Podcasts about continetti

In this episode, Hugh Hewitt hosts Matthew Continetti, Director of Domestic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a columnist, discussing Zelensky’s missteps with Trump’s administration and the evolving U.S. foreign policy. Continetti critiques Zelensky’s rejection of a resource deal and analyzes Trump’s personalist approach, suggesting a revised agreement might mend ties, while also exploring broader geopolitical dynamics involving China, Russia, Iran, and Hamas.

Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Matthew Continetti from the American Enterprise Institute join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, President Trump and his allies making quick progress on their goal of "deconstructing the administrative state," Elon Musk gaining unprecedented access to information, Congress ceding power to the White House and the new DNC chair. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Matthew Continetti from the American Enterprise Institute join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, President Trump and his allies making quick progress on their goal of "deconstructing the administrative state," Elon Musk gaining unprecedented access to information, Congress ceding power to the White House and the new DNC chair. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Hugh covers the news of the week and talks with Haviv Rettig Gur and Matt Continetti.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, a deep dive with Matthew Continetti on his book The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. We explore how American conservatism developed, from its birth in in the 1920s and opposition to FDR's New Deal through today's populist resurgence. Continetti explains why conservative populism keeps returning, how elites lost their grip on the right, and what the future might hold for American conservatism.Matthew Continetti is the Director of Domestic Policy Studies and the Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute.Buy: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism - https://www.amazon.com/Right-Hundred-Year-War-American-Conservatism/dp/1541600517/?&_encoding=UTF8&tag=theurban-20Subscribe to my newsletter: https://www.aaronrenn.com/

In this episode, Hugh Hewitt discusses the U.S. election outcome with Matthew Continetti, who highlights Donald Trump's projected win and Republican gains, calling it a striking comeback. Continetti suggests a shift in media trust and voter demographics, noting the strong Hispanic and Jewish support for Trump, as well as a growing role for alternative media over traditional outlets.

Townhall Review - October 19, 2024 In this week's episode of Townhall Review, host Hugh Hewitt dives into the fast-approaching 2024 election.  Charlie Kirk and Trump's political director, James Blair, discuss the importance of voter turnout, emphasizing that success hinges on getting the right numbers at the polls. Bob Frantz and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan point out how the strategy of allowing non-citizens to vote is spreading across the country. As the election nears, Hugh touches on the growing phenomenon of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which Matt Continetti describes as reaching new heights of intensity. Continetti shares his insights during a teaser clip from Hugh's full hour-long interview. Victor Davis Hanson talks about the Left's efforts to offend autoworkers, minorities, Catholics and more, demographics where the GOP has historically been weak are looking quite strong. Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson talk with Danial Mahony of Assumption University about the left's increasing repudiation of Western values, illustrated by recent events such as Nottingham University's decision to issue a trigger warning on Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.  Dennis Prager reflects on the stark differences between Europe's changing immigration policies and the United States', highlighting the growing divide between public sentiment and political action on immigration.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The election is close and Hugh dives into it with Matt Continetti, Mary Katharine Ham, and Scott Jennings, but first, he pulls on his old land use lawyer gloves and goes a few rounds with the absurd California Coastal Commission's unconstitutional attack on Elon Musk because of his politics. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, host Andrew Keen and historian Matthew Continetti explore the pivotal moments in the history of American conservatism, starting in 1964. Continetti elaborates on the ideological foundations of American conservatism, emphasizing its roots in the political traditions of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The conversation delves into the marginalization of conservative thought during the New Deal era and the eventual resurgence of conservatism in the mid 20th century.

Welcome to Season 5 of Keeping it Civil. We're thrilled to have you back and promise memorable, informative, thought-provoking conversations. In this episode our host Henry Thompson sits down with a Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute Matthew Continetti. Besides discussing his most recent book, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, Continetti speaks about the Republican Party beyond Donald Trump and modern conservatism in the United States, its roots and its future.

Jonah's travels have concluded and he's back on the homefront, which can only be good news for holders on the Remnant bingo card. To celebrate his return, the ever-reliable Matthew Continetti is back on the program for some piping hot punditry on the latest in political dysfunction. Matt recently abandoned Jonah's department at the American Enterprise Institute to become the director of its domestic policy division, and this betrayal won't go unpunished. But when they aren't viciously attacking one another's office allegiances, the duo is able to provide incisive answers to a host of political questions. Is a government shutdown incoming? What's going wrong with conservative institutions? How can populism be a good thing? And what will it take for politicians to stop beclowning themselves? Show Notes: - Matt's page at AEI - National Review: “Pence's Populism Speech Was Admirable, but It Misidentified the Target” - Jack Butler on Pence and populism - How much do voters trust both parties? - Jonah: “Uniform Stupidity” - The Remnant with Tom Nichols Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For many years, millions of Americans across the political spectrum have been asking: What is going on with the Republican Party? The answers, to the extent they can be determined, are caught up with the party's relationship with the conservative movement and developments on the broader political Right. Matthew Continetti explores these questions in his monumental study The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, recently released in paperback.   Continetti, who was a co-founder of the online newspaper the Washington Free Beacon and is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has been a conservative movement insider for two decades. He joined the now-defunct Weekly Standard magazine in 2003 when it was at the zenith of its influence inside the George W. Bush administration and the conservative movement; the magazine's longtime editor-in-chief, William Kristol, is now Continetti's father-in-law.  In this podcast discussion, Continetti talks about the principal themes of The Right, including the proliferation of different varieties of politics that have appeared in right-wing intellectual and activist circles over the past century, the ongoing struggle for influence between the libertarian and traditionalist factions of conservatism, and the tensions between populist outsiders and governing-minded insiders. He analyzes the present political moment and the intellectual attempt to "reverse-engineer" Donald Trump's impulses and instincts into a coherent ideology through institutions like the Claremont Institute and Hillsdale College as well as the National Conservative movement. Continetti also describes the reasoning behind his decision to begin his account with the 1920s, the end of the Cold War's impact on the conservative movement, and the reasons why he thinks the political center-right and its institutions are following the same pattern of decline that the center-left underwent a decade ago.

