Podcast appearances and mentions of bill buckley

Author Sam Tanenhaus discusses his new biography of the multi-talented Buckley and the movement he did so much to create.

The troubling thing about William F. Buckley, the media savvy founder of modern American conservatism, isn't so much his politics, but his likability. How could such an overtly reactionary racist and homophobe (even if he was himself gay), be such a charming fellow beloved by all who knew him? That's one of the central questions which Sam Tanenhaus addresses in his massive new biography Buckley. Tanenhaus reveals shocking new details about the Buckley family's secret funding of segregationist newspapers and White Citizens Councils—information that even appalled Buckley's own son Christopher. Buckley explores how someone could be genuinely charitable and philanthropic in his personal affairs while promoting such corrosive politics. Tanenhaus argues we live in a moment when it seems "almost impossible to disentangle those personas," yet Buckley embodied both simultaneously. This wasn't just genteel bigotry—it was a foundational contradiction that changed the United States and now helps define the theatrical toxicity of Trump's America. 1. Buckley's Family Secretly Funded Segregationists"Buckley's family actually sponsored the publication of a newspaper that supported the White Citizens Council... Buckley had kept it secret. He never told anyone."Tanenhaus reveals that the Buckley family funded segregationist publications in the South—a bombshell that "appalled" even Buckley's own son Christopher.2. The Paradox of Personal Charm vs. Political Toxicity"Gary Wills... said Buckley was simply the most charitable man you would meet that he had ever known. And he said, I love everything about Bill Buckley, but his crazy reactionary politics."The central mystery: How could someone be genuinely kind in person while promoting destructive ideologies? Tanenhaus argues this contradiction is what made Buckley so complex and influential.3. Questions About Buckley's Sexuality Haunted His Public Life"Vidal called Buckley a crypto-Nazi and Buckley said, don't call me a Nazi, you queer or I'll sock you in the goddamn face."The famous 1968 debate with Gore Vidal exposed underlying tensions about Buckley's identity, with suggestions he was a "closeted gay man" himself while using homophobic language.4. Buckley Invented Modern Political Theater"Buckley's innovation... was to see that media itself could become the instrument for a kind of theatrical presentation of history. And that proved to be really precious. And that's what we're living with now is politics is a kind of theater and even entertainment."Through "Firing Line" and his seemingly ubiquitous media presence, Buckley pioneered the performative politics we see today.5. His American Dream Was Reactionary Restoration"It was a dream of restoration... what he wanted to do was to create an America his own parents would have been comfortable in."Buckley sought to return to the "late 19th and early 20th centuries of entrepreneurialism, of laissez-faire economics"—a world Tanenhaus calls "a powerful delusion." 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comTom is a novelist, essayist, and critic, who once described himself as a “supposed literary intellectual/homosexual/Republican.” He's the former literary editor of GQ and a professor emeritus of English at GW. He's the author of 11 books of fiction, including Up With the Sun, Dewey Defeats Truman, and Fellow Travelers — which was adapted into a miniseries. His nonfiction has focused on plagiarism (Stolen Words), letters (Yours Ever), and the Kennedy assassination (Mrs. Paine's Garage). His new book is The Very Heart of It: New York Diaries, 1983-1994.For two clips of our convo — on the “mixed marriages” of the AIDS crisis, and Hitchens before cancel culture — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: his struggling middle-class family on Long Island; his dad a WWII vet; neither parent finished high school — and Tom went to Harvard for his PhD; the Space Race; when you could make a good living as a freelance writer; novelist Mary McCarthy as a formative influence; Capote; Vidal; Mailer; Updike; Orwell and clarity in writing; the Danish cartoonists; the Jacob Epstein plagiarism scandal; Martin Amis; Elizabeth Hardwick; Tom's conservatism; the New Deal as a buffer against socialism; the anti-Communism of Catholics; Bobby Kennedy; leftist utopianism on campus; Bill Buckley; AIDS bringing America out of the closet; losing a boyfriend to the disease; the fear of an HIV test; the medieval symptoms; the deadly perils of dating; the dark humor; writing Virtually Normal thinking I would die; the miracle drugs; survivor's guilt; advocating for gay marriage; its relatively quick acceptance; and Tom's husband of 36 years who's had HIV for more than three decades.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Tara Zahra on the revolt against globalization after WWI, trans activist Shannon Minter debating trans issues, Scott Anderson on the Iranian Revolution, and Johann Hari turning the tables to interview me. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

PREVIEW: BUCKLEY: Colleague Peter Berkowitz comments on why the witty and inspirational Bill Buckley found the Harvard faculty not as useful as 2000 names in the Boston phone book. More to come. 1910

Bill Buckley, professional freelance photographer and Ducks Unlimited magazine columnist, joins the DU Podcast to talk about ways people can improve their photography. Pretty much everyone with a camera is now a content creator, but professionals like Buckley still manage to rise to the top when it comes to hunting images. He offers some examples of how to make easy adjustments to improve the quality of your hunting images. Listen now: www.ducks.org/DUPodcastSend feedback: DUPodcast@ducks.org

This episode is one that Matt and Sam have been anticipating for years: after two-and-a-half decades of research and writing, Sam Tanehaus's authoritative biography of William F. Buckley, Jr.—youthful booster of America First, enfant terrible at Yale, CIA agent, founder of National Review, best-selling author, brilliant television host, and more—has blessedly arrived. Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America stretches to just under 900 pages of text, before you get to the endnotes and index, an appropriately epic biography of an overstuffed, consequential life, containing far more than could be covered in a single episode. This conversation focuses on the challenges of writing a biography of a man whose archives rivaled those found in presidential libraries; Tanenhaus's discovery of a newspaper the Buckley's owned in South Carolina that essentially was a mouthpiece for the White Citizens' Council, and the Southern roots of Buckley's "northern segregationist" politics; the influence of his oilman father, who fled the revolution in Mexico and instilled anti-communist politics, as well as the Catholic faith, in his children; Buckley's role in forging the post-war conservative movement, through National Review and his frenetic endeavors as a columnist and speaker; the controversies, disappointments, failures, and triumphs of his decades-long career; and more. Sources:Sam Tanenhaus, Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America (2025)— Whittaker Chambers: A Biography (1997)John Judis, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives (1988)Sam Adler-Bell, "A Practical Fanatic," The Idea Letters, June 26, 2025Alexander Chee, "Mr. and Mrs. B.," Longreads, June 18, 2025Christopher Owen, Heaven Can Indeed Fall: The Life of Willmoore Kendall, (2022)Listen again to these Know Your Enemy episodes for background on:Brent Bozell: "Keeping up with the Bozells," Feb 26, 2021Willmoore Kendall: "The Long Farewell to Majority Rule? (w/ Joshua Tait)," May 17, 2021Frank Meyer: "Frank Meyer, the Father of Fusionism," Nov 10, 2021Joan Didion: "Joan Didion, Conservative (w/ Sam Tanenhaus)," Jan 13, 2022William F. Buckley, Jr.: "Buckley for Mayor (w/ Sam Tanenhaus)," Aug 23, 2021— "The Conservative and the Convict (w/ Sarah Weinman)," May 9, 2022— "Consider the Cranks (w/ David Austin Walsh)," May 21, 2024...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!   

Eli Lake, host of Breaking History and columnist at The Free Press, joins Jonah Goldberg to ruminate upon the the United States' recent strikes on Iran's nuclear program and the wider implications. Were they constitutional? Is regime change next?Plus: Jonah and Eli's thoughts on Bill Buckley and American conservatism.Show Notes:—Eli Lake's Breaking History podcast—Jeane Kirkpatrick on dictatorshipThe Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, regularly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

