostracized and marginalized and faced a lot of persecution, maybe not physical violence, although I mean under FBI Cual Pro, there were a lot of victims of state repression, people who were unjustly incarcerated sometime for decades, there were people killed. I mean the FBI infiltrated leftists in radical groups with the goal of destroying them and creating divisions. And in the Black Panther, they orchestrated murders. So I mean, there very violent, undersized underbelly of American politics. And that's coming more to the surface more and more. And I mean, you see, look, mark Zuckerberg said that Biden administration told him to censor Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:12:45): The Hunter Biden laptop story. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:12:47): Yeah, well, the hunter bought laptop and relate to COVID-19. And without your view on that, people should have a right to express it, but Zuckerman was told to censor viewed that criticized the government position. And then yeah, you have these raids going on Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:13:04): A minute, a minute, a minute because it's important. I think that people really clearly understand that the point that you just made about Zuckerberg, that's not your opinion. He stated that in a letter that he wrote to Congressman Jim Jordan. And so those who want to wait a minute, what is Jeremy talking about? Right? Google it. You can read the letter for yourselves. It was sent last week and Zuckerberg made those very clear statements and was apologetic for having done what he did in censoring those stories on Facebook because he has since come to understand that contrary to, as he was told, those were not Russian propagandist talking points. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:13:56): Exactly. Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. And another fact is that Tim Waltz made statements supporting censorship if it was related to misinformation, and that seems to be the line in the Democratic Party, but they use misinformation. Could be anybody who's simply critical of the government. They call it somebody who criticizes government policy in Ukraine or vis-a-vis Russia. They say he's promoting misinformation or Russian propaganda, or the same for the Covid narrative. They question the dominant narrative. And I found the review of waltz's statements. He promoted misinformation. So for instance, he claimed that carried out chemical attacks on his own people, and that was refuted by scientists like Theor Postal did a very detailed scientific study, and I did an article and I interviewed postal and he showed me his data and this guy, the top flight MIT scientist, and he repu these claims, his analysis, and he was very neutral. (00:15:02): He wasn't really on any side of the war, and he wasn't even particularly political. It was a very objective scientific study that based on the angles, those attacks had to have occurred from certain areas that were controlled by the rebels, not the Assad government. And that other attacks didn't think that there were chemical attacks, one of those bombing of a fertilizer plant. In other case, some stuff may have been planted like dead animals to make it look like an attack because people would've been dead. He said, he showed me photos and he had images of photos where people who were on the scene would've immediately been killed if there was actually a chemical weapon attack the way they described it, and they weren't affected or sick in any way. So in any event, that's just an example of waltz can be seen to have promoted misinformation. (00:15:57): So based on his own statements, he should censor himself. But the broader point is the American constitution and the American Republic was founded on the deal to free speech, and that's what we should have. And this cancel culture. I think too often on the left, people support censorship under the GU of a cancel culture. And I think that's very dangerous, and I think people are smart enough to see which ideas are good or bad for themselves. They don't need to have this censorship. It serves no purpose, even for somebody who is promoting bad things or false information, you don't have to censor because people are smart enough to see there's no evidence behind what he's saying, which is often true, sadly, of the US government, and that's why they lose credibility. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:16:45): I've asked this question of a number of guests, Caleb Moin and I think Dr. Gerald Horn and a few others that talking about censorship in the United States, engagement in censorship, that if you look over history, particularly since World War I, this whole idea of censorship really comes to a height when the United States feels threatened. And then once the perceived enemy is vanquished, then the whole focus on censorship tends to wane if not go away. And so I'm wondering if now because we're seeing heightened censorship, if that's an indication to you how threatened the United States empire feels? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:17:34): I think so. Yeah. Censorship goes hand in hand with war. War is the enemy really of democracy. And we've been in a state of permanent war since nine 11, and I think they've manufactured this new Cold War for sustaining the military complex police state, which has to go hand in hand with censorship. And we've seen more authoritarian forms of government, even toward the domestic population, heightened militarized policing in inner cities. We've seen the government stripping funding from vital social programs, and that's automatically going to generate more and more dissent and dissatisfaction with the government and living conditions. So they have to ratchet up censorship and more authoritarian, greater authoritarianism, and that's the only way they could sustain their power, and they've really lost their governing legitimacy. People, if you talk to people from all walks of life, whether in liberal areas, conservative, you find almost universally people distrust the government and they're not happy with the direction of the country, and more and more are speaking out. So they have to censor them and try and control the media and channel any descent they want to channel it and co-opt it. And that's why a lot of the media has been co-opted their CIA or FBI, infiltrators and media, even alternative media. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:19:06): In fact, to your point about people being dissatisfied with the direction of the country, if you go to real clear politics, those polled 26.9% believe the country's heading in the right direction. 63.4 believe that the country's on the wrong track. So again, I try my best to give as much data as I can to support the positions that are being stated so the people can understand that this is substantive analysis that we're providing because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here. Let's go back to your piece you write, Panetta said that Harris would fit the bill as a tough commander in chief to defend the USA against tyrants and terrorists, according to Panetta. Harris knows a tyrant when she sees one and will stand up to them, unlike Donald Trump, who Panetta suggested had coddled dictators such as Putin and effectively told them they could do whatever they want. Why is that exchange or that recounting by Panetta troublesome to you? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:20:18): Well, firstly, yeah, and the statistics you're citing indicate that many Americans are increasingly seeing their own government as tyrannical. And this is the kind of tired rhetoric we've seen over and over to justify these foreign adventures and unjust and unnecessary wars that further divert our treasury away from actually solving the problem in our society. And yeah, we see, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:20:45): Wait a minute, and many will tell you, because I've been having this conversation for at least eight years, that that's the intent, that the objective has always been to heighten the sense of insecurity within the country so that social program funding social safety net funding could be shifted away from the public to the private military industrial complex. And they talked about this when Obama came into office, they talked about this, I know I have it backwards. When Clinton came into office, they talked about this when Biden came into office, they said the narrative is more subtle with the Democrats, but the objective is still the same. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:21:32): And the rhetoric, as you see, they're really attacking Trump from the right and they're positioning themselves as more hawkish. And that's why a lot of the neoconservatives have moved into the Democratic party. And William Christol, who this neo-conservative, intellectual, and a great cheerleader for the Iraq war, he sent out a tweet, Leon Panetta quoting Ronald Reagan at the Democratic Convention. This is my Democratic convention or a CIA director quoting Ronald Reagan. And yeah, you see from that statement you read, Trump is somehow soft on the Russian, but if you actually look at Trump's policy toward Russia, he pulled out of the INF treaty, which is a very good arms limitation treaty. He ratcheted up these sanctions from hell on Russia. He ratcheted up arm sales to Ukraine, for instance. He sold javelin anti-tank missiles, which Obama had up to that point hadn't sold. So he would not soft at all. (00:22:31): And he was plotting regime change. I mean, there's a lot of continuity in foreign policy. You see a lot of continuity among administration. So Trump's approach really was not very different from Obama. He's just kind of expanding on things Obama was doing. And then Biden takes it to a further level of provoking all out war and attacking Russia directly. So the rhetoric is meaningless, but yeah, it's designed to inculcate fear. I agree with your analysis that they just try and make us fearful and on edge whether it's of the next disease pandemic or the next threat. I mean, they're always playing up the threat of North Korea or Iran. I mean, look at North Korea. I mean North Korea was bombed back to the Stone Aid by the United States during the Korean War and the US pumps South Korea with weaponry and stores nuclear weapons there. I mean, obviously North Korea is going to respond. (00:23:27): I mean, developing a nuclear weapon is their only way to save their country and survive as a nation. I mean, they see what happened to Libya, but our media doesn't present it in that way, or our political elites, they present it like North Korea as some major threat to us led by this crazy dictator. But they give no context for why North Korea would invest in nuclear weapons or missiles and how a lot of their weapon development is just designed to protect themselves from the threat of renewed invasion and being destroyed again, that they were in the Korean War, but they never give the history of the context. So the public who believes that rhetoric as in fear of North Korea one day, Iran, another day, Putin is presented in the most demonized way, conceivable a totally kind of cartoonish way as this evil Hitler type figure. So we're supposed to fear him one day, and that's how they do it, and that's how they justify this huge military budget that's approaching a trillion dollars now. And yeah, I mean the government spends a pittance on social welfare programs and education and healthcare infrastructure. I mean, that's what the government should be doing, should be helping to create a better society, better living conditions here at home. But instead, they spend a trillion on weapons. And that comes back. And now you have the law like the USA Patriot Act and 1290 D program where all that Pentagon weaponry gets put into our police forces who become more like occupying armies in inner cities and their mistreatment minority groups. So it's an ugly picture. Yeah. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:25:13): You mentioned Libya, and I think we can tie this to your piece. You mentioned Libya, and people need to remember that the execution of Libby and leader Muammar Kadafi took place under the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of state, and it was Hillary Clinton, and I believe Samantha Power that convinced then President Obama to execute Kadafi. And so if we understand a lineage of thought from Hillary Clinton, her predecessor Madeline Albright, she was a student of Brzezinski who was a Russia phobe. And so there's a lineage of thought within the State Department, and now we have to understand that Vice President Harris is an acolyte of Hillary Clinton. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:26:18): And Hillary Clinton is a very dangerous figure. And I wrote a book on Bill Clinton and I did a lot of research on their career bill's career as the governor of Arkansas. So I learned a lot about Hillary, and even from that time, she's very corrupt individual. Clinton was tied with the national security establishment. He oversaw a major covert operation in Arkansas to the Nicaragua and Counter-revolutionaries, and they laundered a lot of money through illicit Proceed, and they were bringing back drugs as part of these arm smuggling operations. And Hillary worked for the Rose law firm and was representing clients who were involved in money laundering in Arkansas banks. And she was always known as a hawk. So she very unprincipled corrupt person who was involved in also all kinds of shems to raise money for Clinton's campaigns that should have put her in prison. (00:27:16): And then she was always known as a warhawk. She evolved into a major warhawk. There was a very good article in the New York Times, the Rare Good article, New York Times magazine called Hillary the Hawk, and it surveyed her career going back to the Kosovo War. She was a big proponent of the bombing there. She supported the Iraq war, every war she supported, and her hawkishness came out on Libya where she was gloating after Kadafi was lynched. She gloated, we saw he died and she was so happy about it and giggling. And I mean that was a disgrace comparable to Iraq. I mean, Libya was a well-functioning country under CA's rule. I mean, he may have had certain authoritarian features, but he used Libya's oil resources to develop their economy to invest in education. I met a number of Libyans who were able to get free education abroad that Libyan government paid for their education abroad, and they came back to work to develop their country. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:20): Wait a minute, wait a minute. To that point, I was teaching at Howard University at the time, and I came across some Libyan students and I asked them who was paying their tuition and they didn't understand the concept of tuition. They were saying, well, wait a minute. Why would you pay to go to college? Help us understand. They could not put their head around Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:28:50): Paying Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:51): For tuition. And I believe, I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that at the time that Kadafi was the leader of Libya, that Libya was the most one of, if not the most stable country on the continent. It had one of the strongest economies on the continent. And Kadafi was developing his country, developing his agriculture. He was, as they called it, greening the desert. Libya had some of the purest water in the world, some of the deepest water, the water table. And one of the big issues was he saw himself as an African, not an Arab. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:29:36): And I visited Zambia, my ex-wife was from Zambia, and I visited there in 2007 and Kadafi came during my visit and he was greeted as a hero because he was using Libby as well, resources to promote development projects across the African continent. And he was seen as somebody who stood up for African and was carrying on the tradition of Pan-Africanism figures who revered in Africa like Kwame Nama and Nelson Mandela. And he was seen an heir to that tradition. And then he was overthrown and treated worse than a dog. And Libya has now seen the return of slavery, violent extremism has come into the country, just pure chaos. And a lot of Libyan have had to flee to Europe and then the European under perilous conditions in these boats. And then Europeans complain about immigration. I mean, they turn Libyan to a hellhole and the cost in lives, and it's just sickening. (00:30:38): And Clinton was just laughing all about it and thought it was funny. And I think Kamala Harris seems to be on that intellectual level. She laughs at inappropriate moments. I've seen her. She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of world affairs, and she's close with some terrible leaders around the world, like the Washington Post report that she has developed as vice president, an unusually close relationship with Ferdinand Marcos Jr. And he's the son of one of the worst dictator of the US support in the Cold War Fernan Marco Sr. Who looted the Filipino treasury and killed who knows how many dissidents. And his son seems to be picking up where the father left off. He jailed Walden Bellow, who's a great intellectual in the Philippines, who is running for an opposition party, and they're building up US military bases in Philippines to confront China. And Harris went to ink some base deal a couple of years ago, and there were a lot of protesters for her visit. But yeah, this is one of the dictators she's very close with. So she's following this imperialistic tradition, and yeah, there should be, well, again, a lot of people have left the Democratic party. They see no hope in it, but it's troubling when this is supposedly the more liberal and humane party and this is what they're doing. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:32:07): And folks, we're connecting the dots here. That's the purpose of this podcast, is connecting, linking dots, linking historic events so that you can see the trend, you can see the pattern, you can understand what's really going on behind the scenes. Let's go to Vice President Harris's speech at the convention. She says, as commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, and I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families. She'll always honor their sacrifice as she should, but the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world that now Jeremy seems to be really throwing good money after bad because the issue now, at least in terms of the geopolitical landscape, is economic. It's not militarism. It's the United States that seems to be using militarism as its only weapon. And I use that euphemistically against this unipolar to multipolar shift with the rise of bricks and the Chinese cooperation organization, their fighting an economic war with militarism. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:33:40): Yeah, and actually it was ironic that she made those statements and that week the New Yorker published these photos from 2006 Haditha Massacre where the US military massacre, all these Iraqi civilian, and there were these horrible photos you may have seen of children who had been shot by us Marines or soldiers. So having the most lethal military force in the world, what does that mean? You go into a country like Iraq and shoot up women and children. I mean, is this something to strive for? And then as you say, this military force is getting us nowhere. I mean, it's just causing backlash against the United States. I mean, yeah, look, in Africa, all these new governments have come in and they're kicking out the US military. They don't want the bases in their country. Like in Niger, for example, a huge drone base that was removed. And I mean Ukraine Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:34:40): Just recently, a couple of soldiers within the last couple of days were harassed Incaa. And Dr. Horn was saying that this is not an isolated incident, that when you see something like this happening on the streets of tur or as many still know it as Turkey, that this is an indication that the people are rising up, not the leadership, the people. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:35:08): Absolutely. And we see, yeah, the United States is a paper tiger. I mean, look at Ukraine, billion and billion, the weaponry and Russians are gaining more and more territory every day. It's reported that even as Ukraine is taking the war into Russia, Russia's taking more territory in Eastern Ukraine every day than they were before. Israel is doing nothing in Gaza. They just leveled the place killed. According to the Lancet report, now it's about a month ago, 186,000 civilians. Now they're attacking people in the West Bank, but they've achieved nothing militarily and the United States wars were all failure in the last generation. You have Libya. I mean, they turn countries into chaos, but it's ultimately they don't achieve the broader goal they set out. I mean, look at Afghanistan 20 years and they achieved nothing, and the Taliban came back in and it's just Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:04): Money. Well, Lockheed Martin and McDonald Douglas made a hell of a lot of money in Afghanistan. They achieved something. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:10): Yeah, that's all they Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:11): Achieved. Stock value went pretty high. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:15): And I think the public needs to channel their revolt against those company in the military industrial complex. Their hard-earned taxpayer dollar. They're getting absolutely nothing for it. People are getting killed around the world that weaponry has coming, being sent to us police forces after the military used equipment. It's creating a more authoritarian environment here. And a few fat cats, what they used to call merchants of death are getting rich. And there should be a revolt against those people because they've grown rich off the misery and death of other humans. And it's not a way to run an economy or society rooted in violence and just the wealth of tiny number off the misery of everybody else. And horrific weapon we've never seen in human history, the kind of horrific weapon they're developing now. It's unfit for humanity, and there is movements to try and get universal bans on certain kinds of weapons, and that should certainly be supported as well Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:37:17): In her speech. She also said, let me say, I know there are people of various political views watching tonight, and I know you know, I promise. Oh no. And I want you to know, I promise to be president for all Americans. You can always trust me to put country above party and self to hold sacred America's fundamental principles from the rule of law to free and fair elections to the peaceful of power. Well, when you look at the data and you look at the polling, an overwhelming majority of Americans, even Jewish Americans, want an end to the United States involvement in the genocide in Gaza. Now, she's saying that she promises to be the president of all Americans, but she and I put this on her because this was her convention, would not allow a Palestinian spokesperson, a representative of that position on the stage. Is that tone deaf or is it evidence that she's a Zionist and she's down with the, Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:38:37): Or both? Well, I think it's an illusion. They were trying to claim at the convention that she was working tirelessly for a ceasefire and for peace in the Middle East. And that's simply a lie the Biden administration has. It's been a joint US Israeli operation in Gaza. And we should recognize that Israel is basically a proxy of the United States empire in the Middle East that the US has used Israel. The reason they've given all those weapons to the Israelis over years now is that Israel has served the key function for the US Empire in the Middle East and accessing Middle East oil. Israel provides US military bases, and it does a lot of the dirty work for the US Empire going back years. For instance, in the six day war, the Israelis humiliated the US nemesis, Kamala del Nassar, who was like Kadafi, started as a pan arabist, and he was in the mold of