The Republican Party has been the main political vehicle for American conservatism over the past 100 years. Periods of tension between the intellectual/elite faction and the grassroots faction have defined the party's history. Matt Continetti, senior fellow at AEI, has spent his career studying the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century, in particular the tug-of-war between the party's factions and how this has shaped national politics.Mentioned in the EpisodeThe Right: The Hundred-Year War for American ConservatismPlato's RepublicThe Politics of Rage: Why do They Hate Us?The Washington Free BeaconGeorge Wallace 1968 Presidential CampaignTrump: “I love the poorly educated.”House Passes Debt Limit BillCHIPS Subsidies Come with Lots of StringsRoe v. WadeWhat is Compassionate Conservatism?

What is the American Right, where does it come from, and how has it changed over time? Journalist and author Matthew Continetti discusses his recent book: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. Continetti is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and was formerly the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at the Weekly Standard. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary magazine Data on the shifting demographics of wealthiest Americans, discussed during this episode, is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

What is the American Right, where does it come from, and how has it changed over time? Journalist and author Matthew Continetti discusses his recent book: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. Continetti is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and was formerly the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at the Weekly Standard. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary magazine Data on the shifting demographics of wealthiest Americans, discussed during this episode, is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

What is the American Right, where does it come from, and how has it changed over time? Journalist and author Matthew Continetti discusses his recent book: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. Continetti is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and was formerly the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at the Weekly Standard. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary magazine Data on the shifting demographics of wealthiest Americans, discussed during this episode, is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

What is the American Right, where does it come from, and how has it changed over time? Journalist and author Matthew Continetti discusses his recent book: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. Continetti is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and was formerly the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at the Weekly Standard. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary magazine Data on the shifting demographics of wealthiest Americans, discussed during this episode, is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

McConnell Center welcomes Matthew Continetti to discuss the work that informs his book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism. Matthew Continetti is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work focuses on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century. A prominent journalist, analyst, author, and intellectual historian of the right, Continetti is the founding editor of The Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at The Weekly Standard. Continetti is the author of two previous books: “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star” (Sentinel, 2009) and “The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine” (Doubleday, 2006). He has a BA in history from Columbia University. Important Links More about the Matthew Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. Views expressed in this show are those of the participants and not necessarily those of the McConnell Center.  

Matthew Continetti is a journalist and book-author, a top expert on the American Right. He is the author of “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.” These days, the Right is undergoing some serious changes when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and America's place in the world. With Jay, Continetti discusses this and more. Enlightening. Source

Matthew Continetti is a journalist and book-author, a top expert on the American Right. He is the author of “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.” These days, the Right is undergoing some serious changes when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and America’s place in the world. With Jay, Continetti discusses this and more. Enlightening. Source

This fall, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging race-based admission policies at the University of North Carolina and Harvard. Despite previous rulings that have upheld constitutional preferences to achieve a racially diverse study body, the court is widely expected to rule against this form of affirmative action. How have American policies on children evolved politically and how has affirmative action come to reflect right versus left ideology today? In this episode, Naomi and Ian are joined by Matthew Continetti, Senior Fellow and inaugural Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute. Matt outlines how race-based quotas introduced under President Richard Nixon were initially designed to help the social and economic advancement of the descendants of American slaves. However, the classification expanded over time as the left began to embrace the idea of color consciousness, and the notion that the presence of a racial disparity means there must be racism at work.Matt argues that the conservative movement has been most successful in education policy because it acknowledged everyday Americans who are dissatisfied with overreach by the Left and are looking for substantive policy responses. Advocating for school choice, charter schools, and greater accountability from public schools has received widespread support from the American public, and conservatives should continue in this vein.Resources:• The End of Affirmative Action? | Matthew Continetti | Commentary• Is It Time to Replace Race with Class in Affirmative Action? | Ian Rowe | EduwonkShow Notes:• 02:00 | How did affirmative action divide the left and the right?• 06:00 | The unintended consequences of government action • 10:00 | Most Americans view each other as individuals, not members of groups• 11:30 | The negative effects of race-based ideologies • 16:15 | What is the future of the conservative movement?