William F. Buckley, Jr. The conservative icon died in February 2008 — but in 2025, he's back in the news. • In March, the U.S. Postal Service announced a new stamp with his picture • In June, a new biography, "Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America," was published • And in November, it would have been Bill Buckley's 100th birthday Over the years, members of Congress cited Bill Buckley and told stories about Bill Buckley ... and celebrated him after his death. Like this future Vice President: He led in a manner that earned both the respect and the friendship of his political adversaries. William F. Buckley, from his many years on television, the program, Firing Line, which was the longest running political television program in the history of American television, he demonstrated that wit and sharpness and civility can all go together, and it is a lesson that I suspect many of us on an ongoing basis can continue to learn and apply in the institutions of our government. That was Republican Congressman from Indiana, Mike Pence — April 23rd, 2008. But it wasn't just Republicans who praised and quoted William F. Buckley over the years on the floor of Congress. Democrats, too. Who were they? What did they say? And what stories about Bill Buckley did members of Congress like to tell? Find out in the latest episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly." Find C-SPAN's "The Weekly" wherever you get podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comChris is a TV broadcaster and author. During his political career, he was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and the chief of staff for House Speaker Tip O'Neill. In journalism, Chris was a columnist with the San Francisco Examiner and then the Chronicle, the host of “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” and the host of “The Chris Matthews Show,” where I was a frequent guest. He's also written nine books. He's currently a professor at Fulbright University Vietnam, and he recently revived “Hardball” on Substack — check it out.For two clips of our convo — memorable quips from world leaders, and debating the legacy of JFK — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up a Catholic in Philly with four brothers; showing up late to Mass; the Good Friday Agreement; absorbing Burke as a teen and lauding Bill Buckley; doing Peace Corps in Africa; working for Sen. Frank Moss; a stint as a Capitol cop; running for Congress in Philly; working for Ed Muskie the liberal budget hawk; Rick Hertzberg; writing for Carter and smoking cigs on Air Force One; the Iranian hostage crisis; Tip O'Neill the liberal titan; the corrupt Mayor Curley; Reagan the cowboy and ideas man; his tax cuts; Peggy Noonan's epic speeches; Reagan's humor; taking the piss out of Corbyn; the seductive charm and shittiness of Bill Clinton; his undeserved impeachment; Gore's disastrous run; the collective trauma of 9/11; neocons and the Iraq War; Obama's political genius; the nuclear threat from Iran; debating the woke's role in electing Trump; Biden's leftward lurch and Ron Klain; Tim Walz; GOP lawmakers' fear of Trump; his slavish sycophants; the patriotism that liberal elites don't fully grok; and the beauty of naturalization ceremonies.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Batya Ungar-Sargon on Trump 2.0, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Tara Zahra on the revolt against globalization after WWI, Paul Elie on crypto-religion in ‘80s pop culture, Thomas Mallon on the AIDS crisis, Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness, and Johann Hari coming back to turn the tables and interview me for the pod. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comSam is a biographer, historian, and journalist. He used to be the editor of the New York Times Book Review, a features writer for Vanity Fair, and a writer for Prospect magazine. He's currently a contributing writer for the Washington Post. His many books include The Death of Conservatism and Whittaker Chambers: A Biography, and his new one is Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America.It's a huge tome — almost 1,000 pages! — but fascinating, with new and startling revelations, and a breeze to read. It's crack to me, of course, and we went long — a Rogan-worthy three hours. But I loved it, and hope you do too. It's not just about Buckley; it's about now, and how Buckleyism is more similar to Trumpism than I initially understood. It's about American conservatism as a whole.For three clips of our convo — Buckley as a humane segregationist, his isolationism even after Pearl Harbor, and getting gay-baited by Gore Vidal — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: me dragging Sam to a drag show in Ptown; the elite upbringing of Buckley during the Depression; his bigoted but charitable dad who struck rich with oil; his Southern mom who birthed a dozen kids; why the polyglot Buckley didn't learn English until age 7; aspiring to be a priest or a pianist; a middle child craving the approval of dad; a poor student at first; his pranks and recklessness; being the big man on campus at Yale; leading the Yale Daily News; skewering liberal profs; his deep Catholicism; God and Man at Yale; Skull and Bones; his stint in the Army; Charles Lindbergh and America First; defending Joe McCarthy until the bitter end and beyond; launching National Review; Joan Didion; Birchers; Brown v. Board; Albert Jay Nock; Evelyn Waugh; Whittaker Chambers; Brent Bozell; Willmoore Kendall; James Burnham; Orwell; Hitchens; Russell Kirk; not liking Ike; underestimating Goldwater; Nixon and the Southern Strategy; Buckley's ties to Watergate; getting snubbed by Reagan; Julian Bond and John Lewis on Firing Line; the epic debate with James Baldwin; George Will; Michael Lind; David Brooks and David Frum; Rick Hertzberg; Buckley's wife a fag hag who raised money for AIDS; Roy Cohn; Bill Rusher; Scott Bessent; how Buckley was a forerunner for Trump; and much more. It's a Rogan-length pod.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden cover-up, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Tara Zahra on the last revolt against globalization after WWI, N.S. Lyons on the Trump era, Arthur C. Brooks on the science of happiness, and Paul Elie on crypto-religion in ‘80s pop culture. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comDavid Graham is a political journalist. He's a long-time staff writer at The Atlantic and one of the authors of the Atlantic Daily newsletter. His new book is The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America. We go through the agenda and hash out the good and the bad.For two clips of our convo — on whether SCOTUS will stop Trump, and what a Project 2029 for Dems might look like — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in Akron; his dad the history prof and his mom the hospital chaplain; aspiring to be a journo since reading Russell Baker as a kid; the origins of Project 2025; its director Paul Dans; Heritage and Claremont; the unitary executive; the New Deal; the odd nature of independent agencies; Dominic Cummings' reform efforts in the UK; Birtherism; Reaganites in Trump 1.0 tempering him; Russiagate; the BLM riots vs Jan 6; equity under Biden; Russell Vought and Christian nationalism; faith-based orgs; Bostock; the trans EO by Trump; our “post-constitutional moment”; lawfare; the souped-up Bragg case; Liberation Day and its reversal; Biden's industrial policy; the border crisis; Trump ignoring E-Verify; Labour's new shift on migration; Obama and the Dreamers; Trump's “emergencies”; habeas corpus; the Ozturk case; the Laken Riley Act; the abundance agenda; the national debt; DOGE; impoundment and Nixon; trans women in sports; Seth Moulton; national injunctions; judge shopping; and trying to stay sane during Trump 2.0 and the woke resistance.Coming up: Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Tara Zahra on the last revolt against globalization after WWI, NS Lyons on the Trump era, Arthur C. Brooks on the science of happiness, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comClaire Lehmann is a journalist and publisher. In 2015, after leaving academia, she founded the online magazine Quillette, where she is still editor-in-chief. She's also a newspaper columnist for The Australian.For two clips of our convo — on how journalists shouldn't be too friendly with one another, and how postmodernism takes the joy out of literature — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: a modest upbringing in Adelaide; her hippie parents; their small-c conservatism; her many working-class jobs; ADHD; aspiring to be a Shakespeare scholar; enjoying Foucault … at first; her “great disillusionment” with pomo theory; the impenetrable prose of Butler; the great Germaine Greer; praising Camille Paglia; evolutionary psychology; Wright's The Moral Animal and Pinker's The Blank Slate; Claire switching to forensic psychology after an abusive relationship; the TV show Adolescence; getting hired by the Sydney Morning Herald to write op-eds — her first on marriage equality; Bush's federal amendment; competition among women; tribalism and mass migration; soaring housing costs in Australia; rising populism in the West; creating Quillette; the IDW; being anti-anti-Trump; audience capture; Islamism and Charlie Hebdo; Covid; critical Trump theory; tariffs; reflexive anti-elitism; Joe Rogan; Almost Famous; Orwell; Spinoza; Oakeshott; Fukuyama and boredom; tech billionaires on Inauguration Day; the sycophants of Trump 2.0; and X as a state propaganda platform.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Next week: David Graham on Project 2025. After that: Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comByron is a political journalist. He was a news producer for CNN in the early years, a reporter for The American Spectator, and the White House correspondent for National Review. He's currently the chief political correspondent for Washington Examiner and a contributor to Fox News. His most recent book is the 2020 bestseller, Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment's Never-Ending War on Trump. We chewed over the recent political past and then got on to Trump, where things got stickier but still friendly.For two clips of our convo — on Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the ‘90s, and Trump bungling his gains on immigration — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in Alabama; his dad a pioneer star in local TV news; the GOP takeover of the South; George Wallace; the Nation of Islam and AIDS; GOP fusionism in the Cold War; Mickey Kaus' courage; David Brock's war on the Clintons; Bill's triangulation and the DLC; Vince Foster; Lewinsky and impeachment; Ken Starr; Iraq and WMD; covering Dubya for National Review; that mag marginalized since Trump; Birtherism and demonizing Obama; McCain and the market crash; Obamacare; the Santorum candidacy; Pat Buchanan; Trump vs Jeb on 9/11; Trump blowing up GOP orthodoxies; Hillary in 2016; Russiagate; pardoning all January 6-ers; Trump's impeachments and McConnell; open borders under Biden; CHIPS and IRA; Trump hypocrisy on E-Verify; authoritarianism and self-deportation; Tom Homan; Bukele; the Alien Enemies Act; the SCOTUS standoff; judge shopping; DEI; Musk and DOGE; USAID and PEPFAR; Zelensky in the Oval; NATO; Chris Krebs; the tariff war; Trump's yips; and the looming empty shelves.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the woke right, David Graham on Project 2025, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrances Lee is Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton, and her books include The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Age. Steve Macedo —an old friend from Harvard — is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, and his books include Just Married: Same-Sex Couples, Monogamy, and the Future of Marriage. The book they just co-wrote is called In Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.For two clips of our convo — on the demonization of dissent during Covid, and where the right went wrong on the pandemic — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: Frances raised in the Deep South; Steve from a family of educators in Massachusetts; his Jesuit schooling as a gay Catholic; how both were natural contrarians; the pre-pandemic plans for Covid; their personal reactions to the outbreak; the emergency after 9/11; the Spanish flu; the cost/benefit of lockdowns; the different reactions in red and blue states; the Sweden model; the trillions of dollars in Covid relief; Fauci's appeal to authority; Partygate and Newsom's French Laundry; the remote work enjoyed by elites; how blue-collar workers bore the brunt; the generational injustice suffered by kids; Operation Warp Speed; the early myths of the vaccine; the Ptown vaccinated outbreak; censorship on social media; the moralizing of the MSM; the public-health hypocrisy on BLM protests; the mask mandates after the vaccines; how boosters weren't backed by good evidence; the Great Barrington Declaration; the Ebright testimony; the “Proximal Origin” paper; gain of function and the short-lived moratorium; the illiberal mistakes of Francis Collins; addressing his claims on lab leak; and the alarming current risks of viral escape.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Byron York on Trump 2.0, Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrancis is a physician and geneticist whose work has led to the discovery of the cause of cystic fibrosis, among other diseases. In 1993 he was appointed director of the Human Genome Project, which successfully sequenced all three billion letters of our DNA. He went on to serve three presidents as the director of the National Institutes of Health. The author of many books, including The Language of God, his latest is The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust.Our conversation was entirely agreeable until we talked about trust, and his own handling of the Covid epidemic. I asked him in depth about the lab-leak theory and why he and Tony Fauci passionately dismissed it from the get-go, even as it now appears to be the likeliest source of the terrible virus. Things got intense.For two clips of our convo — intense debate on the “Proximal Origin” paper outright denying a lab leak as the source of Covid-19, and Francis finding God after decades of atheism — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up on a rustic farm in Shenandoah; his parents creating a community theater; homeschooled until 6th grade; his amazing scientific accomplishments as a young adult; his scientism; his terminally ill Christian patients; the AIDS crisis; C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity; the First Mover question; Ross Douthat and “fine-tuning”; the multiverse; the limits to the materialist view; deism; cradle believers vs converts; evolution and sacrificial altruism; Socrates; Jesus dying for our sins; the doubting Thomas; how angels manifest; Francis Bacon; Richard Dawkins; being the NIH director during Covid; trust and mistrust in science; the early confusion in pandemics; tribalism; dismal safety standards at the Wuhan lab; gain-of-function; EcoHealth and Peter Daszak; intel agencies on lab leak; furin cleavage sites; Kristian Andersen; geopolitical fears over Trump and China; the opacity of the CCP; the Great Barrington Declaration; Trump threatening science funding at the Ivies; In Covid's Wake; and if Francis has any regrets after Covid.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Byron York on Trump 2.0, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comEvan is an attorney and gay rights pioneer. He founded and led Freedom to Marry — the campaign to win marriage until victory at the Supreme Court in 2015, after which he then wound down the organization. During those days he wrote the book Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. Today he “advises and assists diverse organizations, movements, and countries in adapting the lessons on how to win to other important causes.” We became friends in the 90s as we jointly campaigned for what was then a highly unpopular idea.For two clips of our convo — on the early, fierce resistance to gay marriage by gay activists, and the “tectonic” breakthrough in Hawaii — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in Pittsburgh by a pediatrician and a social worker; being a natural leader in high school; his awakening as a gay kid; the huge influence of John Boswell on both of us; working at Lambda Legal; Peace Corps in West Africa; a prosecutor in Brooklyn; the AIDS crisis; coalition building; engaging hostile critics; Peter Tatchell; lesbian support over kids; the ACLU's Dan Foley; Judge Chang in Hawaii; Clinton and DOMA; Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment; the federalist approach and Barney Frank; Prop 8; the LDS self-correcting on gays; the huge swing in public support; Obama not endorsing marriage in 2008; Obergefell and Kennedy's dignitas; Trump removing the GOP's anti-marriage plank; Bostock; dissent demonized within the gay community; the Respect for Marriage Act; and Evan and me debating the transqueer backlash.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the success of Quillette, Francis Collins on faith and science and Covid, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Michael C. Moynihan, fellow podcaster extraordinaire and Lisan al-Gaib of the House Un-American Activities Committee, pays a visit to the Court of TheRemnant to defend Bill Buckley, discuss horseshoe theory as it relates to immigration, and critique cheap radicalism. Plus: the problems with post-liberalism, the slippery slope of foreign policy obsession, and a neocon apologia session. Show Notes: —The Fifth Column Podcast —Michael's work for The Free Press —Brother Stirewalt on Henry Wallace —Parable of the Broken Window The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jonah, Adaam, and Charlotte join Jamie for the first half of a two-part series commemorating the horrific October 7 attacks on the Israeli people. Charlotte provides a first-hand account from her reporting in Israel over the past year; Adaam, a native Israeli, offers insight into the psychological ramifications of the event; and Jonah explains what this moment means for American Jews and the resurgence of antisemitism in politics. The Agenda: —Charlotte's reporting in TMD about October 7 —Reflections from a year ago —Psychological ramifications —What is Benjamin Netanyahu's role now? —Media reactions and public perception —Life in Israel currently Show Notes: —Jonah and Adaam's October 8 podcast following the attacks —Bill Buckley's In Search of Anti-Semitism —Dispatch Faith remembering October 7 The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Dishonest Democrat Colin Allred, the Left's nominee to take on Ted Cruz for Texas' U.S. Senator, is running an advert on border security trying to put his party's border policies on the shoulders of Senator Cruz. It's another in a long line of examples of how Democrats treat voters as being exceptionally ignorant and stupid. And, on the subject of the border and voting, Fox News carried this interesting piece: Texas sheriff candidate ‘shocked' by growing Trump support in blue Hispanic border county.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.How did Texas do in the Olympics? Extraordinarily well!Good words from former U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on the National Athem: Let's honor our national anthem with a traditional rendition.About calls for Republicans to boycott the Leftist Texas Tribune's little political festival in Austin – go where the people most need to hear our message. It reminds me of the long controversy of Bill Buckley's writings appearing in Playboy Magazine.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

Support the show!! - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavisFollow C. Jay on X - https://x.com/contramordorWatch Contra Mundum - https://www.youtube.com/@contramundumpodcastSummaryIn this episode of Foolproof Theology, host Chase Davis interviews CJ Engel about the history and development of conservatism in America. They discuss the origins of conservatism in the 18th century and its evolution through the progressive era and the New Deal. They also explore the role of National Review and other conservative publications in shaping the conservative movement. The conversation touches on the compromises made by conservatives during the civil rights movement and the rise of neoconservatism in the Republican Party. The conversation explores the history and influence of neoconservatism, highlighting its origins in the split between nationalist and internationalist communists. The internationalist Marxists, aligned with Trotsky, aimed for a world revolution to establish communism globally. As the Soviet Union faltered, many ex-Trotskyites became advocates of internationalist democracy, promoting democracy and human rights as the means to make the world a better place. The neoconservatives, a small group of power brokers, infused this internationalist mindset with anti-Sovietism and strategically took over the conservative movement. They controlled the framing and narratives, influencing policy and staffing the government.TakeawaysConservatism in America has its roots in the 18th century and was influenced by figures like Edmund Burke.The progressive era and the New Deal brought about significant changes in the American political order, leading to the emergence of the conservative movement.National Review played a crucial role in shaping the conservative movement, with figures like Bill Buckley leading the way.Conservatives made compromises during the civil rights movement to maintain unity in the face of totalitarianism.Neoconservatism emerged as disillusioned leftists left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party. Neoconservatism emerged from the split between nationalist and internationalist communists.Internationalist Marxists aimed for a world revolution to establish communism globally.Ex-Trotskyites became advocates of internationalist democracy, promoting democracy and human rights.Neoconservatives strategically took over the conservative movement, controlling framing and narratives.They influenced policy and staffing in the government.Support the Show.Sign up for the Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavisFollow Full Proof Theology on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/fullprooftheology/Follow Full Proof Theology on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fullprooftheology/