Nassar who had moved to nationalize the Suez Canal and nationalize the oil resources and was forged alliances with Syria and forged the United Arab Republic with Syria and was promoting Arab unity so the Arab states could go strong in the face of Western imperialism and reclaim control of their chief natural resource oil. (00:39:58): And obviously the CIA tried to overthrow Nassar. They even sent in Kermit Roosevelt, a coup master who had been in Iran, but he failed. But Israel did the job in the sixth day war. They humiliated Nassar. And by that point, Israel was getting a lot of the US weapons already starred in the Kennedy administration where he basically opened the spigots. And Johnson was a huge supporter militarily of Israel. And Israel also carried a lot of covert operations in Africa that have served US interests, including countries like in Congo where they help access the mineral wealth of the Congo. So Israel has gone after the Assad dynasty was an enemy of the United States and West because they were more alive with Nassar in whose day and the Soviet Union, and they're more nationalistic so that the regime the US doesn't like and they've used Israel to Israel has been bombing Syria for a long time now and has tried to gone after Asad. (00:40:57): So these are just examples of how Israel does some of the dirty work of the United States and functions as a proxy of the United States. So the country basically are arm in arm together, and they may pay for public relations purposes. If Netanya has seen a bit extreme among some of their base or among some of the electorate, they may try and take a public distance or say they're trying to moderate his behavior, but I think that's more for public relations. They continue to provide him the weapons he needs, and they're not going to do anything. The last president who had a kind of even handed approach in the Middle East was to some extent with Dwight Eisenhower, who when Israel and Britain and France invaded Egypt, and after Nassar nationalized the Suez Canal, Eisenhower imposed sanctions on Israel and threatened why their embargo and even to punish Israel and the United Nations, but they would never do that today. (00:41:55): They're just giving cover and the weapons and diplomatic support in the UN for Israel's conduct and ethnic cleansing or genocide, whatever you want to call it. And I think they support the US imperialists support the project of a greater Israel, the Israeli far right that their goal is to expand the Israeli polity to basically remove the Palestinian and to use their land for broader projects, canal building to increase the water resource in Israel, access offshore oil. And the US supports that. Could they want a stronger Israel because that's their proxy in the Middle East and the US wants to dominate the Middle East and its oil resources for the next several generations, and they need Israel for that. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:42:46): We could spend a whole nother hour on this next question, but if you could just clarify a point that you made that you just made. You mentioned Kermit Roosevelt, you mentioned the United States going in and overthrowing Nassar, and you said they failed in, oh, you said they failed in Iran. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:09): Sorry. They failed in Egypt. They succeeded in Iran. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:43:12): See, okay, see that. Okay. Kermit Roosevelt and Norman Schwartzkoff Sr went in and overthrew Muhammad Ek and installed the S Shah. That's why I wanted clarification. I thought you said, and I could have misunderstood you. I thought you said they failed in Iran. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:32): No, and my point was they succeed in Iran, Kermit Roosevelt with a coup master. Then they sent him to Egypt to get rid of that thorn in their side, Albu master, because his pan-Arabism. But there he failed. Nassar was very popular, and he couldn't work the same magic, or they didn't have the right people to get rid of him. So that's when Israel stepped in and it was beefed up by us armed supplies. And in six days, they humiliated him and they provoked that war. It's been admitted by top Israeli leader than generals that they provoked that war. They humiliated Nassar, and three years later he died. And he was replaced by Anmar Sadat, who was much more west and abandoned his Pan Arab ideology. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:44:16): And also, again, this could be a whole nother show, but just quickly, you were talking about Israel being a US proxy, and you've mentioned this before, but I think it's folks, we're connecting the dots here, pay attention. We're connecting the dots. Ukraine is operating in a similar fashion as a US proxy in that part of the world as Israel is acting in the Middle East. And so because look, folks, the Ukraine war is lost. It's lost. And people say to me, Wilmer, you said that the war would be over in two years. And I was right as Putin wound up negotiating with, I'm drawing a blank on the Ukrainian president's name, Zelensky, vmi Zelensky. And he holds up the paper and says, we negotiated a settlement. The US sends in Boris Johnson to say, we're not going to accept this. The West will not. Hence the war is ongoing. Ukraine has no tanks of its own. They're now having to go into their prisons and empty their prisons to send convicted murderers to the frontline. They don't have an army of their own anymore. They don't have artillery of their own anymore. They don't have jets of their own anymore. Everything they're using comes from NATO and comes from the West. And it's a very same situation in Israel. Again, that could be a whole show of itself, but I just wanted to quickly connect the dots between the proxies in Israel and the proxies in Ukraine. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:46:05): And I would add the point that the United States and the people of those countries should understand, and I think this is American Jews should understand that the United States doesn't care about the people. They're using them for their own agenda. And look, Ukrainian has suffered terribly through their lines with the United States. They never would've gone to war with Russia, Ukraine and Russia got along. They had some issues, but they resolved it. And maybe the Ukrainian felt slight in some way toward the Russians, but they weren't stupid enough to take up arms against the Russians and annihilate themselves. But they thought because they had the United States and all these weapons that they could take on the Russians, and they made the same mistake as Napoleon or Hitler. I mean, the Russians are, I spent time in Russia. They're very patriotic people, and they will defend their country. (00:46:58): And this was a war provoked by the United States that basically used, and the Russians know this, that the US was using Ukraine, a battering ram against Russia, and they're going to defend themselves. And the Israeli case, look, the Israelis Israeli security has suffered tremendously. Now they're inviting attacks from all their enemies and they've shed so much blood, they're going to invite vengeance and retaliation against them, the security situation, very poor in Israel. I would not want to live in Israel, and they could invite one day their own destruction. Already, they've compromised the moral of their society. Israel was founded as a haven for Jewish people, and a lot of the very idealistic people were part of the original Zionist movement. I mean, the kibbutz was a concept of a cooperative model of an economy. But look at Israel today. It's this armed military state that is pariah around the world because of the atrocity that's carried out with support by the United States doing the United States dirty work. (00:48:05): And it's eviscerated its own democracy. I mean, it's become very repressive there. Journalists who are trying to report on what's going on in Gaza have been, I don't know. I think they've been certainly blacklist, if not jailed or shot. I mean, it's just a evolved, a violent authoritarian state. That's king of assassination. Mossad carries out assassinations around the world. It's hate and fear. It has an extreme right-wing government, this is not the ideal of a lot of the original Zionists. And a lot of American Jews are very uncomfortable the direction of that society they should be, and it could invite their own destruction one day. So I mean, that's a lesson you can take. If you lie with the empire, they'll use you for their own purpose and ultimately they'll spit you out. I mean, ask the Kurds, ask the Hmong and Lao, they've used proxies in other countries, and those proxies got totally destroyed like the Hmong and Laos or the Kurd, and they'll abandon them when it doesn't suit their agenda. They may find somebody else. And Ukrainian society has been destroyed. 