It's Election Day in America! Megyn Kelly is joined by Glenn Beck, host of The Glenn Beck Show on BlazeTV, to talk about the key issues driving voters across America, how the voters are switching sides as elites move left and working class moves right, media working overtime to pretend crime isn't a problem in America, Biden's racial pandering, media labeling those who question the Pelosi attack narrative purveyors of "misinformation," and more. Then, Alan Dershowitz joins to break the news that Virginia Giuffre has dropped her case against him, and that she said she may have made a mistake in her accusations against him. Then Salena Zito, reporter for Washington Examiner, joins to talk about the hugely important Oz vs. Fetterman race, Fetterman's lawsuit over dates on ballots, why she thinks Oz may win tonight, Biden's terrible closing message on coal, and more. Finally Matt Continetti, founding editor of the Free Beacon, and Doug Schoen, Democratic consultant and pollster, join to talk about predictions for the midterms, whether the red wave will be a tsunami or small ripple, whether the Dems or GOP have the "candidate quality" problem, Trump's impact in 2022 and 2024, what the Dems and GOP might learn from a red wave tonight, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

What is the American Right, where does it come from, and how has it changed over time? Journalist and author Matthew Continetti discusses his recent book: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. Continetti is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and was formerly the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free […]

What is the American Right, where does it come from, and how has it changed over time? Journalist and author Matthew Continetti discusses his recent book: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. Continetti is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and was formerly the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at the Weekly Standard. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary magazine. Continetti's recent book: https://www.the-right-book.com/  The shifting demographics of wealthiest Americans, discussed during this episode: https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/democrats-tax-hike-bet-relies-on-their-new-500-000-plus-voters?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=taxdesk&utm_campaign=5B08EF5E-A165-11EB-8C78-8C0750017A06  

What is the American Right, where does it come from, and how has it changed over time? Journalist and author Matthew Continetti discusses his recent book: The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism. Continetti is Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and was formerly the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at the Weekly Standard. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary magazine Data on the shifting demographics of wealthiest Americans, discussed during this episode, is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Journalist Matthew Continetti joins Margaret Hoover to discuss the evolution of the American right over the last century and its future. He explains how opposition to the New Deal, communism, and progressivism created the foundation for an enduring conservative agenda. Continetti, author of “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism” and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recounts the roles prominent political figures have played in the movement, including Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. He details how recent decades have changed the social and ideological makeup of the conservative coalition as populism and anti-elitism emerged and grassroots voters rebelled against the GOP establishment, and he looks ahead to what those forces could mean for Republicans and traditional conservatives in 2024 and beyond. Continetti also reflects on how shifts in technology and the media have affected conservatism over the years, from William F. Buckley Jr.'s original “Firing Line” to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio to the proliferation of conspiracy theories on the internet. Support for “Firing Line for Margaret Hoover” is provided by Stephens Inc., Robert Granieri, Charles R. Schwab, The Fairweather Foundation, Asness Family Foundation, The Rosalind P. Walter Foundation, Damon Button, Pritzker Military Foundation on behalf of the Pritzker Military Museum and Library, and The Marc Haas Foundation.

A few weeks ago, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave a keynote address at the U.S. Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Given Orban’s tight relationship with Putin and his aggressive brand of Euro-xenophobia, many American liberals and conservatives alike were shocked.  But Orban’s speech at CPAC — and CPAC’s own meeting in Hungary — is part of a larger shift on the American Right; […]

A few weeks ago, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave a keynote address at the U.S. Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Given Orban's tight relationship with Putin and his aggressive brand of Euro-xenophobia, many American liberals and conservatives alike were shocked.  But Orban's speech at CPAC -- and CPAC's own meeting in Hungary -- is part of a larger shift on the American Right; indeed, this is a throwback to the Right of the 1930s. As traditional Reaganites wonder what happened to "peace through strength," is it time to ask how "national conservatism" and Reagan-conservatism can live together? And who is the leader that can show the way? These questions and more with Matthew Continetti. Continetti is a senior fellow and the inaugural Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of an important new book, https://www.amazon.com/Right-Hundred-Year-War-American-Conservatism/dp/1541600509 (The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism). Download the transcript https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Episode-172-Final-Transcript.docx (here).

Matthew Continetti, is a senior fellow and the Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute. Today, we talk about his new book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.  Continetti talks to us about the different terminology used to describe right-leaning ideologies, and how they've evolved over time. He also gives us a survey of the most important thinkers and events that have contributed to the history of the right. 

Matthew Continetti, is a senior fellow and the Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute. Today, we talk about his new book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.  Continetti talks to us about the different terminology used to describe right-leaning ideologies, and how they've evolved over time. He also gives us a survey of the most important thinkers and events that have contributed to the history of the right. 