No Fair Remembering Stuff:  Bill Kristol brushes off the long-standing and revered myth that William F. Buckley Jr. "banished the John Birch Society from the conservative movement."   Really?  More at proleftpod.com. Support the show:PayPal |  https://paypal.me/proleftpodcastPatreon | https://patreon.com/proleftpodOur YouTube ChannelOpening and Closing Music:Jumpin Boogie Woogie by Audionautix | http://audionautix.com/|Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0Free Download / Stream: https://bit.ly/jumpin-boogie-woogieMusic promoted by Audio Library | https://youtu.be/S2wYQlC0UsSupport the Show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comNeil is a writer and historian. He used to be a contributing columnist at The Week, and he now co-hosts the “Past Present” history podcast. His first book was We Gather Together: The Religious Right and the Problem of Interfaith Politics, and his new one is Coming Out Republican: A History of the Gay Right.For two clips of our convo — on when the Postal Service snooped on gay men's letters, and Trump's growing support among gays and lesbians — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: growing up a gay kid in a Baptist family in central Florida; college at Duke then Columbia while living in NYC for two decades; how gays are a unique minority because they're born randomly across the US; the Best Little Boy in the World syndrome; the libertarian tradition of gay activists; the Mattachine Society; the obscure importance of Dorr Legg and One magazine; the Lavender Scare; the courage of Frank Kameny; how “privileged” white men had more to lose by coming out; the fundraising power of Marvin Liebman; his close friendship with Bill Buckley; the direct-mail pioneer Terry Dolan; Bob Bauman's stellar career in the GOP until getting busted for prostitutes; Michael Barone; David Brock; Barney Frank's slur “Uncle Tom Cabin Republicans”; the AIDS epidemic; how the virus sparked mass outings and assimilation; gay groups decimated by the disease; why gay Republicans wanted to keep the bathhouses open; John Boswell's history on gay Christians; my conservative case for marriage in 1989; the bravery of Bruce Bawer and Jon Rauch; the early opposition to marriage by the gay left and Dem establishment; HRC's fecklessness; the lies and viciousness of gay lefties like Richard Goldstein; Randy Shilts despised by fellow gays; Bayard Rustin; war hero Leonard Matlovich; how DADT drummed out more gays from the military than ever before; Clinton's betrayal with DOMA; the peerless legal work of Evan Wolfson and reaching across the ideological aisle; how quickly the public shifted on marriage; the Log Cabin Republicans in the early ‘00s; Dubya's marriage amendment; his striking down of the HIV travel ban; PEPFAR; Ken Mehlman; Tim Gill; Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell; Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock; Buttigeig's historic run; the RNC's outreach to gays in 2019; Jamie Kirchick's book; Caitlyn Jenner; the groomer slur; the conflict between homosexuality and transness when it comes to kids; Tavistock; and the new conversion therapy.Coming up on the Dishcast: Eli Lake on Israel and foreign affairs, Kara Swisher on Silicon Valley, Adam Moss on the artistic process, George Will on Trump and conservatism, Johann Hari on weight-loss drugs, Noah Smith on the economy, Nellie Bowles on the woke revolution, Bill Maher on everything, and the great Van Jones! Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other pod comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

In 2012, Bill Buckley received some life changing health diagnosis. During today's ten-minute walk, Dave talks about the remarkable way Bill is using this for good.Learn more about the organization Bill started called Uncorked AdventuresCheck out Walking is Fitness on YouTubeDownload your free 90 Day Fitness Chain Tracker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In 2012, Bill Buckley received some life changing health diagnosis. During today's ten-minute walk, Dave talks about the remarkable way Bill is using this for good. Learn more about the organization Bill started called Uncorked Adventures Check out Walking is Fitness on YouTube Download your free 90 Day Fitness Chain Tracker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This special ad-free edition, posted a day ahead of the usual schedule because of the urgency of events at the southern border, finds the 3WHH hosts engaging in their own civil war over the question of whether states have any remedy when the federal government abdicates is responsibility to protect the border. Steve and Lucretia were in rare accord—well maybe not quite complete accord*—against John's positivist position of federal supremacy uber alles.Our normally genteel whisky-sipping salon became more of a bourbon-swilling barroom brawl, and indeed we were tempted to call this episode "Showdown at the Positive Law Corral." Steve thinks the crisis over Texas's assertion of its right to defend the border, and the demand of the Biden Administration that Texas back down by tomorrow, represents the kind of "right of revolution" moment contemplated in the Declaration of Independence, especially since the governors of 25 other states have signaled their agreement with Texas.But the rare concord between Steve and Lucretia breaks down when the subject turns to the Haley-Trump cage match in New Hampshire primary. (*To paraphrase an old Bill Buckley line, if you think it is hard to argue with Lucretia, just try agreeing with her. It's nearly impossible.)

Dave joins me for a wide-ranging discussion: his interview with Tucker Carlson, the hysterical response to his criticism of Bill Buckley, the bad instincts of Conservatism, Inc., Trump and DeSantis, Israel/Palestine, and more. Sponsors: &

Rundown -    Ken Toltz - 06:12   Bill Buckley - 59:06   Merry Christmas from The Craig Silverman Show as we bring you a special Craig's Colorado Homefront edition focused on violence in Israel, Gaza and the United States. There are many worthy charities to which you might donate. https://israelrescue.org/   Special guest is our podcast's foreign correspondent Ken Toltz live from his home in Israel, where he holds dual citizenship with the Jewish State and the United States. Ken Toltz brings us up to speed on the realities of living in Israel now on this Christmas.   Former Denver Chief Deputy District Attorney, Bill Buckley, recalls major crimes in metro Denver during the last many decades. Buckley prosecuted 55 separate murder cases. He was also there on the night Alan Berg was assassinated for being Jewish on June 18, 1984.

In what is sure to be a Christmas Tale that will go down in history as the most award winning radio Christmas story of all time, Dave Moore is joined by a cast of famous faces and Today FM personalities to bring to life a magical story of one man on a mission this Christmas.Catch the full story and all of the craic by pressing the play button on this page.And Merry Christmas to all!The Cast Narrated by Nicky ByrneDave MooreIan Dempsey Matt CooperEd SmithEric RobertsBen FinneganCaoimhseach Connolly Dave's Wife - Herself (Tracy Sheridan)Dave's Neighbour - Ski Morgan, WestmeathDublin Shopkeeper - Mark, OffalyWoman in Swords - Remona Nevin, Offaly Little Josephine - Brendan Ward, NewryNestle Customer Service Rep - Ger McDonnell, MayoWaterford Shopkeeper #1 - Jennifer Gahan, WestmeathWaterford Shopkeeper #2 - Garreth McGrane, MeathWaterford Shopkeeper #3 - Karrie Nevin, SligoKerry Shopkeeper #1 - Bill Buckley, TipperaryKerry Shopkeeper #2 - Shane Finn, GalwayKerry Shopkeeper #3 - Amy McGrath, WicklowLucky Person on News Bulletin - David Walsh, Limerick

 Today's podcast is with President Emeritus John McManus of the John Birch Society. He joins Hannah to address Tucker Carlson's recent claim that Bill Buckley was "one of the greatest villains of the 20th century." Hannah and John answer the questions: Who was Bill Buckley? What did he believe? How did he influence the American Conservative movement? and Why would Carlson make this claim of someone who is supposedly a "political comrade"? https://jbs.org/https://thenewamerican.com/https://www.thehannahmillershow.com/podcasts/https://bobslone.com/contact/bob@bobslone.com

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJohn Judis is an editor-at-large at Talking Points Memo, a former senior editor at The New Republic, and an old friend. Ruy Teixeira is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a contributing columnist at the WaPo, and politics editor of the fantastic substack The Liberal Patriot. In 2002 they wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority, and their new book is Where Have All the Democrats Gone? The Soul of the Party in the Age of Extremes.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — on the ways the Democrats are losing on immigration, and discussing the core failings of Obama — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: John's wealthy upbringing in Chicago until parents fell on hard times and faced anti-Semitism; Ruy raised by a single mom in DC and whose dad worked at the Portuguese embassy; John and Ruy becoming friends in the early ‘70s as socialist radicals; John writing a biography of Bill Buckley in the ‘80s that garnered him respect among conservatives; Ruy working in progressive think tanks before ending up at the center-right AEI; the Reagan Era shifting to the New Democrats and a triangulating Clinton; John and Ruy writing the famous Emerging Democratic Majority that did not, in fact, write off the white working class; Brownstein's “coalition of the ascendent” seeming to gel with Obama's election; how Obamacare didn't help the working class enough; the 2008 crash and recession; how Obama was “the last New Democrat” and failed to strengthen labor laws; how he enforced the border; how Hillary deployed identity politics to her peril in 2016; Trump capitalizing on trade and immigration; how even John endorsed the feeling behind “Make America Great Again”; the rise of BLM; Wendy Davis' campaign as a harbinger for Latino support on border enforcement; Trump's growing support among non-white voters; how the GOP became the party of the working class; how Biden hasn't changed Dems into the normie party; his industrial policy, IRA and CHIPS; being mum on boosting energy production; his main weaknesses of age and inflation; the dearth of patriotism on the left; how blacks are a moderating force within the Dems; Asians drifting toward the GOP on education and crime; the war in Israel and Gaza; how Ukraine could be a big issue next election; the GOP weakness on abortion; Trump's “vermin” and enemies list; and who could replace Biden among the Dems or independents like RFK Jr.Browse the Dishcast archive for another convo you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Matthew Crawford on anti-humanism and social control, David Leonhardt on his new book about the American Dream, Cat Bohannon on Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Human Evolution, Jennifer Burns on her new biography of Milton Friedman, McKay Coppins on Romney and the GOP, and Alexandra Hudson on civility. Please send any guest recs, dissent and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

This week Justin welcomes repeat guest Fred Burton. Fred is the former Deputy Chief of the Counter-Terrorism and Protective Intelligence Division for the US State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, and is currently the executive director of the Onyx Center for Protective Intelligence. He's also the author of four non-fiction books about counterterrorism and intelligence matters. Today, Fred discusses the murder of CIA Station Chief William F. Buckley in Hezbollah's War Against America. A CIA officer and Special Forces veteran, Bill was kidnapped and murdered in Lebanon in the 1980s in an event that changed the Central Intelligence Agency and US policy towards Lebanon forever.Connect with Fred:officialfredburton.comTwitter: @fred_burtonIG: @officialfredburtonFred's book, Beirut Rules, here on Amazon.https://www.amazon.com/Beirut-Rules-Station-Hezbollahs-Against/dp/1101987464Connect with Spycraft 101:Check out Justin's latest release, Covert Arms, here.spycraft101.comIG: @spycraft101Shop: spycraft-101.myshopify.comPatreon: Spycraft 101Find Justin's first book, Spyshots: Volume One, here.Download the free eBook, The Clandestine Operative's Sidearm of Choice, here.SLNT Protect your data and devices. Use code SPYCRAFT101 to save 10% off your order.Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the show

In this episode:Lee Edwards joins the podcast to celebrate 100 episodes of Conservative Conversations and talk about the history of ISIhow fusionism remains a vibrant approach to conservative politics and scholarship in bringing together seemingly disparate persuasionsthe importance of Bill Buckley not only as an intellectual or a political actor, but as an organizer in creating many of the central institutions in the conservative movementTexts Mentioned:Educating for Liberty by Lee EdwardsGod and Man at Yale by William F. Buckley, Jr.“For Our Children's Children: A Fifty Year Program” by Frank ChodorovThe Conservative Mind by Russell KirkThe Roots of American Order by Russell KirkThe Quest for Community by Robert NisbetWilliam F. Buckley, Jr.: The Maker of a Movementby Lee EdwardsWhat is Conservatism? edited by Frank Meyer“Consistency in Politics” by Winston ChurchillVictims of CommunismBecome a part of ISI:Become a MemberSupport ISIUpcoming ISI Events