500,000 youth have been killed. They don't even have enough people. How are they going to run their economy when all the youth of the country have been killed? Others had to flee. They don't want to fight the front lines. Yeah, they've sacrificed them as ponds in this war. It's sad. And Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:49:29): Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham goes to Ukraine and encourages the Ukrainians to fight and to continue to fight. And let me just give you a quick analogy. Imagine a boxing match, and one of the cornermen is getting paid not for the win, but for the number of rounds his fighter engages in. And so that's Lindsey Graham, he's the corner man, his guy. Both of his eyes are damn near shut. He can't breathe. His lips are swollen. His head has all kinds of knots on it, and he keeps sending his guy out there to get slaughtered because he gets paid by the round instead of the knockout. Is that a fair analogy? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:50:20): Absolutely. Yeah. And I studied the history of the Vietnam War, and one thing I remember and I used to show students the TV history of the Vietnam War, and they had one, it was made in the eighties. They had one segment on the Secret War in Laos, like what I was saying with the Hmong who they used to fight the left-wing, Beth Lao and William Colby came on, was interviewed some years later. He was the CIA director. And he said, oh, well, that was a great project for us. The Hmong lasted 10 years is exactly what you're saying. Yeah, they lasted 10 round, but then they got killed. All of them. The Hmong were decimated, and they had to send, that's what the Ukrainians are doing, the hm. Had to send 14 year olds to the front lines. And a sea operative said, started to feel bad. (00:51:06): He is like, we're sending these 14 year olds on these planes to be killed, and I know they'll be killed. And I'm telling their parents, I'm patting them on the back and they'll be killed next week. And that's what's happening with Ukraine. And Graham won't send his own kids. I mean, if they're the real reading the fight, fight a war, you have to fight. If you're a real man, you'll fight it because there's a real reason your community's under attack or there's a real threat of Hitler. But instead they manufacture these wars and cowardly send and manipulate other people to fight and die. And that's the worst form of cowardice and manipulation I could think of in human society Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:45): As we wrap this up and folks we're connecting dots. And if you don't like what we're saying, if what we're saying makes you angry, as Malcolm said, if my telling you the truth makes you angry, don't get angry at me. Get angry at the truth. And you can look all of this up. I want to get back to your piece you quoted, and you mentioned this earlier, but Panetta quotes Ronald Reagan at a speech at the DNC, and he emphasized the isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to government. You write, Panetta ended his speech by highlighting that Harris was a good choice to reinvigorate American world leadership as she worked with 150 foreign leaders as vice president served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, worked closely with VMI Zelensky of Ukraine to fight against Russia. And you go on a number of things. You say that Panetta provided a litany, my word, not yours, of misinformation and disinformation in that part of his speech. How so? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:53:00): Well, I mean, the whole speech is disinformation because he has this mythical, romantic view of the killing of bin Laden that's not rooted in the reality. And then, yeah, he's claiming the US was an isolationist in the thirties, but the US was a global empire starting the late 19th century. And in the 30, the FDR had been the head of the secretary. I forget his position, but it was with the Navy, and he headed the Navy and he was a big naval enthusiast, and he initiated a massive naval buildup in the Asia Pacific. And then he historian believed that the key factor that provoked a Japanese counter response and led to the Pacific War. So where's the isolationism? I mean, it's not the accurate history, but I mean these conventions just about political theater. But I mean, yeah, quoting Reagan. I mean, Reagan is the icon of the Republican. That's not even your party. So what is he doing quoting Reagan? Reagan? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:04): Well, he's Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:05): The thing that bar a right wing extremist. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:07): Barack Obama said that Reagan was his favorite Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:09): President. I know. And it shows how far to the right the whole American spectrum has been because Reagan, when he came up in the sixties, was viewed as a right wing extremist, certainly by people in the anti-war and countercultural movement. And his whole theme was to attack the mess at Berkeley. And the student, how dare they question the Vietnam War. And then when he came in, he veered American politics sharply to the right. He cut the corporate tax rate and he ramped up us militarism in Central America, and he wanted to avenge the Vietnam War. They call them Rambo Reagan. And you can't get, this is like an icon of militarism and fascism, and they're quoting him. So I mean, what kind of party is this? And we have two right-wing parties in our country. The political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, and it's created dystopia. (00:55:04): We're discussing here where we invest trillion dollars on warfare, these morally bankrupt wars. And our own societies is filled with pathologies and majors, social ills, and we never address them. So they grow worse and worse. And we're not investing in our youth and education. I mean, where I live, the teachers are so poorly paid, it is just a disgrace. And you have third world conditions like the schools. They were protests in my state a few years ago, and I covered those protests for local newspaper. And there were people showing me on their phone who taught in schools in rural areas. I traveled in Africa and third world country. Then what they're showing me is from a third world country. There were no proper sanitation in their school. There were not enough seats for the students. And these are high school teachers trying to keep them in school. So I mean, the government is failing its citizens, and this is Reaganomics 1 0 1, so we've got to get beyond that. But they're touting this guy as a hero. That's terrible. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:56:06): And again, I think this will be the final question, but the longer we talk, the more questions because of your insight, you mentioned that we're dealing with two right wing parties. Are we dealing with two right wing parties that are representing different interests of the right winging elite? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:56:30): Yes, absolutely. The GOP has always been rooted in the oil industry, the extractive industry, because their environmental policy is very favorable to big business and extractive industries and big oil. I think the military industry that hedged their bets now with both parties traditionally, like in the Reagan era, the Republican and the Reagan Republican got a lot of support in states that had big military industry. Like California used to be a center of the Republican domination and states like Arizona and the Southwest. But I think the Democrats under Clinton started courting the military contractors, and now they hedge their bets on both parties. I mean, there are a certain cultural issue, the right wing, the evangelical churches who were very gung-ho about things like against abortion. That's a certain spectrum that supports the Republican party. The Democrats go for this diversity, and they court the African-American vote, but they do so really based more on symbolism than actually delivering for the black population. (00:57:45): I think something that the black population, I think we'll see more and more than maybe leaving the Democrat. They're not getting anything. They're just getting the symbolism of some black elected officials, but they're not getting benefits to their communities. And there have been studies about this, and I heard Michael Eric Dyson, who was it? Yeah, it was Michael Eric Dyson came to where I live, and he gave a talk. He had done a study, it was him, it was, sorry, TVIs Smiley who used to work for PBS. He did a big study on black America in the state of black America, and he found it got worse under Obama, a certain core thing like income and business ownership and education because the Democrat weren't delivering on concrete social program that would benefit their community. So it's more of the symbolism and that's how they get votes. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:58:38): And as we get out, I want to read this quickly because again, folks here on connecting the dots, we connect the dots, we provide data to support statements made. You talked about the defense industry funding both parties and Dave Calhoun, who was the CEO of Boeing. When asked in July of 2020 who Boeing would prefer Trump or Biden Boeing, and this is from CNBC, Boeing CEO. Dave Calhoun said that he was confident that whoever wins the White House in November, whether it's Donald Trump or Vice President Biden will continue supporting the defense industry. I think both candidates, at least in my view, appear globally oriented and interested in the defense of our country. And I believe they will support the industries. They'll do it in different ways and they'll have different terms, different teams for sure. But I don't think we're going to take a position on one being better than the other. And Dr. Jeremy Komarov, that I think is clear evidence of the points you made that we're dealing with two wings on the same bird. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:59:56): Absolutely. And viewers can go to open secrets.com and look at, well-known politician where they get their money. I mean, look up Joe Biden because I've done it. You'll see he gets a ton of money from Lockheed Martin. And yeah, the Democrats in some, I think they're getting more, Democrats now are getting more from the military contractor because they're even more hawkish, especially on Ukraine. That's been a big boon for a company like Boeing and Lockheed and surveillance industry. So I think they like Democrats even more now. And Democrats are positioning themselves to the right and more hawkish on foreign policy and even the border. I have an article next week on the border issue. Democrats are more to the right than Republican as far as spending on border surveillance. And that's a big, big industry, border surveillance drones, and that's part of the military industrial complex. Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:00:53): So I said, this was the last question. This is the last question, and you can just answer this, yes or no, all this conflation of the border, whether you're Donald Trump or whether you're Kamala Harris, whether you're Joe Biden or whoever, all of this talk about the border building, the wall security systems, drones a lot of money on the border. They don't talk about the US foreign policy that is driving people from Columbia, from Guatemala, from Mexico to the border because the United States policy is decimating their economies. And quick point people, you can look this up. About three weeks ago, Chiquita Brands was convicted in federal court in Florida of sponsoring death squads in Columbia. And now Chiquita Brands has to pay millions of dollars in reparations and damages to these victimized families in Columbia. Kamala Harris isn't talking about that. Donald Trump is, you want to deal with the border, deal with the decimation of these. Why are, ask the question, why are Haitians coming here? Because the United States is trying to rein, invade Haiti again, Jeremy, that in and of itself is another show. 30 seconds, am I right? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:02:16): Yeah, absolutely. And there's no debate about that, and it's been a bipartisan in foreign policy that caused that vast immigration. And also you have to look, that caused the wreckage in those economies and societies, and you have to look at the free trade agreement. The Clinton administration promoted the nafta, and that helped decimate Mexican agriculture and forced a lot of the Mexicans to come to the United States. So nobody questioned the free trade laws. That's a big factor inducing immigration, including, especially from Mexico. So they ought to address revising those laws and creating a fairer world economy, but that might erode us primacy and the primacy of dollar, and they don't want that. So it's better to beef up the border, boost the coffer, the Lockheed Martin, instead of doing that, Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:10): Dr. Jeremy Komarov. In fact, here's one of the books. War Monger. I got it. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:17): Oh, great. Thank Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:17): You. Oh, hey, man. Great. Great work. Great, great work. Dr. Jeremy Kumar, thank you so much for joining me today. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:25): Thank you. Great conversation. Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:28): Hey folks. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talks without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wimer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. We're out Announcer (01:04:11): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

In August of 2019, the New York Times inaugurated the 1619 Project. Their goal was to offer a new origin story of the American Republic. They argued that 1776 is not the origin of America as we know it, but rather, 1619, the year the first slaves were brought to American shores, as our true origin. They, of course, sought to link every supposed evil and ill of the 21st century with the racist heritage of 1619, America's “real” birthday.  If you want to understand what ideas and individuals brought us third trimester abortions, infanticide, euthanasia, pornographic quote, sex ed, critical race theory, transgenderism, transitioning of children, drag queen story hours and arresting pro-life sidewalk counselors, you've got to go back not to 1619, but to 1916, a year that my guest today says represents nothing less than civilization's pivot point. Seth Gruber is the founder of the White Rose Resistance and he's here today to talk about his new book and film, 1916. You guys buckle up. This was a fantastic conversation. You're gonna be encouraged. NOTE: This may be a difficult conversation for children, so I recommend listening ahead of time.  SPONSOR: Thank you to TUVU for sponsoring our podcast today! While other platforms thrive on addiction, TUVU is engineered for relational connection. No advertisements, no explicit content, none of the junk that leaves you feeling empty on the other sites. First 500 users go to tuvu.com/heidi to get six months free! Show Notes: http://heidistjohn.com/blog/podcasts/1916-how-why-progressive-culture-seth-gruber

We look at the Chinese Tang Dynasty - and Joe Biden's Mind - and look at those factors that determine the decline of our American Republic.  