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined by Matthew Continetti, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism. Later in the show, we check in with Tom Horne, Republican candidate for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. -Matthew Continetti is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work is focused on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century.A prominent journalist, analyst, author, and intellectual historian of the right, Mr. Continetti was the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at The Weekly Standard.Mr. Continetti is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine. He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, among other outlets. He also appears frequently on Fox News Channel's “Special Report” with Bret Baier and MSNBC's “Meet the Press Daily” with Chuck Todd.Mr. Continetti is the author of two books: “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star” (Sentinel, 2009) and “The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine” (Doubleday, 2006).He has a BA in history from Columbia University.-Tom Horne is a candidate for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. Mr. Horne has served both his community and our state impressively in several elected offices:  Paradise Valley School Board member and president; Legislator where he was chair of the academic accountability committee; Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction; and, Arizona Attorney General.  As Superintendent, he is most famous for enforcing the English immersion mandate for mostly Spanish-speaking children and getting rid of La Raza studies in Tucson schools. As Attorney General, he earned acclaim for winning lawsuits for Arizona that he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.   -Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

In his latest book, Matthew Continetti — the right’s pre-eminent intellectual historian — traces the rich history of America’s 20th century conservative moment. In this conversation, we don’t dive into the details of history itself (for that, pick up a copy of The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism), but rather discuss the origins and repercussions of some of the right’s more unsettling trends — from post-liberalism to populism to religious authoritarianism. As is our wont, we debate, disagree, and dunk on Biden, too.Check out our ‘Inscrutable’ newsletter for thoughts and rants. To support us and gain access to exclusive content, consider becoming a paid member of Uncertain on Substack. Follow @UncertainPod on your social media of choice.On the agenda:-Analyzing the Right from the Right [0:00-7:26]-The Post-Liberals of the New Right [7:27-18:38]-Culture vs. Capitalism [18:39-32:46] -Rediscovering The American-ness of Conservatism [32:47-42:06] -Turning back the clock, but to when? [42:07-45:31] -Discussing Dobbs v. Jackson [45:32-52:11] -The Monster Within [52:12-1:05:49] -Blindspots on the Left & Right [1:05:50-1:07:34] Uncertain Things is hosted and produced by Adaam James Levin-Areddy and Vanessa M. Quirk. For more doomsday rumination, subscribe to: uncertain.substack.com. Get full access to Uncertain Things at uncertain.substack.com/subscribe

Matthew Continetti's new book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism has instigated a vigorous conversation around the best way to understand the historical phenomenon of modern conservatism in the United States.  Returning guest Avi Woolf joins Josh for a discussion on what Continetti's depiction gets right and not-so-right about American conservatism, what has conservatism conserved, and what ought conservatism to conserve in the future.   About Avi Woolf   Avi Woolf is a writer, editor, translator, and podcaster whose work has been published in Arc Digital, Commentary, National Review, The Bulwark, Ordinary Times, and The Dispatch.  He is chief editor of the online Medium publication Conservative Pathways, and he—in his words—"hopes to help forge a path for a conservatism which is relevant for the 21st century while not abandoning the best of past wisdom.”   Avi has been a guest on the show several times prior: the first in which he explored the need for conservatism to find a way to appeal to people who live in urban areas in Episode 26 – Urban Conservatism, the second in which he mulled over the love/hate relationship the Right has long had with institutions of higher education in Episode 49 – God and the Speechless at Yale, and, finally, where he considered what is America and what does it mean to be an American in Episode 87 – E Pluribus Unum with Avi Woolf.   Avi hosts his own podcast entitled Avi's Conversational Corner, a podcast on culture, history, and politics in a broad perspective. You can find Avi on Twitter @AviWoolf   Introducing the Are We Right? Podcast   If you like Saving Elephants you'll love the new podcast Are We Right? featuring Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis along with three other co-hosts: Cal Davenport, Brooke Medina, and Calvin Moore. Cal, Josh Brooke, and Calvin debate a wide range of topics from politics to religion to culture and invite the audience to weigh in on whether or not they're right. You can find the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen, find us on Twitter @ TheAWRPodcast, and email us at arewerightpodcast@gmail.com.  