Emma-Jane Taylor – Award Winning Advocate for survivors of CSA - Recognised as a National Treasure by GB News, 2022 Motivational Speaker /Ardent campaigner for survivors of Child Sex Abuse/ Media commentator/ Editor of The Real Silence  Founder of The Works Co & Project 90/10, Author of Don't Hold Back, TEDx Speaker/ Corporate Behaviour Change Trainer/Mentor Twitter @ejtayloruk - LinkedIn @emmajanetayloruk – Instagram @emmajanetayloruk   Emma-Jane's personal and traumatic story of struggle and hardship covered in her debut book entitled ‘Don't Hold Back' has given her the positive tools and focus she needed to fight back, to create a power-house of strength; compassion and dedication to living. Emma-Jane was once told ‘she was the girl going nowhere, the failure' and most people thought she would be dead or in prison by the time she was 20. Her reality, like many, was very different. Survivor of child sex abuse, abandonment & rejection. Throughout her teenage years she drank excessively, took drugs, became bulimic. By 15 years old was exhausted by life, addicted and struggling with various disorders. Her school life struggled, she was often put into isolation, on report, given regular detentions or suspended. She was written off as a child, labelled a juvenile delinquent by a child psychiatric at 14 and told regularly told she was a failure, going nowhere - none of which helped her with her difficulties or development. As a young girl she struggled with nerves, night terrors, late development, OCD, PTSD, nausea, eating disorders, paranoia, anxiety. At 19 she took off to Spain and at 23 she found the confidence to start an A-Z of therapy.   Podcasts: Second Chance with (Netflix) Raphael Rowe, Unbroken with Madeleine Black, Inspire with Steve Twynham, Traci Cornelius Women Rockin' Business Radio: Talk Radio with Ian Collins, Men's Radio Station with Russ Kane and Phil Dave, BBC Berkshire with Phil Kennedy Drivetime, Wellbeing with Bill Buckley, Andrew Peach Show and Michelle Jordan, Radio Lantau Hong Kong with Kimberley Kleczka, Motivational Firewood with Steve Gamlin  Brand Ambassador: Riverside Counselling, Berkshire Community Foundation, World Jenny's Day https://www.notmyshame.global/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmajanetayloruk/ https://twitter.com/ejtayloruk https://www.instagram.com/emmajanetayloruk/ https://www.facebook.com/emmajanetayloruk/ email - office@emmajanetaylor.com acourageousrecovery.com

In this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop discuss the cancellation of Tucker Carlson's Fox News show and the similar treatment of Murray Rothbard by Bill Buckley. What does Tucker's cancelation mean for the growing anti-regime trends on the right, and why do "conservative" gatekeepers prefer the company of the left more than their audience? We look at this and more on this episode of Radio Rothbard. New Radio Rothbard mugs are now available at the Mises Store. Get yours at Mises.org/RothMug For more on the history of the conservative movement, get your copy of Betrayal of the American Right by Murray Rothbard. Receive 20% off with coupon code RothPod at the Mises Store. Also available as an audiobook. PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off Recommended Reading "Murray Rothbard, RIP" by William F. Buckley Jr.: Mises.org/RR_132_A "Frank Meyer's Fusionism and the Search for Consensus Among Conservatives" by Paul Gottfried: Mises.org/RR_132_B "NotCon 3 Video: The Failure of Fusionism" Mises.org/RR_132_C "Why Fox Fired Tucker: BlackRock, Replacement Theory, and the ADL" by Michael Rectenwald Mises.org/RR_132_D "Buckley Revealed" by Murray Rothbard Mises.org/RR_132_E Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at Mises.org/RadioRothbard.

In this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop discuss the cancellation of Tucker Carlson's Fox News show and the similar treatment of Murray Rothbard by Bill Buckley. What does Tucker's cancelation mean for the growing anti-regime trends on the right, and why do "conservative" gatekeepers prefer the company of the left more than their audience? We look at this and more on this episode of Radio Rothbard. New Radio Rothbard mugs are now available at the Mises Store. Get yours at Mises.org/RothMug For more on the history of the conservative movement, get your copy of Betrayal of the American Right by Murray Rothbard. Receive 20% off with coupon code RothPod at the Mises Store. Also available as an audiobook. PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off Recommended Reading "Murray Rothbard, RIP" by William F. Buckley Jr.: Mises.org/RR_132_A "Frank Meyer's Fusionism and the Search for Consensus Among Conservatives" by Paul Gottfried: Mises.org/RR_132_B "NotCon 3 Video: The Failure of Fusionism" Mises.org/RR_132_C "Why Fox Fired Tucker: BlackRock, Replacement Theory, and the ADL" by Michael Rectenwald Mises.org/RR_132_D "Buckley Revealed" by Murray Rothbard Mises.org/RR_132_E Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at Mises.org/RadioRothbard.

In this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop discuss the cancellation of Tucker Carlson's Fox News show and the similar treatment of Murray Rothbard by Bill Buckley. What does Tucker's cancelation mean for the growing anti-regime trends on the right, and why do "conservative" gatekeepers prefer the company of the left more than their audience? We look at this and more on this episode of Radio Rothbard. New Radio Rothbard mugs are now available at the Mises Store. Get yours at Mises.org/RothMug For more on the history of the conservative movement, get your copy of Betrayal of the American Right by Murray Rothbard. Receive 20% off with coupon code RothPod at the Mises Store. Also available as an audiobook. PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off Recommended Reading "Murray Rothbard, RIP" by William F. Buckley Jr.: Mises.org/RR_132_A "Frank Meyer's Fusionism and the Search for Consensus Among Conservatives" by Paul Gottfried: Mises.org/RR_132_B "NotCon 3 Video: The Failure of Fusionism" Mises.org/RR_132_C "Why Fox Fired Tucker: BlackRock, Replacement Theory, and the ADL" by Michael Rectenwald Mises.org/RR_132_D "Buckley Revealed" by Murray Rothbard Mises.org/RR_132_E Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at Mises.org/RadioRothbard.

John J. Miller is joined by Bill Meehan, editor of a recent collection of Bill Buckley's travel writings titled 'Getting About.'

“Columny” was William Safire's word for the craft of column-writing (he also called it “the column dodge”). Steve Chapman has been an outstanding columnist for more than 40 years—mainly with the Chicago Tribune. He has now retired. Bill Buckley published the first piece that Chapman ever got paid for. Chapman thought about leaving the check […]

“Columny” was William Safire's word for the craft of column-writing (he also called it “the column dodge”). Steve Chapman has been an outstanding columnist for more than 40 years—mainly with the Chicago Tribune. He has now retired. Bill Buckley published the first piece that Chapman ever got paid for. Chapman thought about leaving the check uncashed—maybe he should have it framed? Source

“Columny” was William Safire’s word for the craft of column-writing (he also called it “the column dodge”). Steve Chapman has been an outstanding columnist for more than 40 years—mainly with the Chicago Tribune. He has now retired. Bill Buckley published the first piece that Chapman ever got paid for. Chapman thought about leaving the check uncashed—maybe he should have it framed? Source

Today we have a phenomenal Combat Story with our first dedicated insight from a legendary CIA Case Officer, Paramilitary Operations Officer, and Senior Leader Enrique ‘Ric' Prado, who fought terrorists from the jungles of Central America with the storied Special Activities Division to eventally overseeing all Agency operations at the helm of the counterterrorism center.[Support us on Patreon and get exclusive content and insights at www.patreon.com/combatstory, including additional photos of Ric and a story of the hardest training course he ever went through] Before joining the Agency, Ric successfully completed the famed Pararescue or PJ pipeline but did not, despite multiple volunteer attempts, have the opportunity to fight in Vietnam. Instead, Ric would see plenty of operations and battles but with the CIA, where he was operating as a solo Paramilitary Ops Officers or PMOO in the Nicaraguan jungles in his first tour. Early in his career Ric first came into contact with and was then mentored by some of the Agency's giants like Cofer Black, Duey Clarridge, Bill Buckley, William Casey, and more. As you'll see during this interview, these are all names I know and revere so I was star struck hearing Ric's stories about these giants and just spending time with Ric, who many of these heavyweights consider one of the best CIA operators of his time.On 9/11, Ric was the Chief of Operations (or C/OPS as the role is know inside the building) of the counterterrorism center, responsible for all counterterrorism operations for the whole CIA.After leaving the service, Ric founded a successful company where he continued to take the fight to the enemy and recently wrote a great book that gives a true behind the scenes look at the wide ranging, unpredictable and often dangerous life of a CIA operations officer.This is one of my favorite interviews to date and I hope you enjoy this peek behind the curtain of the premier covert intelligence organization from one of its legends as much as I did.Find Ric Online: - Ric's website https://ricprado.com/ - Black Ops Book https://static.macmillan.com/static/smp/black-ops/- Ric on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/enrique-ric-prado-052a11186/ Find Ryan Online: - Ryan's Linktree https://linktr.ee/combatstory- Merch https://www.bonfire.com/store/combatstory/- Instagram @combatstory https://www.instagram.com/combatstory- Facebook @combatstoryofficial https://fb.me/combatstoryofficial- Send us messages at https://m.me/combatstoryofficial- Email ryan@combatstory.com- Learn more about Ryan www.combatstory.com/aboutus- Intro Song: Sport Rock from Audio JungleShow Notes:0:00 - Intro 0:47 - Guest Introduction (Ric Prado) 2:41 - Interview begins 3:42 - Growing up in Cuba during the revolution in the 1950s and coming to America without his parents 11:46 - Gratitude as an American and choosing life of service 14:54 - The Pararescue Pipeline and becoming a PJ 20:49 - Joining Ground Branch/Special Activities Division in the CIA and role as a Paramilitary Officer 25:11 - The type of work he was doing with the Agency early on and the rewarding feeling of being able to do something about injustice 29:10 - Story of first contact fighting on the front lines during the 1980s Cold War 34:32 - Feelings of being down range after not getting the chance in Vietnam 37:05 - How early experiences informed his role later as Chief of Operations Counterterrorism Center and a story of how street savvy saved him 46:46 - Being a solo operator 47:40 - Working with CIA legends Dewey Clarridge and Bill Casey 51:02 - About the LA (Latin American) Division 54:22 - Legend Joe Fernandez requesting him by name and working more traditional undercover ops57:17 - Making his first recruitments in Costa Rica1:02:47 - Role in Alec Station tracking Osama bin Laden 1:10:21 - 9/11 and being Chief of Operations at the Counterterrorism Center 1:16:23 - Story of a particularly dangerous mission 1:25:10 - Story of learning he was under surveillance 1:30:46 - What did you carry with you on missions?1:32:29 - Would you do it again? 1:34:55 - Hear more on Patreon 1:35:35 - Listener comments and shout outs

On Saturday, April 27th. 2019 at Rusty's Tavern in Staten Island, New York. This debate will be this generations Bill Buckley vs Gore Vidal. Matteo called out Mark Random on a Facebook thread. Now he has his chance to meet face to face with Mark Random. Also this episode is clearly part of the ORIGINAL SERIES, straight from the ARCHIVE. ORIGINAL SERIES ARCHIVE episodes of, "The Greg & Rob Podcast" will now be uploaded to the RSS feed every Tuesday and Wednesday. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thegregandrobpocast/support