Greg talks with the historian Manisha Sinha and discusses her book “The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860-1920.” The book explores the period between the Civil War and World War I, highlighting the importance of Reconstruction in shaping the country. Sinha explains her motivation for writing the book and the significance of the Second American Republic. She also draws parallels between Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump, emphasizing the consequences of showing mercy to Confederates. Sinha delves into the horrors of the first Ku Klux Klan and the violent opposition to Reconstruction. The conversation explores the end of Reconstruction, the Compromise of 1877, the nadir of American democracy, the conquest of the West, and the legacy of Reconstruction. It also delves into the question of how a society can atone for its national sins. Plus: coup right, with Coup-Vite!Manisha Sinha is the James L. and Shirley A. Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut and a leading authority on the history of slavery and abolition and the Civil War and Reconstruction. She was born in India and received her Ph.D from Columbia University where her dissertation was nominated for the Bancroft Prize. She is the author of “The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina,” which was named one of the ten best books on slavery in Politico and featured in The New York Times' 1619 Project. Her multiple award winning second book “The Slave's Cause: A History of Abolition” was long listed for the National Book Award for Non Fiction. It was named Editor's Choice in the New York Times Book Review, book of the week by Times Higher Education to coincide with its UK publication, and one of three great History books of 2016 in Bloomberg News.Follow Manisha:https://twitter.com/ProfMSinhaBuy her book:https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Second-American-Republic/dp/1631498444/ref=zg_bsnr_g_16244141_sccl_1/140-4528258-4376211?psc=1Prevail is sponsored by BetterHelp. Get 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com/gregSubscribe to the PREVAIL newsletter:https://gregolear.substack.com/aboutWould you like to tell us more about you? http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Subscribe to The Five 8:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0BRnRwe7yDZXIaF-QZfvhACheck out ROUGH BEAST, Greg's new book:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D47CMX17ROUGH BEAST is now available as an audiobook:https://www.audible.com/pd/Rough-Beast-Audiobook/B0D8K41S3T Would you like to tell us more about you? http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

Protect Your Retirement W/ a Gold and/or Silver IRA: https://www.sgtreportgold.com/ or CALL( 877) 646-5347 - Noble Gold is Who I Trust   On Saturday, July 13th the entire world dodged the bullets which were intended for the head of Donald J. Trump in an event so sinister it would have plunged the world into darkness - and it's highly unlikely that the American Republic could have ever emerged again. Officialdom has pinned the shooting on Matthew Thomas Crooks. But citizen investigators and researchers are pointing a finger at another suspect who resembles the dead man on the roof, Maxwell Yearick an Antifa member. This is the bigger picture the mainstream media is ignoring as the shadow government and big tech coverup of Dealey Plaza 2.0 continues.   YOUR body is polluted w/ poison. GET MasterPeace to GET THE GRAPHENE & nanotech OUT! https://masterpeacebyhcs.com/?ref=4094 https://old.bitchute.com/video/BPxiPRX4oJ7C/

Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Alan Taylor is Tyler's pick for one of the greatest living historians. His many books cover the early American Republic, American westward expansion, the War of 1812, Virginian slavery, Thomas Jefferson, the revolutionary settlements in Maine, and more. He's currently the Thomas Jefferson Chair of History at the University of Virginia. Tyler and Taylor take a walking tour of early history through North America covering the decisions, and ripples of those decisions, that shaped revolution and independence, including why Canada didn't join the American revolution, why American in turn never invaded Canada (and who would've won), American's early obsession with the collapse of the Republic, how democratic the Jacksonians were, Texas/Mexico tensions over escaped African American slaves, America's refusal to recognize Cuban independence, how many American Tories went north post-revolution, Napoleon III's war with Mexico, why the US Government considered attacking Canada after the Civil War, and much more.  Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video. Recorded May 9th, 2024. Other ways to connect Follow us on X and Instagram Follow Tyler on X Sign up for our newsletter Join our Discord Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here. Photo Credit: (c) Dan Addison UVA University Communications

I recently had a really interesting conversation with my dear friend Faisal Al Mutar. Faisal is from war-torn Iraq, and he's the most American person I have ever met. He leads Ideas Beyond Borders, an organization dedicated to translating Enlightenment texts into Arabic, among other impactful initiatives.During our conversation, Faisal and I discussed the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and its implications, particularly in the context of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. We also explored Trump's choice for a new Vice President, contrasting Vice President Harris and discussing the Democratic Party's current situation. Watch this episode on YouTube. 