Peter is a political activist, most famously as a pioneering member of ACT UP — the grassroots AIDS group that challenged and changed the federal government. He founded both the Treatment Action Group (TAG) and the educational website AIDSmeds.com. An old friend and sparring partner, he also stars in the Oscar-nominated documentary “How to Survive a Plague.” Check out his memoir, Never Silent: ACT UP and My Life in Activism.You can listen to the episode — which gets fiery at times — in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). For two short clips of my convo with Peter — on how he and other AIDS survivors turned to meth, and Peter pushing back on my views of critical queer theory in schools — pop over to our YouTube page. There’s also a long segment on just the monkeypox stuff. If that episode isn’t gay enough for you, we just posted a transcript of the episode last year with Katie Herzog and Jamie Kirchick. Both of these Alphabet apostates were on Real Time last month — here’s Jamie:Katie appeared alongside this clapped-out old bear:Come to think of it, two more Dishcast alums were on the same episode of Real Time last month — Michael Shellenberger and Douglas Murray:Oh wait, two more in June — Cornel West and Josh Barro:We now have 20 episodes of the Dishcast transcribed (check out the whole podcast archive here):Bob Woodward & Robert Costa on the ongoing peril of TrumpBuck Angel & Helena Kerschner on living as trans and detransKatie Herzog & Jamie Kirchick on Pride and the alphabet peopleDominic Cummings on Boris, Brexit and immigrationCaitlin Flanagan on cancer, abortion and other Christmas cheerGlenn Greenwald on Bolsonaro, woke journalists and animal tortureJonathan Haidt on social media’s havocYossi Klein Halevi on the origins of ZionismFiona Hill on Russia, Trump and the American DreamJamie Kirchick on the Lavender ScareJohn McWhorter on woke racismJohn Mearsheimer on handling Russia and ChinaRoosevelt Montás on saving the humanities Michael Moynihan on Afghanistan and free speechCharles Murray on human diversityJonathan Rauch on dangers to liberalismChristopher Rufo on critical race theory in schoolsMichael Shellenberger on homeless, addiction and crimeCornel West on God and the great thinkersWesley Yang on the Successor IdeologyA Dishcast listener looks to last week’s episode and strongly dissents:I enjoyed your interview with Matthew Continetti. Unfortunately, an exchange at the end reminded me of why I had to reluctantly tune you out for years: your hero worship of Obama. I respect and admire the way you call out the failures and excesses of both sides, including those of mine (the right), which I acknowledge were glaring even before Trump. During the Obama years, however, it was hard not to cringe when I watched you tear up on Chris Matthews’s show and compare him to a father figure. I also recall you yelling at SE Cupp and aggressively pointing a finger at her on Bill Maher’s show for daring to compare the foreign policies of Obama and W Bush:It’s hard to imagine anyone with that kind of emotional response being objective, and sadly, you never were during his presidency.You argued with Continetti that Obama was a middle-of-the-road pragmatist, when nothing could be further from the truth. He came into office with the economy reeling in a banking and housing crisis, and he took the Rahm Emmanuel approach of never letting a crisis go to waste. Even before his inauguration, he begin planning to rush through major legislation on healthcare, climate, and education. These may be worthy goals, but they are not the actions of a pragmatist who wants to govern by addressing the problems of the moment. He then outsourced the stimulus bill to Pelosi, which was a pork-filled bonanza with almost nothing even remotely stimulative. He refused to incorporate any Republican ideas into the healthcare legislation and arrogantly said to McCain that “the election’s over” when McCain voiced some opposition. Obama then lied in selling the bill to the American people by saying you would be able to keep your plan and your doctor in all cases.When Obama lost his congressional majority, he resorted to gross lawlessness, taking executive actions that exceeded his constitutional authority on everything from carbon emissions to insurance company appropriations to immigration, including on measures that were recently voted down by Congress or (as Continetti noted) he previously acknowledged he lacked the constitutional authority to do. He even flouted his ability to do this — knowing the media would cover for him — by saying he had “a pen and a phone.”Obama was one of the more divisive presidents in history. Every speech followed the same obnoxious shtick of chiding Republicans for playing politics and claiming that he alone was acting in the national interest. We saw this again, even post-presidency, during the funeral of John Lewis. For once, both sides came together, and even Republicans celebrated the achievements of a genuine American hero.  But during Obama’s speech, he turned the event into a partisan tirade about voting rights, calling the filibuster a Jim Crow relic (never mind that he used as a Senator).Finally, you argued that Republicans never gave Obama a chance. Not true. When he was inaugurated, his approval ratings were among the highest on record and were even above 40 percent among Republicans. They plummeted among Republican voters because he refused to ever take their concerns seriously or acknowledge that they had any legitimate points. When he finally did something they had even slight agreement with, the Trans Pacific Partnership, most Republicans supported him, while much of his own party opposed him.I respect your objectivity and believe that you are largely back to it. But I’m hoping the next time someone you love comes along, you will remain able to see the forest from the trees. (And sorry about the War and Peace-length email. There isn’t another intellectual I’m aware of who would actually welcome a dissent like that, which is why I wish I became a subscriber sooner.)That’s a lot of political history to litigate, but if you think I was blindly supporting Obama, read “The Fierce Urgency of Whenever,” “Obama’s Marriage Cowardice,” “Obama’s New War: Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb,” “Obama’s Two New Illegal Wars,” “Is Obama A Phony On Torture?”, “Obama Is Now Covering Up Alleged Torture,” “Obama’s Gitmo Disgrace,” “Obama To The Next Generation: Screw You, Suckers,” my reaction to his townhall comments on cannabis, “Behind the Obama Implosion,” and my excoriation of his first debate against Romney, if you remember.Obama’s healthcare proposal originally came from the Heritage Foundation; it was the most conservative measure to move us to universal healthcare access available; he passed it; and it remains the law because Republicans realized it was too popular to repeal. If that’s what you call extremism, you have a different definition of the word than I do.His stimulus was — yes — insufficient to the moment. But that’s because it veered toward a fiscal prudence long abandoned by the GOP. And he put it before any other priority. The GOP still refused to give this new president in an economic crisis any support at all, and acted as if the Bush debacle had never happened.Another listener defends the former president’s record — to a point:Obama had one chance to pass health care reform — something presidents had been trying and failing to do for several decades. In reality he had a razor-thin margin, especially in the Senate. He