David Goodhart is a British journalist. In 1995 he founded Prospect, the center-left political magazine, where he served as editor for 15 years, and then became the director of Demos, the cross-party think tank. His book The Road to Somewhere coined the terms “Anywheres” and “Somewheres” to help us understand populism in the contemporary West. We also discuss his latest book, Head Hand Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). For two clips of our convo — on why elites favor open borders, and why smart people are overvalued — head over to our YouTube page. Early in the episode, David discusses how his adolescent schooling in Marxism was “a bit like how people sometimes talk about the classics as a sort of intellectual gymnasium — learning how to argue.” Which brings to mind the following note from a listener:I feel compelled to tell you how much I enjoyed listening to your episode with Roosevelt Montás. I’m a retired lawyer in my 60s, and although I had a decent education growing up, my experience did not involve a full immersion in the classics. Hearing you two talk was like sitting in a dorm room in college — except the people talking are older, wiser, actually know what they were talking about. What a treat. I’m a pretty regular listener of the Dishcast, and this was the best yet in my opinion.Much of this week’s episode with David centers on how our capitalist society ascribes too much social and moral value to cognitive ability. That theme was also central to our episode last year with Charles Murray, who emphasizes in the following clip the “unearned gift” of high IQ:The following listener was a big fan of the episode (which we transcribed last week):I must tell you that your conversation with Charles Murray was the single best podcast I’ve ever heard. So deep, broad, and thought provoking. Thank you both for your willingness to explore “unacceptable” ideas so thoughtfully and carefully.I have read two of Charles’ books — Human Diversity and Facing Reality — and, among other things, I am stunned by how ordinary a person he seems to be. That sounds odd. What I mean to say is that, while few people could analyze and assemble so much data and present it so compellingly, his conclusions are what the average person “already knows.” I suspect that most people couldn’t plow through Human Diversity, but given a brief synopsis, they would say “duh.”When you mentioned your deep respect for black culture in America, you touched on something I wish had been more developed in Charles’ books: the option we have of celebrating human diversity rather than resigning ourselves to it or denying it. I would like to develop that idea a bit further:Conservation biologists understand (celebrate) the value of genetic diversity in nonhuman species, because each population potentially brings to the species genes that will allow it to flourish under some future environmental challenge, whether that be disease outbreak, climate change, competition from invasive species, etc. Humans too, as living organisms, have faced and will undoubtedly continue to face many unforeseen challenges, whether environmental, cultural, economic, etc. Hopefully, we will continue to rise to these challenges, but we have no way of knowing which genes from which populations will carry the critical traits that will allow us to do so. So, all the better that races DO differ and ARE diverse — in the aggregate, on average. Population differences are GOOD for a species because they confer resilience!Oh, and for the record, I tend to be center-left, with most of my friends leaning further to the left, so the ideas you presented are forbidden fruits. I cannot discuss them with anyone other than my husband, who can hardly bear to listen because they are so taboo in our circle.Here’s another clip with Charles, bringing Christianity into the mix:This next listener strongly dissents:Charles Murray, and you as well, seem to believe that you can magically separate out the effects of culture and poverty, and determine the effect of “race” on intelligence, which you define as IQ. The problem is, everything you’ve discussed here is nonsense.First, you assume that the term “race” describes a shorthand for people who share a common genetic background, and I suspect this is garbage. Most American Blacks have multi-ethnic backgrounds, with skin melanin being the main shared genetic feature. So, there’s little reason to believe that there’s a correlation between melanin content and other genetic features.Second, you assume that IQ describes general intelligence, that G factor Murray talks about. But intelligence is clearly multi-dimensional. My wife and youngest daughter have a facility with Scrabble, and general word enumeration games, that is way beyond me, and they’re better writers than I am. On the other hand, I have a general facility with mathematics that they can’t match (though my oldest daughter might be able to). And that’s just two dimensions; I’d bet there are many more, encompassing things like artistic talent, architectural design and talents in other arenas. You yourself are an excellent writer and interviewer, but I’ve read your writings for years, and I’d bet your understanding of statistics is elementary at best.Finally, you have no answer to the remarkable changes in IQ in Ashkenazi Jews over the past century. Supposedly IQ is supposed to represent an innate and unchangeable measurement of intelligence. And if you believe that average IQ of an ethnic group is a meaningful measurement, then you have to explain the changes in average IQ among American Jews over the past century. Goddard in the early 20th century claimed that 83% of tested Jews were feebleminded, while today, the great grandchildren of those feebleminded Jews now have IQs 1/2 to a full standard deviation above their co-nationalists. There’s an obvious answer here: IQ tests simply don’t test anything fundamental, but instead test how integrated into American culture the tested subjects were at the time.These are serious challenges to the idea that specific ethnic groups have unchangeable intellectual talents: some of your ethnic groups are non-homogeneous genetically, your definition of intelligence is simplistic, and there’s clear evidence that social integration greatly overwhelms any inter-group average differences. It is obvious that some people are more talented in one area than another, and that a significant amount of these differences are determined genetically. But when you move from the case of individuals to trying to correlate American racial groups with intelligence, I truly believe you’re just making a big mistake. Many Blacks in this country have grown up with the expectations that they simply can’t succeed on their own. I find it impossible to believe that we can filter out the effect of being raised with the expectation of failure. I work in tech, and it seems that a seriously disproportionate number of Blacks at my Gang of Five company come from the Caribbean — where, of course, Blacks are a majority and don’t face the same expectations of failure. We had a panel discussion on race and all the panelists came from the Caribbean, and all had stories of parental expectations that you’d expect from a stereotypical Asian-American family today.That said, right now, the Woke are acting more patronizing (and in my view, racist) than anything since the ‘60s. At this point, the Woke (I refuse to apply this label to the whole Left) treat Blacks as incredibly fragile beings who can’t handle any discussions of problems that aren’t laid at the feet of white people’s racism. It’s pretty disgusting.Instead of going point for point with my reader, here’s a comprehensive list of Dish coverage on the subject from the blog days. Another listener recommends a related guest for the Dishcast:After ruminating on some of your recent podcasts, I’d like to suggest a future guest: Paige Harden, author of The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality and professor of behavioral psychology at the University of Texas-Austin. I imagine you’ve read her profile in The New Yorker. Since your conversation with Briahna Joy Gray, the tension between matters of structure and personal agency have been echoing in my head.When I listen to other guests of yours, other podcast hosts, other conservatives, I see everywhere the tension between structure and personal agency. And having read Harden’s book this fall, I’ve been thinking of her work more and more as a bridge between these seemingly divergent world views. She swims in the same research waters as Charles Murray and Robert Plomin — but she (a) is explicitly clear that this research has, as of yet, no value in studying ethnic groups and (b) treats environmental factors differently than they do. On the latter, Harden makes some compelling arguments about the interplay between environment and expression of individuals’ genes (and thus abilities). It’s easy to see the corollaries in personal ability and responsibility (both with strong roots in genetics) versus the leftist tendency to dismiss people’s actions vis a vis blaming structural inequalities.Harden sometimes trades in some language verging on woke, for lack of a better term, but her more nuanced philosophical references are to John Rawls, not neo-Marxists. She’s really quite convincing. Also, I’ve always appreciated that you ask your guests to reflect on their upbringing and how they got where they are. Having read that New Yorker piece and her book, I think hers is an interesting story in and of itself.It is indeed. Harden is a great idea for a guest. I’ll confess that I felt I needed to read her book thoroughly to engage her, and didn’t have the time so put it off. Thanks for the reminder.A reader responds to a quote we posted last week praising Mike Pence for standing up to Trump after the assault on the Capitol:Pence had innumerable chances over years to expose Trump for exactly what he was. Besides one forceful speech since, there hasn’t been much else from the MAGA-excommunicated, nearly-executed veep. How about a live appearance before the Jan 6 Commission, Mr Vice President? Probably not. While I agree that Mike Pence may have saved the republic on Jan 6, he only did so with a gun to his head — with an actual gallows erected for him, while the Capitol was being stormed and people were dying. Better late than never, but he really cut it close, no?Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are the profiles in courage here, along with all those Capitol police. Pence doesn’t deserve this lionization … at least not yet.Points taken. But to be honest, any mainstream Republican who opposed the attempted coup is a hero in my book. Another reader quotes me and dissents:The early Biden assurance that inflation was only a blip has become ridiculous, as Janet Yellen herself has conceded. No, Biden isn’t responsible for most of it. But some of it? Yep. A massive boost to demand when supply is crippled is dumb policy making. And imagine how worse it would be if Biden had gotten his entire package. Larry Summers was right — again.European countries did not have stimulus like we did, yet they are experiencing similar levels of inflation. This would indicate that inflation is a world-wide phenomenon and not tied to our particular stimulus packages. Also, Larry Summers has been pretty much wrong on everything — here’s a synopsis from 2013 (or just google “larry summers wrong on everything” and see the articles that pop up). Money quote:And Summers has made a lot of errors in the past 20 years, despite the eminence of his research. As a government official, he helped author a series of ultimately disastrous or wrongheaded policies, from his big deregulatory moves as a Clinton administration apparatchik to his too-tepid response to the Great Recession as Obama's chief economic adviser. Summers pushed a stimulus that was too meek, and, along with his chief ally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, he helped to ensure that millions of desperate mortgage-holders would stay underwater by failing to support a "cramdown" that would have allowed federal bankruptcy judges to have banks reduce mortgage balances, cut interest rates, and lengthen the terms of loans. At the same time, he supported every bailout of financial firms. All of this has left the economy still in the doldrums, five years after Lehman Brothers' 2008 collapse, and hurt the middle class. Yet in no instance has Summers ever been known to publicly acknowledge a mistake.Sorry, but the EU provided a Covid stimulus of $2.2 trillion. And Summers was clearly right in this case, and Janet Yellen wrong. Another reader also pushes back on the passage I wrote above:I have a bone to pick with you when you discuss the Biden economic policy. Your contention is that the American Rescue Plan was “dumb policy making” because it exacerbated inflation. Fair enough — but if we are going to discuss the economy, then we need to have a full exploration of the policy choices and their implications. Yes, we have had six months of multi-decade high inflation, but we also have had about a year of near-record lows in unemployment and record-high job creation. Before you dismiss that as simply due to the reopening of the economy post-COVID, it’s worth noting that the American economic recovery has vastly outperformed all prognostications, as well as other Western economies. So in sum, the result of Biden’s policy is high inflation, high growth, high job creation, low unemployment. Let’s be clear then: when you criticize the ARP as too big and thus causing inflation, you are advocating for stable prices at the cost of a low growth, high unemployment environment. It’s a fair argument, I suppose. But after having lived through the weak economic recovery engineered by Larry Summers during the Obama administration, one that choked the early careers of many millennials, I’m not sure Biden’s choice was particularly egregious. But what we may well be about to get is stagflation — as interest rates go up even as inflation continues. It’s possible we fucked up both times: in 2009 with too little stimulus and in 2020 too much. I understand why those decisions were taken and the reasons were sane. But they were still wrong. Tim Noah has been doing great work lately on these questions of inflation and recession, including an interview with Summers. This next reader defends Biden’s record on the economy and beyond:The pragmatic counter-argument to your criticism of Biden is this: his economic program, while inflationary, produced unprecedented job growth after a recession, reductions by 50% in child poverty, more than five new business startups, and increases in business investment and personal bank balances of more than 20%. It’s among the reasons the American economy is outperforming China’s for the first time in two generations.Biden’s signature foreign policy achievements in Central Europe have led to the enlargement of NATO and awakened Europe to its responsibilities to its own security, all of which will contain Russia over the long term. This precedent, coupled with the Aussie-Brit nuclear deal, opens real possibilities for containing China’s potential regional expansion in Asia. At home, Biden’s Justice Department, like Gerald Ford’s, is fumigating the fetid stench of politics it inherited. The Biden White House has re-opened the doors to governors and mayors who need help from Washington in a disaster, regardless of partisan affiliation or views of Dear Leader; and it is laying the groundwork for a much-needed affordable-housing boom in our cities. Your hopes for a politics of dynamic centrism, which I share, does not take into account that as many as 10 million of our fellow citizens are prone to political violence due to the real-world influence of Great Replacement Theory, according to Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. There is no comparable threat from the illiberalism on the left — which is a problem, nonetheless. In the wake of Trump’s loss in 2020, leading Republicans, including the governors of Florida and Texas, are competing for those constituents. That’s a movement my fellow classical liberals and I — stretching from the center-left to the center-right — can and should live without. Bill Buckley wouldn’t have sucked up to them. In the real world, the GOP wooing of the violent right poses an existential threat to our quality of life. It’s why I am voting straight Democratic in 2022. And it is why I would gladly vote for Biden, again in 2024, if he sought re-election.Happy to air your perspective. This next reader is bracing himself for Trump 2024:I know it gives you a warm feeling all over to write a column about the revolt against the woke, but it won’t be wokism that propels Republicans into office in 2022 and returns Trump to power in 2024 — something I agree will be a disaster for the republic. Trump’s return to power feels inevitable to me today. The January 6th hearings will make no difference to Trump supporters.Don’t get me wrong; I think wokism is annoying and stupid, but it is not the threat to the nation that you believe it is, and it never was. Wokism has destroyed the left and that is the real tragedy. Instead of a populist left railing against the rich, we have a bourgeois left railing against heterosexual white men, leaving the working class in the thrall of an American Orban. The working class now feels that the left and Democrats have failed them; and they are right, they have.Americans will vote for Republican for one reason: inflation. It should be no surprise that inflation is out of control, but both Biden and Trump spent billions helping people who were unable to work during Covid (the right policy) without raising taxes (the wrong policy). Now, to fight inflation we need to raise taxes and that is impossible; there aren’t the votes in the Senate. American tax policy is insane. You can have low taxes, or you can solve social problems like helping people who can’t work because of a pandemic, an inadequate public health system still unprepared for the next pandemic, homelessness and addiction, and crime. But you can’t have both. It really isn’t that complicated.Grateful as always for the counterpoints, and you can always send your own to dish@andrewsullivan.com. Another dissenter gets historical:I agree wholeheartedly with your clarion condemnation of the odious Trump. But you are wide of the historical mark when you state that Trump is “the first real tyrannical spirit to inhabit the office since Andrew Jackson.” Jackson was authoritarian in character. He was a product of the trauma of the Revolution and he brought his military identity to the White House. But he was not a tyrant or dictator. (There is more historical evidence for Lincoln as dictatorial than Jackson.) More appropriate — if non-American — comparisons for Trump would be Henry VIII, Wilhelm II, Mussolini and Nixon.Mind you, an interesting Dishcast guest would be Jon Meacham to discuss US presidents with authoritarian tendencies: Adams Sr., Polk, Andrew Johnson, Teddy R and Wilson. All expressed some form of authoritarianism, but sometimes the presidency and the nation derived benefitAnother digs deeper into the Jackson comparison:I suggest you interview W.H. Brands, who wrote a biography of Andrew Jackson. There are many ways to judge a history book, but to me an important criterion is, did I learn anything I did not already know?  Reading this book I did.I am only going to mention one of a good number events in Jackson’s life that Brands brings to the forefront. After the Battle of New Orleans, Gen. Jackson had ordered that a curfew remain in effect and that the city was to remain under martial law. For good reason: while the British offensive on one flank was a disaster, they had relative success on the other flank, and their remaining commander could have ended the truce and ordered another attack. But the British never did a follow-up attack. One New Orleans business man then took Andrew Jackson to court, claiming he endured an unnecessary economic loss on account of the military curfew. The court ruled in the businessman’s favor. AND, incredibly, Andrew Jackson paid the fine! Now stop and think, what must have been on Old Hickory’s mind. Here he risks life and limb to save the city from British domination, and he’s fined. Andrew could think, why should I pay?  I’ve got the Army in my control, I’m not just a commander whom soldiers fear, but also one that has the adulation and respect of my soldiers and the populace at large.   To me, that episode reveals that Jackson was hardly the tyrant he is portrayed to be by most modernists steeped in presentism. He should never be placed in the same sentence as Trump unless the word “contrast” or “opposite” is used. Let's keep Old Hickory away from any such comparisons and let his image remain on that $20 bill!Well I learned something from that email — so many thanks. Meacham is a good idea too. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Rest in peace Norman Strickland Early, Jr., longtime Denver DA   Norm Early showed his personality and wisdom in Craig's Lawyers' Lounge in a memorable lively last visit on July 18, 2020. Norm discussed his health challenges, travels, favorite sports, grandparenting, and what he anticipated for his three grandsons and their futures. Listen to Norm sing Monkey Business.   Norm was a collegiate athlete, and reflected on competitiveness, and the degree to which he factored that into hiring and promoting prosecutors.   Norm reminisces on prosecutions of Quintin Wortham, Frank Rodriguez and the United Bank Massacre (James King) case. We talk about Dale Tooley, Dick Lamm, Bill Buckley, Mike Little, Dick Kay (the furrier), Bill Ritter, Beth McCann, and the Denver DA family.   Learn about Norm's Washington D.C. (Chocolate City) upbringing and the impact of the Brown v Board of Education ruling. Find out Norm's reaction to the murder of George Floyd, BLM, Confederate flags, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, the modern GOP, Major Lance, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Subscribe to Reactionary Minds: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyWelcome to the inaugural episode of Reactionary Minds, a podcast from The UnPopulist that I’ll be hosting every month. This is a show about why some people reject liberalism and what the rest of us can do about it. This first episode is all about introducing the problem Reactionary Minds exists to address. In it, Shikha Dalmia, the editor of The UnPopulist and fellow at the Mercatus Center's Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange, discusses the biggest challenge of our times: The resurgent threat of populist authoritarianism here and abroad. Every regime has its pathologies and populist demagoguery is the pathology of democracies. The “liberal” in liberal democracies is supposed to keep this genie in the bottle, but now that it is out, can we put it back in?This transcript has been lightly edited and condensed for clarityAaron Ross Powell: Welcome to the show.Shikha Dalmia: Thanks for having me, Aaron.Aaron: What is populism?Shikha: It's a good question, and as you've noticed, the name of my newsletter is The UnPopulist, and its addressed at the authoritarian currents we are seeing around the world. Then the question arises why am I calling it The UnPopulist and not the anti-authoritarian or something like that? Partly, because it's cuter, but the more serious reason is that the kind of illiberalism and the kind of authoritarianism we are seeing around the world has what is essentially a populist element.Now there's a lot of confusion around the word populism, and there is actually a great deal of effort on the left to try and take back this word which it thinks has been unfairly characterized in the last six years with the rise of the Trump era and the MAGA era. I, in some ways, feel for some of the left-wing writers, like Thomas Frank who's a public intellectual and an author and something of a Bernie Sanders progressive. He wrote a book not too long ago defending the term populism because he sees populism as essentially a movement of the people. Roger Cohen, a New York Times columnist, similarly wrote in 2018, shortly after Trump, where he also was lamenting the fact that the term populism has acquired this negative connotation.Now, I actually feel for some of these liberals because, as you and I know, we are still grieving the loss of the term liberal. However, I think they fundamentally misunderstand what populism really means and why it has a bad connotation.To some extent, it's a semantic issue, you can give any phenomenon any name, but populism, for the longest time has had a bad odor. They [Frank et al] see populism as essentially a popular movement that is supposed to do the most good for the most people, and those most people are not the rich people. They are generally lower or middle-income people who are the vast majority of the population.But that's not what populism really is. It's not a popular movement. A populist movement, if you read the literature on it, which admittedly is murky, it's about pitting the “real” people against some other entity, and that entity is the elites. The elites are considered to be these corrupt oligarchs, and the people are supposed to be something pure, representing something good.There is instantly this division between the elite, which controls “the establishment,” and the pure people whose interests are being avoided. Now, even that exactly doesn't capture the problem with the term populism. The term populism gets its bad odor from the fact that it's not just that the real people are trying to get their way and have their preferred policies enacted, it is more that they want to flatten certain elements of liberalism, the deliberative process, the representative process, because they believe it's been captured by some bad people, by The Establishment which is not representing them.It's an effort to flatten certain institutions of liberalism, not improve them, not reform them, but simply to either side step them or do an end-run around them, or even just get rid of them so that the real people can have their will.Now, obviously, the real people can't govern. There are too many of them, somebody has to govern for them. So in some senses populist and authoritarian seem like anti-poles. But inevitably they come together because whenever you have a populist movement some authoritarian figure or demagogue arises who will say they're representing the people. And we saw very clearly with Trump, we the people became me the people…they are not representing the people, they are the people. Populism inevitably goes hand-in-hand with a certain kind of authoritarianism, and so therefore, the term unpopulist and therefore why populism is something to be worried about.Aaron: I think that's one of the interesting things about watching the rise of populism in the U.S over the last five or six or seven years, has been that it's framed as an anti-elite movement and “drain the swamp” is an anti-elite thing. We're constantly hearing about these coastal cities where these out-of-touch elites who don't understand the real people are. The real Americans in this context really just means rural working class whites. But then you look at their leadership and it is fantastically wealthy, though we don't know quite how wealthy [in Trump’s case], because his finances are a little sketchy, but a fantastically wealthy businessman.Then in Congress the figureheads for this movement, or at least people trying to claim that mantle, tend to be Ivy league law school educated, pretenders to the common-man identity. You're right, it is this odd thing what begins as a movement framing itself as of the people turns into a personality cult that's no longer about the people's identity, it’s about the people building their identity through fealty to this strong-man leader, which is then how it can very quickly turn into an authoritarian movement, because either that leader's power when he has to do something is seen as absolute, because he's the embodiment of our hopes and dreams and cultural identity, or when that leader's position is threatened, as we saw when Trump lost the election, it can morph quickly into violence in defense of that leader's status. Not so much the working class or the common man status, but defending