American Heart of Darkness: Volume I:The Transformation of the American Republic into a PathocracyJan 3, 2021These days, most Americans know that the country has serious problems. Problems that will have to be addressed before the country can move forward. What are these problems? Where did they come from? Before we can move forward we have to know where we are and how we got there.American Heart of Darkness paints an unvarnished picture of the seeds of destruction that were sown into the foundations of the Republic from the very beginning. How did slavery come about in the land of the free? How did a pre-Columbian native population, in North America alone, of over eighteen million (yes, you heard it right) native peoples dwindle down to about two hundred thousand? Was it really Small Pox? Why has a people who constantly talk about freedom, democracy, equality, human rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continually practiced racism, genocide, and war? How do drugs come into the country, and who is really behind the most profitable product sold in the world? There are also other unanswered questions that need to be explored:Why were thousands of the worst Nazi war criminals given refuge in the U.S.?Who financed Hitler?Where did Hitler get his master race and genocidal ideas from?Was Lee Harvey Oswald a C.I.A. agent?Were Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVey, and the Peoples Temple all mind control, MKULTRA, subjects?What really happened in the Jeffery MacDonald, so-called Fatal Vision case?How does hundreds of billions of dollars come into the United States every year without detection?The answers to these questions, and many more, will surprise you! They are not in the History books, although they should be. American Heart of Darkness, Volume I, explores the ugly side of America that has been hidden for far too long, and it is literally killing us. This book is not for the reader looking for an uplifting story to escape everyday life for a few hours. It is for true patriots who are sick and tired of being lied to and stolen from. It is for those who know they need to do something but do not know where to start. It is for those who feel powerless and that Americas problems are far too big for little ol me to handle. It is for those with the courage to go from darkness to light. As comedian and activist Dick Gregory once said, If you been in the DARK for so long, LIGHT will hurt your eyes. This book will hurt your eyes. The reader will be shocked, then angry, then motivated, and finally, in the authors next two books, empowered and liberated. It is better to see where we are and where we need to go, right now, before it is too late.Congratulations! If you have read this far this book is probably for you. Please keep in mind the universal truth that with any form of government, the leaders only have the power that the people allow them have. This was true in India when a little skinny guy named Gandhi with no money and only a rag wrapped around his middle took on the British Empire, and won! There is no question that the American people have the power to reclaim a government that is clearly not being run for them. We have to empower ourselves to take this government back from only a handful of selfish and greedy individuals, who have proven that they only care about making more and more money. Let us all stop giving them the power that belongs to us. Reading this book is a beginning, and then we will talk about what to do about it in the authors next two books!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Has America become a puppet in the hands of globalists and the deep state? In this episode of The Arterburn Radio Transmission, we dissect the orchestrated decline of the United States, drawing unnerving parallels to the fall of historical empires like Rome. From the deliberate border crises and the concept of "weapons of mass immigration" to the loss of faith and cultural values, we examine the systemic dismantling of the nation. We express our frustration with the two-party system that prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare, and the perpetual state of war that seems to benefit only the elites. We also tackle the seismic shifts in global finance, focusing on the strategic moves by countries like China in the gold market and what it means for the future of the U.S. dollar. The episode then transitions into a heated debate on the proposed policy change regarding drafting women for military service. We question the need for current U.S. foreign policy and highlight the absurdity of the draft, drawing on historical insights and modern implications. This chapter features real-time interruptions, adding an authentic glimpse into the behind-the-scenes life of hosting a live show.Finally, we delve into the haunting similarities between the decline of the Roman Republic and the current state of the American Republic. We explore how deep state and controlled media have hollowed out our nation, akin to Rome's transformation from republic to empire. From the illegal immigration crisis echoing the barbarian invasions to the erosion of national values, we draw unsettling comparisons that underscore the urgent need for genuine leadership and cultural revival. Tune in for a raw and unfiltered discussion that aims to inspire a return to the values that once made America strong.

Guests: Miles Smith IV & Batya Ungar-Sargon Host Scot Bertram talks with Miles Smith IV, assistant professor of history at Hillsdale College, about the relationship between church and state in the early American Republic and his new book Religion & Republic: Christian America From the Founding to the Civil War. And Batya Ungar-Sargon, opinions editor at Newsweek, […]

In this discussion with Greg Olear, the historian Manisha Sinha discusses her book “The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860-1920.” The book explores the period between the Civil War and World War I, highlighting the importance of Reconstruction in shaping the country. Sinha explains her motivation for writing the book and the significance of the Second American Republic. She also draws parallels between Andrew Johnson and Donald Trump, emphasizing the consequences of showing mercy to Confederates. Sinha delves into the horrors of the first Ku Klux Klan and the violent opposition to Reconstruction. The conversation explores the end of Reconstruction, the Compromise of 1877, the nadir of American democracy, the conquest of the West, and the legacy of Reconstruction. It also delves into the question of how a society can atone for its national sins. Plus: coup right, with Coup-Vite!Manisha Sinha is the James L. and Shirley A. Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut and a leading authority on the history of slavery and abolition and the Civil War and Reconstruction. She was born in India and received her Ph.D from Columbia University where her dissertation was nominated for the Bancroft Prize. She is the author of “The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina,” which was named one of the ten best books on slavery in Politico and featured in The New York Times' 1619 Project. Her multiple award winning second book “The Slave's Cause: A History of Abolition” was long listed for the National Book Award for Non Fiction. It was named Editor's Choice in the New York Times Book Review, book of the week by Times Higher Education to coincide with its UK publication, and one of three great History books of 2016 in Bloomberg News.Follow Manisha:https://twitter.com/ProfMSinhaBuy her book:https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Second-American-Republic/dp/1631498444/ref=zg_bsnr_g_16244141_sccl_1/140-4528258-4376211?psc=1Prevail is sponsored by BetterHelp. Get 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com/gregSubscribe to the PREVAIL newsletter:https://gregolear.substack.com/aboutWould you like to tell us more about you? http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short Subscribe to the PREVAIL newsletter:https://gregolear.substack.com/aboutWould you like to tell us more about you? http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

Newt's guest is historian and author Allen C. Guelzo. He discusses his new book, "Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment." Guelzo explores Abraham Lincoln's deep commitment to democracy and how it guided him through the Civil War. He also discusses Lincoln's belief that democracy was the greatest political achievement in human history. Guelzo argues that Lincoln's understanding of democracy, including the balance between majority and minority rule, allowed him to stand firm against secession and commit the Union to reconciliation after the war. Guelzo also discusses the challenges Lincoln faced in preserving liberty and the American Republic as the nation drifted into a crisis between the North and South.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.