spent months letting moderates like Max Baucus take the lead in Congress. He gave moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe endless time to pretend to be willing to vote for a centrist bill. Remember: this was largely RomneyCare, an already moderate Republican policy idea and one which had originally come out of a conservative think tank.In the end, no matter how much Big Pharma and other healthcare lobbies had to be bribed and how much Obama compromised — no public option; no federal negotiation via Medicare to lower drug prices — the moderate Republicans had strung him along. He had to give Ben Nelson goodies to get his vote. And, overall, as much as the bill was a corporate sellout, it still — and 12 years on it’s so easy to forget this — still made massively important reforms the public was desperate for: it expanded family access for kids up to 26; it ended the rampant abuse of preexisting conditions to deny coverage; it ended retroactive rescissions in which insurance employees were tasked to comb through patient records and fine print to find pretexts for dumping patients when they needed care the most; it ended lifetime caps on coverage for things like major early childhood diseases and illnesses and catastrophic illnesses in adults; and of course it expanded access to Medicaid (most people don’t realize how stunningly low one’s income has to be to qualify). ObamaCare, flaws and all, was necessary — and a major step forward. There was no Republican compromise to be had in 2010 or ever. Remember what Mitch McConnell said his #1 priority was? Ensuring Obama was a one-term president with no major successes to campaign on. They simply wanted the legislation to crash and burn, similar to how it did in 1994. DACA and DAPA and the rest? Very very different story. And I agree with Continetti: Obama did not have that authority and he knew he didn’t. And after the Gang of Eight fell apart, his second term was all about caving to radical, often openly ethnically chauvinistic, identitarian, open borders advocates. And that’s where the Democratic Party has been stuck ever since. Executive decisions like DACA were a big part of why I soured on the Obama administration. ObamaCare, flawed as it was, was a big reason I volunteered so heavily for Obama in 2012. We’re still not close to the kind of publicly guaranteed, universal health care virtually all peer countries and allies enjoy. But we’re closer due to ObamaCare. And that’s a clear example of what Democrats can accomplish when they’re focused on passing the best bill they can pass (by the barest of margins) for the common good. For the record (see the Daily Dish links above), I also opposed the Libya war, the Iraq surge, and the DACA executive overreach. This next reader is more sympathetic to Obama on DACA:Deporting kids who have never known another country has a 19 percent approval rating. Obama begged Congress for years to do something to correct this. So is the Continetti position that Obama needed to do something that more than 80 percent of Americans don’t want because far-right extremists are holding Boehner hostage? If that is your position, then it’s fundamentally undemocratic.Another clip from last week:Yet another take on the Continetti convo:I’m a moderately liberal person, and I listen to conservative voices to hear good arguments that make me consider more deeply my innate biases. But the conservatism described by Continetti is just uninteresting. Describing the 1964 Civil Rights Act as too large an overreach? Talking about constitutionalism in the same way that Alito does — as frozen, depending upon the section, in either 1789 or 1868? Dissing Obamacare?Obamacare is a big improvement on pre-ACA insurance, and I’m glad Obama persevered after Ted Kennedy's death. Healthcare has a lot of moving parts, but finally we have an individual insurance market with plans as good as those in the employer group market. My kids have used it at various times switching between jobs and school, or even instead of a law school's highly mediocre plan. One of my biggest problems with Biden is that he hasn’t even managed to get the subsidy income limit, which was lifted by the pandemic relief bill, made permanent. My biggest problem with Biden is that I expected that he’d be able to negotiate with someone like Manchin, who’s dim but probably willing to support something. Cranking up the ACA subsidies and funding some solar panel research and LWTR reactor prototypes, with the work being done in part in West Virginia?  It can’t be that hard to cut some deal. Instead, we seem to have nothing.So, until the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, I figured the Dems would get wiped out in '22 and '24. I figured the combination of trans-positive teaching in lower schools and race essentialism everywhere would lead to races like the Virginia governor election, where someone with a sane approach to schools would dominate. Dobbs may change all that.  From a small sample of Republican suburban voters I know, a lot of people are furious at the Court’s decision. They rightly view it as an ignorant decision that makes even pregnancy for wealthy women in red states far more dangerous than it was, since a partial miscarriage with lots of bleeding — not a rare event by any means — will now require sign-off from a hospital’s legal staff before a lifesaving D&C can be performed, by which time a pregnant woman may well be dead. And while Republicans typically don’t mind making life miserable for poor people (fun fact: a family of four has to have an income below $4,700 per year to get Medicaid in Mississippi), f*****g over the upper middle class will not go over nearly as well.Keeping with the abortion theme, another reader:This caught my eye in your most recent podcast email: “[T]he question of when human life becomes a human person is a highly debatable one.”First, thank you for stating the issue correctly! The issue is NOT when HUMAN LIFE begins. Science has answered that question definitively: at conception. It’s not a “theory,” religious or philosophical doctrine or anyone’s “opinion,” and it’s not debatable. We may not know everything that happens during conception, but no embryologist denies that it’s the beginning of human life. The term “person” is not scientific, and that’s why I avoid using it when debating abortion with non-believers. As I’ve noted before, the term “person” arose out of debates about the relations among the Three Persons of the Trinity in the run-up to the council of Nicea. Before that, the Latin term “persona” just referred to public citizenship. Slaves were not legally persons. The Christian philosophers made it into a much richer and more resonant concept, in order to explain that God could be one God but three “persons” — a way of saying that if God is Love, love is not a monism but a mode of relationality. Anyway, for purposes of modern discussion of abortion, the term “person” now means something close to what the pagan Roman meaning of “person” was: a human being legally granted rights by the state, including the right to life. In other words, some human beings are not “persons.”This distinction is morally troubling and creates issues for defenders of abortion. If it’s really up to the state to say who is or is not a “person,” why stop at the unborn? In the Roman Empire, and in later periods (including our own history, of course), slaves were not legally considered full “persons.”Is “personhood” a sliding scale, or an absolute state of being? Can you have “more” or “less” personhood? Are