that leader from perceived failure.Shikha: That's right. Now, populism can be of both the left wing and the right wing varieties, and we have seen them throughout history. Latin America has had populism of every strain. In every instance it has led to the cult of the personality, but there are two things in populism. There is a cult of personality, which is the leader, and then there is a cult of the people too. There is a certain deification of the people that they are true owners of the society, their will needs to be respected.The two, the cult of the leader and the cult of the people, build on each other, they both deify each other. Whether it is Hugo Chavez, whether it is Bolsonaro right now. The Bolsonaro is interesting and he's losing some of his popularity, but Trump is a classic phenomenon of a cult leader, of a demagogue who is leading in the name of the real people, and then the real people deify him. He really was a deity in certain MAGA circles, and he in turn deifies them in his rallies.If you watched some of his rallies, which I tried to avoid as much as possible, but he was constantly flattering the people there. It was, "You people are great, and you are being ignored." Yes, there is this mutual cult of the leader and the cult of the people that goes hand-in-hand in a populist movement.Nomenclature and TaxonomyAaron: I want to stay for a moment on our terms and taxonomies, because the purpose of this show, ultimately, is not just to critique illiberal and populist ideas, but to try to understand them, to try to understand where these people are coming from, what the philosophies and personality traits and historical perspectives that inform them because it's hard to challenge ideas without understanding them deeply and, to the extent you can, fairly.We've talked about what populism is, but this show is not called the authoritarian mind, it's not called the populist mind, it is called Reactionary Minds. Where does the term reactionary fit into all this?Shikha: Aaron, this is your show! You and I both talked about why we like Reactionary Minds. I'll give you my side and perhaps you can say something about why you like it. The textbook definition of reactionary is a person or a sensibility that is opposed to economic or political liberalization of any kind. Usually, it goes along with a certain conservative mentality.I think there's another element to the reactionary sensibility, and that is, it is also anti-ideas, and it's anti-intellectual. The reason is ideas and intellectual theories can lead to change. They require a certain amount of openness to the world and to knowledge, and those can be intensely threatening to existing cultural orders. In that sense, reactionary minds, I think, is a good way to describe the show because you and I are both quite troubled and perturbed by the last six years.Things are happening in America that we never thought would be possible. We think that there needs to be some kind of a response to this, but we can't really fight these ideologies unless we understand them. We do want to understand the reactionary movement that's brewing in America on its own terms. That's the reason I like the term reactionary minds.Aaron: Yes, I agree with all that. What I would add is, I think that you can make the case that political ideology, moral ideology, and so on is, to some extent, downstream of personality, that we tend to have different personal and personality preferences, and then we sometimes look around for theories or intellectual edifices that provide structure to them or support them or don't really challenge them.In that regard, reactionary it is a personality type that says I am turned off by, sometimes threatened by diversity, by change, by things being different than the way that I'm used to, or people who aren't like me being more prominent than they used to be, or higher status than they used to be, or the way we talk about language is changing and that bugs me, and I don't like these kids asking me to use different pronouns or different terminology. There is this set-in-my-ways-ness that drives a lot of this.It's not an accident that Trump when he was first running for president, he led with anti-immigration, with a xenophobic perspective and a nationalism that was the corollary of that, because for a lot of his most faithful followers, it's “America is looking different than either the way I was used to it being, or the way that I imagined it being, or the way that I would like it to look demographic.”On the far fringes of the populace, we get the Great Replacement Theory about they're trying to change the demographics of the country to make it less white than it used to be. There is this very “I don't like difference” and then reacting strongly against that, then that feeds into political preferences, which is, "I'm going to vote for the person who will stop the change, whether that's preventing immigrants who don't look and talk like me from coming into the country, or will elevate the status of the people who have the same preferences I do against the people with the diverse preferences that I dislike."That's another thing that I want to dig into on the show is the way that there is such a thing, I think, as a populist or an authoritarian or reactionary psychology as well. There are ideas that inform it, but there's also just beliefs and values and attitudes and they end up mixing together into this very toxic political outcome. That was the attraction to me of the reactionary minds, because it gets both the notion that this is an ideological perspective, but also that this is just an attitudinal perspective.Shikha: Right. That's very well stated, Aaron. I would, however, push back just slightly in that we do want to make a distinction between the conservative mind and the reactionary mind. Bill Buckley's very famous statement when he launched the National Review was he wants to stand athwart history screaming or yelling stop. There is a way in which, even though I am not a conservative, never have been, never will be, I can understand the urge to be careful about change and reform, and to be a little deliberative. You don't want to simply throw out existing social arrangements just because some fad has taken hold of the land.There is a way in which the conservatives, even though I'm not a conservative, they can be incrementalists, but not completely opposed to reform. Reactionaries, I think, is conservatism on steroids in that sense. Reactionaries simply don't want change because they don't like change. Usually, reactionariness is a phenomenon that's associated with conservatism, but to the extent that it's not just any change that reactionaries are opposed to, it's actually liberalism that they are opposed to. To the extent its liberalization they are opposed to, they can even come from the progressive side.Like communists when China liberalized its economy, there were reactionaries in China who wanted the communist order to hold and they didn't want liberalization. In that sense, I like the term reactionary because potentially, it will even capture the leftist reactionaries.Leftist ExcessesAaron: I think that often manifests in the contemporary American left as an intolerance of difference. That is, it's not the same as the intolerance of difference that we see from the right, which is obviously very much there, but rather, the left thinks we have advanced, we have liberalized, so certain behaviors that used to be socially unacceptable are now considered normal, or certain underprivileged groups that used to be underprivileged are now considered no different than everyone else.That liberalization is good. That's the kind of liberalization we want, but there is a tendency among some people on the left to then to be incredibly intolerant not of difference in the political realm. It's one thing to say yes, we should — people who want to re-criminalize gay marriage or gay relationships that's bad, but it's people who themselves in their own lives are not affirmatively supportive of these things need to be stamped out, need to be punished.This often can manifest in the lefts wanting to punish businesses that weren't supportive of gay weddings, baking cakes for gay weddings. The small conservative baker says, "That's against my conscience. I don't want to bake a cake for your wedding." In a genuinely liberal society the answer to that is, "Okay." Like, "I will go somewhere else and get a cake from somewhere else and no harm, no foul."The liberalism that manifests on the left is like, "No." It's not enough that you are just saying, "Hey, I don't want to participate." You have to participate and embrace, or we are going to, in this case, try to use the state to punish you, to destroy your business, to find you, to drive you out, because you're not one of us. That ends up with this ratcheting up of the reactionariness because then what that says to the people who are more culturally conservative is, "I need to dig in even deeper because if the culture drifts in a more liberal direction, that's even more ground for me to be punished often with state force. I need to fight even harder because  I won't be tolerated.Shikha: That's exactly the dynamic we are in right now. The problem with the left is that it's too impatient and, to some extent, one can understand its impatience. I think systemic injustices are prevalent, systemic racism is a thing! We all do need to grapple with legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, all of that is correct. But the left doesn't want to do the real hard work of changing hearts and minds. It wants to grab power nodes and exercise and push on them to engineer change.It's not just the levers of the state that they are using, it's also the levers of corporate power and what have you. Not all of [these tactics] are illicit. Some of them are perfectly acceptable. Certain kinds of boycotts against views clearly beyond the pale are probably acceptable. But they have lost the capacity of making distinctions between good-natured fear of what they are asking for — and a reactionary fear, I guess.It's this lack of calibration and this lack of finesse in their techniques, which is a big problem. This, in some ways, is driving a more reactionary attitude on the part of the conservatives, bringing out their worst tendencies.But I actually don't want to simply blame the left . I think the conservatives always wanted — there was a certain kind of conservative mind that was always uncomfortable with certain social changes, gay marriage, what have you. They've also been looking for a pretext to dig in. I think to some extent, the left is giving them a pretext [by its excesses]. It's not a reason, it's a pretext for their reactionariness. It's hard to untangle all of this, I admit, but all these currents are right now with us.Aaron: At their core they're all ultimately a rejection of genuine liberalism, which is if nothing else, it is a belief in a social tolerance and social pluralism. If we're going to live together in a big society, commonly governed, we have to get along with each other. The way that you get along with each other given our diversity of viewpoints and values and preferences and backgrounds and so on is to tolerate difference. To say: "I'm going to let you live the way that you want to live and I'm going to live the way that I want to live. Even if I'm not celebrating the choices that you make, I'm accepting them as part of this liberal consensus."So much of what we're seeing now seems to be a rejection of that liberal consensus of saying, "No, it's not just that I think I am right in… All of us think we're right in our own preferences and values or we wouldn't hold them. It's not just that, it's saying, Therefore, anyone who differs from my preferences and values is wrong and is wrong to an extent that they are dangerous or a threat or impure, or in some other way, need to be, whether it's with the state or other mechanisms, need to be shut down, excluded, punished so that we can have a higher degree of uniformity that happens to align with my preferences.Shikha: When Obama became president he was against gay marriage. He was against all kinds of pro-gay policies, and then, of course, during the course of his presidency he changed his mind. I wonder if there is any room for Obama in the current left. Room for evolution of thinking.Now I think Obama was always there and he was holding back for strategic reasons, which turned out to actually be not bad reasons. You can see the growing intolerance of the left in that it's not just being censorious against the right, but it's also being censorious toward its own. That’s why, in a way, I'm a little less worried about the left, because the left, in its demand for purity and consistency, in a way is becoming less united and is at that stage of devouring its own.The left is now generating healthy pushback. I actually think if Trump had not arrived on the horizon, there was so much concern within the left about the left that right now we would be in a much better position with respect to the left. But with Trump arriving on the scene, I feel myself pivoting. I think there is no bigger threat in this country than the right because it has become so completely not just reactionary, but authoritarian and illiberal in 30 different ways that I've had to drop my attention on the left and now right is the big problem.Before Trump arrived, I remember Vox, very much a progressive publication, had published a piece by a liberal professor saying something to the effect, "My liberal students terrify me." This piece went on to say that conservative students his class, this was a professor who's in a liberal arts college, who said the conservative students in his class will push back, might not like his ideas, but are still willing to discuss them. Liberal students were not willing to do that.Now what we are seeing on the other hand is that the right is no longer simply pushing back against what were legitimately called left-wing excesses. It wants to just crush them. Now you are seeing bills banning the teaching of critical race theory. That's where the reactionariness comes in. This is no longer now about calibrating the pace of the change, it's not about that. Now we are only going to impose our vision from like 200 years ago. Now it’s in a completely different orbit.The Roots of Modern Day Right-Wing PopulistsAaron: We talked about Trumpism as exemplary of the kind of populism that we are concerned about, but is Trump the major figure, or who are the other figures that are important to understand when looking at the lay of the land on American populism, left or right, the main, I guess, influencers, as the kids say?Shikha: Well, populism in America, depending upon how you use the term, has a long history. The first populist movement was the People's Party in 1890, which was a third party. It was this agrarian movement and labor movement against the industrialization that was happening. In the building of the railroads, lots of people were dispossessed; traditional livelihoods were lost. That is generally regarded as the first populist movement in this country. It got co-opted by the Democratic Party, which became the labor union party. The People's Party put it's a lot behind William Bryan Jennings. When he lost the election that year, it spelled the end of that party, but it got co-opted by Democrats.You've seen certain other populist movements arguably whether George Wallace, he was a populist phenomenon, very much appealing to the same kinds of anxieties that Trump now appeals to. In between, you had The Tea Party movement, you also had the Occupy Wall Street movement.The difference is that the Tea Party, I think, was the beginning of the turn towards MAGAism. Although interestingly, the Tea Party movement was very much pitching itself as this constitutional movement. It wanted to return to the Founders. It wanted to limit the scope of the government, all of which went out of the window when Trump came along.I think Trump is not sui generis. Partly, the Tea Party is behind him but partly, I think we had the phenomenon of right-wing radio with the advent of Rush Limbaugh who started pushing all kinds of populist tropes. He was a nativist. He was anti-left. The preoccupation with the leftist enemy is a huge, huge part of the right, right now. I think that's the single biggest motivating force. Even the anti-immigration and the anti-immigrant animus is not quite as powerful a force as the fear and anger and the hatred of the left, actually.I think Rush Limbaugh started stoking that, and then you had a whole slew of copycats on the right. That paved the way for Trump. The right was primed for a populist takeover, and then Trump came along with his MAGA message and at that stage, all the right wanted to do was use the levers of the state to smash the left and impose its vision of a insular, insulated, closed America polity.Aaron: This isn't new, even with Trump, even with Rush Limbaugh, this is what we watched in the '50s and '60s with anti-communism, was the Soviet Union was a legitimate threat, although maybe in retrospect, not as big of a threat as we thought it was at the time. There were communists in the country, although they weren't going to win out. America was not going to turn communist, but they did exist, and communism was very bad.The American right used that as a way to exert the power of the federal government to punish particularly culturally left people or people who were calling for liberalization of the positions of Blacks or gays or women and so on. That the urge to define an enemy and then use a potentially an inflated threat of that enemy — or mischaracterizations of that enemy or strawman version of that enemy — to justify a reactionary turn is very strong.A moment ago we were talking about Trump and you said had Trump not come along the left would have fractured more than it did. What's interesting about Trump is that he unified both the right and the left into these deeply tribally opposed camps. For decades, the conservative movement was split between — there was the base that looked very much like Trumpism does now. The conservative right’s reactionary base has been around as long as there has been a right. But you had the elites, the Bill Buckley types or the Ronald Reagan or the Paul Ryan who controlled the GOP and pushed it in a more, if not liberal, at least more liberal-adjacent on its best days direction.That went away with Trump and suddenly the elites all either swore fealty, or at least shut up about their criticisms of the really reactionary right. And then on the left, you had exactly that, that the left, those fault lines went away because we had a unified enemy. Trump won't be around forever, and so there's a sense in which that potentially gives a way out when that enemy has gone away.There are other people like what DeSantis is doing in Florida right now, he's clearly trying to tee himself up as the inheritor of the Trump mantel. But it's questionable whether any of the people trying to do that have Trump's — I'm going to call it — charisma, but a lot of people think of it as such, but Trump's showmanship. There's something about him and his celebrity and all of that that made him successful in the way that someone who had just spouted the same views probably would not have been. Is there cause for hope there that if the populist leader goes away, then the sides will become more pluralistic than they are now?MAGA’s Ugly Progeny: Integralists and NationalistsShikha: It's a good question. No, I'm actually not optimistic about that. Look, what Trump did was he didn't really unite the Republican Party, what he did was he united a certain element within the Republican Party, and the rest of those who didn't agree with him were either purged — Paul Ryan didn't last a year after Trump came on the scene — or became persona non grata within the party.That's actually a classic populist move. It's not just that they don't respect parliamentary institutions and they don't respect the opposition, they actually turn their own party into an embodiment of themselves, and you've seen that with Trump. It's literally classic populism. In that sense, I think he's been hugely damaging to the Republican Party in a way that I'm not sure the Republican Party can recover from it for a very long time. Or at least I think it has to be in the political wilderness for a very long time. It has to be punished at the polls repeatedly before it will give up this populist formula.I think even though there may not be a charismatic figure like Trump, and the reason I was laughing when you said charismatic, because I know to you and me, he's just so utterly not charismatic. It's hard for us to see his appeal, but there'll be other populists who will try and copy him. They may not be successful, but their very presence is going to be damaging. That's one.The bigger danger of Trump is not Trump but Trumpism. Trumpism is essentially an illiberal mindset that doesn't respect the checks on executive power. It gives various factions within the conservative right, therefore, the permission to use the levers of the state to promote their own vision. You've written about this, the integralist movement. Why is that emerging now? The national conservative movement, why is that emerging now?He's actually fractured whatever little uneasy fusion/consensus there was in the right and allowed these illiberal monster children of MAGAism now to assert themselves. I actually think things are going to get much worse before they get better.Aaron: Let's turn briefly to the integralist movement and the national conservatism movement which somehow overlap but are distinct in other ways because they represent an interesting move on the part of the conservative elite to try to take on the energy of Trump's populism, but intellectualize it too because, Trumpism is basically all id.There's not an intellectual philosophical through-line there, but the national conservatives and the integralist are saying, "No, there is a philosophical case against liberalism, that liberalism has failed for reasons inherent to it, and that we need to embrace non-liberal, well thought out philosophical positions." If Trump is spouting id, the integralists and the national conservatives have legitimately thoughtful and often interesting thinkers articulating these views in ways that are I think they're wrong and I think they're often dangerously wrong, but they're not stupid and they're worth wrestling with.It is interesting watching these very elites. These are law professors and philosophy professors and theologians trying to take this energy and reapply the intellectual veneer that used to exist with Buckley, the National Review but was shed under Trump.Shikha: The difference between Buckley and the [Adrian] Vermeules of the day is that Buckley was still trying to promote a certain conservatism within a broadly liberal framework and a broadly liberal understanding. He agreed that checks and balances were a good thing, checks on executive power were a good thing. All of that is now out of the window with these new movements.Discontents with liberalism are always there because liberalism is an uneasy equilibrium between all kinds of different interests that don't comfortably fit together. Minorities are not happy with liberalism because liberalism doesn't give them the levers of power to instantly correct all the injustices against them. They are always unhappy. Of course, the majority is unhappy because, especially in a liberal democratic society, if pure majoritarian rule were to exist, it would get its way far more frequently.Everybody is always unhappy with liberalism. But there has always been this understanding there that life on the other side of liberalism is nasty, brutish, and short, so we better stick with liberalism. That consensus that liberalism may be wanting, but there is no other real alternative, that understanding is completely gone because some people have come to believe, thanks to Trump's assault on liberalism, that they can have the whole cake.The integralists, and you wrote great stuff about this — integralists, as you've pointed out, are a really weird movement because they're Catholics, they are actually a minority, and integralists within Catholicism are a really small minority, so why would you want to give up liberalism? The answer is that they think that any conservative state will give them more of what they want than they'll get from a liberal state.Ultimately, even a reactionary like Trump will give them more than anybody else will. Hence they have turned on liberalism because they feel they're getting less out of it. Every faction within conservatism I think is making a similar bet. You have national conservatism, which is a very, very diverse movement. You have Yoram Hazony who's an Israeli intellectual, who's the godfather of this movement, weirdly enough. You also have standard nationalists who just feel like there should be more flag-waving in the United States. You have somebody like Rich Lowry, who was actually [initially] a Never Trumper, and now feels that there needs to be some kind of America First-ism in America. He's flirting with something like blood and soil nationalism based on geography and ancestry. That will rule me out as a robust American citizen, I'm not sure about you. Geography it means Americans need to love the landscape of this country. The Shenandoah Valley is something that every American should do a pilgrimage to. It's all goofy stuff. They all feel whatever was missing in the liberal arrangement in America now they feel it's up for grabs, and they're all trying to make a bid for it very quickly to get what they can.Aaron: In the time that we have left, I want to turn to the future of this podcast. This is the inaugural episode of Reactionary Minds, we plan to do a lot more of these. Our goals, why we created this show, and what we're hoping to get out of it. I can start on this one. I touched on this a bit earlier, but I think my goal is this rise of liberalism is really troubling. As someone who has dedicated his career to advancing a quite radical conception of individual and economic liberty and individual autonomy and self-authorship, this is a direct assault on the values that not only I hold, but I think are the ones that lead to the best world for everyone.This has always been with us, but it has ramped up considerably. We're seeing some of it on the left, we are seeing one of the two major parties, more or less, entirely overtaken by it. We have seen it embodied in a president, we are seeing an increasing number of intellectuals come out in support of it in one form or another. This is a real threat. The value of a show like this is in trying to understand where that's all coming from, and what it is the people who hold these views actually want, why they want it? What are the ideas that are leading them to it or providing support for it?I don't want this to be a superficial understanding or a dismissive or they're all just evil kind of way because that's easy and ultimately uninteresting. My goal is to really try to understand them on their own terms and then to critique it from the perspective of the value of radical liberty.Shikha: That's exactly right, Aaron. That's why I'm excited that you are doing this. I think this is going to be a great podcast. As you've said, the plan is to understand this illiberalism and its appeal at every level, psychological, social, political. I'm sure you will be having guests that address all of it. Marxism makes this distinction between theory and praxis. You and I, we both have a penchant for an intellectual understanding of things. We like to understand things at a theoretical level, it's almost an end in itself. But in this case, we cannot fight this phenomenon without actually understanding it. [On the praxis side], The UnPopulist is not going to shy away calling the right reactionary and taking on specific political figures who are behaving in an illiberal fashion. It’s not going to shy away from taking sides. We know what we are opposing. But to me the theory of Reactionary Minds is going to inform the praxis of The UnPopulist. So there is a yin and yang here that I’m super excited about. I really look forward to this. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunpopulist.substack.com