comatose (but stable) human beings persons, or do they lose their legal rights to life, as many seem to think? What about the conscious but mentally challenged? Do high-IQ people have more “personhood” than low-IQ people? You see where this is going, I’m sure. I’ve had many discussions about this, and there is NO criterion that denies full personhood to the unborn that cannot also be used to deny it to the already-born. I think once you hive off human rights from the status of being human, and attach them to some scientifically indefinable status like “personhood,” you go down a tricky path. Because you’re right, of course. “Personhood” is endlessly debatable, because it’s a philosophical and (ultimately) theological concept. It’s like arguing “Who has a soul, and who doesn’t?”But in our tribally inclined species, the question quickly becomes, who is “human” (i.e, like “us”) and who is “other” (i.e., not really “human”) — with the “other” not possessing the same rights. Most names of tribes for themselves translate to “the Human Beings” or “the People” — with anyone outside the tribe being less than human. (Did you ever see Little Big Man?)Of course, as a Christian I believe ALL human beings are also persons, no matter their mental state, helplessness, poverty or low social status. I also agree that all human beings are images of God. For purposes of argument with non-believers, rather than get side-tracked into personhood, I prefer to say that human rights are anchored in (inherent in) humanness, not “personhood.” This requires abortion advocates (if they have the slightest thoughtfulness or openness to engage in actual discussion) to explain how some human beings aren’t “persons” and who gets to make that determination. But any honest abortion defender who doesn’t want to deny non-contestable science must make that distinction.Here’s the difference between personhood in abortion and every other area. One person is literally inside another person’s body. In a society based on property rights, the body itself — “habeas corpus” — is central to freedom and autonomy. Another reader turns to sexuality:I was struck by one of the dissents you ran last week: “No mention of the 63 million babies who were murdered in the last 49 years, but oh how well you stand up for women and their right to have as many one-night stands as they want without consequences, guilt, or their morality even being questioned.”The second half of that sentence is so interesting. The dissenter is not only offended by potential babies not being born, but also by women having sexual fun without life-altering consequences. To the dissenter, one-night stands are an evil (at least, on the part of the woman), and going through a public pregnancy (look at her! shame!) and having babies (no career for her!) is the least punishment the female participants should deserve. The lost babies are bad, but even worse, look at what all those loose women are getting away with!I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion that some part of the opposition to abortion in this country is actually driven by people who want to bring back 1950s prudery. They see abortion as an evil precisely because it allows more sexual pleasure — and even more galling, more sexual pleasure on the part of women (because this 1950s prudery so often seems to carry 1950s misogyny along with it). Of course we know many abortion opponents are deeply moved by love for potential babies that aren’t born, but this dissenter shows there’s at least one person out there celebrating Dobbs for the renewed opportunities abortion bans will provide to scare women out of sex or, failing that, shame them and derail their careers as punishment.Another reader turns the focus to me:For some context, I am a Christian who has spent most of my life in the evangelical subculture, but I am more moved in worship by liturgical forms. I am politically anti-Trump and I am abhorred by the current state of the Republican Party, though I am a lifelong Republican. Call me David French-like.I am responding to your dissent from the conservative writer and your comment that consent between adults is the sole limiting factor in sexual behavior. You have likely been asked and answered this question many times, so just send me a link if that’s easier for you: Since you are a Christian, what role does the Bible and/or church teaching have in your understanding of human sexuality? One could argue that in addition to consent, the Bible speaks of fidelity, monogamy, love, nurture, self giving, mutual submission, and adoration in sexual relationships. How do you treat the foregoing characteristics (or others) in your sexual ethic? Does your Christian faith have any role to play in your sexual ethics?I enjoy your writing and the Dishcast, keep it up. Guest suggestions: Kevin Williamson. (He had deep dissents on gay marriage, but culturally that train has left the station, and as you know, he has the added benefit of having been fired by The Atlantic three days after hiring — an early example of cancel culture by the insulated Left). Also Jonah Goldberg.I responded to some of these points on the main page. But I’ve written much more widely on this question — and I recommend Out On A Limb for the rest. The essay “Alone Again, Naturally,” comes closest to answering. But I do not share orthodox Christianity’s Augustinian terror of the body and its pleasures. Your guest suggestions are always appreciated: dish@andrewsullivan.com. Here’s one more from a “20-year Dishhead writing for the first time”:I think Iain McGilchrist would be a great guest for the pod — and for TWO episodes, since the ideas in his recent work are so vast, complex, and far-reaching. (I encountered his earlier book on the Daily Dish.) It seems like IMcG is really working to get out his incredibly important, expansive, but very difficult project out and a couple of good conversations with you would be a great way of doing that, not to mention fascinating for us Dishcast listeners.Thanks for everything that you and Chris are doing with The Weekly Dish — trying to help us all think clearly and openly. My wife and I both appreciate having your voice in our lives each week. She especially likes the dissents!Subscribe to read them all — along with everything else on the Dish, including the View From Your Window contest. There are also gift subscriptions if you’d like to spread the Dishness to a loved one or friend — or a frenemy to debate the dissents with. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Matthew Continetti is the author of the new book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, an extensively researched and reported history of the conservative movement in America. Chris DeMuth is a former president of the American Enterprise Institute and currently a fellow at the Hudson Institute. In this conversation, DeMuth states that national conservatives (or “NatCons”) “are conservatives who have been mugged by reality. We have come away with a sense of how to recover from the horrors taking America down.” Continetti counters —in a typically conservative argument— that there is no need for NatCons to break away from the traditional movement, since they're all in the same boat and agree on most of the important issues of the day. The elephant in the room in this debate is former president Donald Trump. What he says and does in the next year or two will be crucial toward determining the future direction of the conservative movement. Continetti and DeMuth agree on that. Recorded on May 14, 2022