Today's Sunday Reflection "Be Kind To Yourself" is Special Edition. I talked with Bill Buckley, the former FCA Director of the State of Mississippi. We talked about his career, going through burnout and how to avoid it. Tune. Like. Share. Subscribe. Be Phenomenal, Mr. Short --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/jeremiah-short0/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jeremiah-short0/support

Growing up Bozell. Stops Along the Way: A Catholic Soul, a Conservative Heart, an Irish Temper, and a Love of Life. Talking in this episode with L. Brent Bozell III, author of Stops Along the Way and who is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today. Brent founded and is president of the Media Research Center, the largest media watchdog organization in America; and ForAmerica, which the New York Times declared was “one of the greatest unexpected influences on the 2016 election.” Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, author, publisher, and activist … Brent's done it all. He's also has the great gift for friendship. This episode though, is about a Brent Bozell that we don't know enough about. What was it like to grow up as one of 10 children as part of the nomadic family of amazing consequence of Brent Bozell Jr and Patricia Buckley? He, who headed the Yale debate team (with roommate and best friend William F Buckley Jr. as his second), who was ghostwriter of Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, a seminal figure in the conservative resurgence and who died a Third Order Carmelite monk. She, a towering intellect, the closest sister to Bill Buckley, and who had a famous confrontation with T. Grace Atkinson, a militant feminist anti-Catholic who had been going around the country saying that the Virgin Mary had been knocked up. What happens when your parents move you and your menagerie of pets and siblings from the leafy suburbs of Chevy Chase out to a dilapidated estate in rural Virginia? What happens when, without batting an eyelash, your father sends you and your two brothers off to boarding school in Spain when you didn't speak a word of Spanish and who simply expected that as Bozell's you would thrive? This is just a sampling of an intimate and revealing conversation. Hope you'll find the time to listen in.

As Chambers wrote to his friend Bill Buckley, most of us think the story of Oedipus ends when he learns he married his own mother and puts his eyes out.  In fact, however, Oedipus lived for years afterwards.  After the trials, Chambers lived for 10 years and Hiss for 45.  Neither escaped The Case, nor did their wives and children.  (Add this, by the way, to all the reasons that committing treason is a bad idea.). Each man wrote a book.  Chambers' became a best-seller, a major American autobiography, and a sacred text of the post-WWII right.  Hiss's book sank like a stone, as did another he wrote in the mid-1980s.  Chambers tried to stay out of the public eye.  Hiss tried to stay in it, but failed to establish either his innocence or the dimensions of the shape-shifting conspiracy that had framed him.  This Podcast recounts the tragic post-court life of each of our protagonists.    FURTHER RESEARCH   Episode 36:  Chambers' autobiography is “Witness,” most recently published by Regnery Gateway in 2014.  He was working on a huge, never finished book (working title “The Third Rome”) when he died.  Associated essays of his were published by Random House in 1964 under the title “Cold Friday” — the name of a field on his farm.  His articles for The National Review (amounting to less than 85 pages) were published by that magazine in “The Whittaker Chambers Reader: His Complete National Review Writings 1957-59” in 2014; these and his earlier short pieces appear in “Ghosts on the Roof: Selected Essays,” edited by Terry Teachout and published by Transaction in 1996.  Two books of Chambers' correspondence have been printed: “Odyssey of a Friend:  Letters to William F. Buckley, Jr., 1954-1961” (Regnery Gateway 1987); and “Notes from the Underground:  The Whittaker Chambers-Ralph de Toledano Letters 1949-60,” published in 1997 by Regnery Gateway.  Mr. de Toledano covered the trials for Newsweek Magazine and became a prominent conservative writer.  If you're interested in what Chambers did and thought in his last years, the best of the foregoing works is (in my opinion) the Chambers-Buckley correspondence.   Hiss's memoir, “In the Court of Public Opinion” (Knopf 1957), draws heavily on his Petition for a New Trial on Grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence.  His late-in-life autobiography, “Recollections of a Life,” was published by Seaver in 1988.  It is as dry as his first book.  Hiss's son, Anthony, maybe best known as The New Yorker's railroad correspondent under the pseudonym E.M. Frimbo, wrote about himself and his father in “Laughing Last” (Houghton Mifflin 1977) when things were looking up for his dad.  After the verdict of history had turned the other way, the young Hiss produced “The View from Alger's Window: A Son's Memoir” (Houghton Mifflin 1999).  It concentrates on the correspondence he shared with his imprisoned father.  The New York Times reviewer described the latter book as “deeply troubling,” “a painful story of the family as a factory of denial.”“Family Ties,” by Ann Douglas, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/06/27/reviews/990627.27dougl.html. That The Times would publish such a review indicates how much, even among northeastern liberals, the verdict had solidified against Hiss and for Chambers.   More about the two protagonists' post-trial lives can be found in Professor Weinstein's book “Perjury” at pages 550-72 (chapter titled “Alger and Whittaker: The Vigil and the Death Watch”); and at pages 444-514 of the Sam Tanenhaus biography “Whittaker Chambers.”   Questions:  Which protagonist suffered more after the trials — the imprisoned Hiss or the ostracized Chambers?  Do you have a hunch that one or both of them overcame gloom and died with a somewhat satisfied, “something ventured, something gained” feeling?  Of the wives and children, only one (Hiss's son) capitalized on The Case.  If you had been one of the others, would you have been tempted to follow Tony's path?   If Hiss was guilty, why didn't he avoid the limelight like Chambers did?  And, when his son got interested in The Case, why didn't Hiss say to him “Son, this has taken over my life, but it doesn't have to mess up yours. I've got some years to live and powerful friends on my side; you just get on with your own existence and leave this to us.”  Why would he let his son take up a cause that Hiss knew was a lie and would likely someday be exposed as such, making his son look pitiful?

Holly Street runs north-south through metro Denver. I've always lived within walking distance of Holly, but miles south of 34th and Holly in Park Hill. I knew about the Holly Shopping Center from growing up in Denver, and from working as a Denver prosecutor for sixteen years.    Julian Rubinstein has authored The Holly: Five Bullets, One Gun, and the Struggle to Save an American Neighborhood. It's a compelling story about former gang member Terrence Roberts and the history of Park Hill, Denver, gangs, cops and USA. There's never been a book quite like this about Denver.   Bill Buckley was a legendary Denver Chief Deputy DA who prosecuted for 26 years and showed me some ropes. Buckley reminisces about mean streets of Denver, including his responding to the 12-10-75 murder of DPD Homicide Detective Don DeBruno on Broadway. We talk about Denver crimes back in the day.   Buckley prosecuted 56 murder cases including the United Bank Massacre (Father's Day 1991), also on Broadway. Ex DPD Sgt. Jim King was put on trial and acquitted but Buckley still argues King's guilty. James Lowe was found guilty of horrible 6-26-79 murder on West Quincy Avenue at Pinehurst CC in Denver, a case Buckley brings to dramatic life.    Troubadour Dave Gunders sings sweet sad song about leaving one's homeland, chased out by events. Louisiana Goodbye speaks of lost communities and struggles to reclaim homes. Some seek to reclaim history. We discuss The Alamo and whole lot more. Key to history is to get the facts straight.   Peter Boyles rarely gets his facts straight. In a further takedown of this bad historian, we play sound of Boyles claiming governmental treatment of Christian baker Jack Phillips is Nazi-like. But Boyles lies. His views are skewed. We've got the sound.   Rundown -   Julian Rubinstein - 02:25   Bill Buckley in Craig's Lawyers' Lounge - 01:00:34   Dave Gunders - 02:12:49   Craig takes on Boyles' bigotry - 02:34:22  

Jay talks with Jonah Goldberg about his writing life, his dogs, his political thought. Bill Buckley, Charles Krauthammer, Donald Trump. Music, sports, food. “Life its ownself,” or at least significant slices. Jonah is in splendid form, expressing joy even when the topics are unjoyful, somehow. Source