Matthew is a journalist who worked at The Weekly Standard and co-founded The Washington Free Beacon, where he served as editor-in-chief. Currently he’s a contributing editor at National Review, a columnist at Commentary, and a senior fellow and the Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute. We discuss his wonderful book, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.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 my convo with Matthew — on whether the GOP is destroying the Constitution, and debating how conservative was Obama was — pop over to our YouTube page.A listener looks back to last week’s episode:I enjoyed your discussion of friendship with Jennifer Senior, particularly your observation that a friend is someone we don’t want to change.  It reminded me of one of my favorite quotes by Friedrich Nietzsche: “Love is blind, friendship closes its eyes.”And here’s some insight from Jesus on the subject:Another listener grumbles:Another woman talking about friendship? How novel. How about finding some guys to talk about it? Because it sure is tough for straight men to find new friendships. The old ones fall apart for much the same reason that women's do, but the straight male psyche seems particularly resistant  to making new ones.  The Dishcast, in fact, recently aired an episode with Nicholas Christakis that covered quite a bit about the nature of friendship between straight men. Much of it centers on taking the piss out of each other:Another listener remarks on the part of my convo with Jennifer about the evolving nature of newsrooms — basically that they’re boring now, ensconced in Slack:I agree about the dead quiet in newsrooms these days. I started out in broadcasting in the early ‘80s, with a stint at NPR in the late ‘80s early ‘90s. People would shout and yell and ask questions on spelling, grammar and facts about previous stories, all while rushing to meet the deadlines. Then a few years ago, I worked in a major public radio newsroom and it was dead quiet. The editor sitting behind me would type a question to me via top-line message and I’d just turn around and answer him. It was a major sin! So boring! Thankfully now I work for a small nonprofit newsroom and I’m the head of our tiny audio division. Sadly COVID made our newsroom virtual, but oh how I miss those early, pre-internet newsrooms with people arguing and talking and joking with each other.Here’s what Jennifer and I have to say:After the Continetti convo this week, here are a few requests for more conservative guests:Sometimes I feel like you’re a friend of mine, since I’ve been reading you for so long — God, since the ‘80s. The thing is your intellectual honesty, and changing your mind when facts change. So please, please, get Rod Dreher on to talk with you! We love it when you talk to someone who’s in the same area but looking in another direction. What Dreher is going through is just beyond the pale — embracing a strongman authoritarian regime and calling it conservatism. It’s the same as the left embracing CRT and calling it liberal. Yep. I just need to summon up the emotional energy for him. Another asks:Have you ever considered getting Ben Shapiro on? I think he might be a more fun guest than Ann Coulter (even though I enjoyed listening to your interaction with her), and he’s honestly more capable of learning (i.e. I’m hoping it’d be a educational interaction for him).Always open to your guest recommendations — and your commentary on the episodes: dish@andrewsullivan.com.More dissents. First up, from one of the readers who most frequently criticizes the Dish’s coverage of crime:Last week you highlighted Scott Alexander’s column on the 2020 murder spike, calling it “devastating.” In fact, it’s wildly off-base. I’m sure Scott is a smart guy, but he’s wading into an incredibly complex subject with very little respect for or understanding of the work of others.His argument rests on timing. Murders began spiking around the launch of Black Lives Matter protests —  the “structural break” mentioned in the Council on Criminal Justice’s report he cites — so, he says, it follows that one caused the other. This is a version of the “Ferguson Effect” theory, and it’s fared very poorly in the academic literature — though you wouldn’t know it from Scott’s selective citations. That doesn’t mean protests are irrelevant to crime, but the best research on the subject points out something that Scott, in his rush to judgment, misses: people don’t protest for no reason. Instead, protests tend to be caused by external factors, like police brutality. That’s why Rick Rosenfeld, who serves on the Council on Criminal Justice and did much of the descriptive work that Scott cites, argues that crises in police legitimacy, not protests, are what drive increases in violent crime and murders.The distinction is subtle but important, for methodological reasons that needn’t detain us and theoretical ones that should. Specifically, blaming protesters for rising violence is essentially an elaborate way of “blaming the victim.” If protests cause murders to rise, what else are people to do when police terrorize or kill their neighbors — as happened to George Floyd and so many others? Looking further upstream places the blame for degraded police legitimacy where it belongs: on the police force itself. What really irks me about Scott’s column, though, is its certainty in the face of an unbelievably complex social crisis. There’s a reason criminologists (not the most liberal bunch, trust me) haven’t settled on protests as the sole reason for a 30% nationwide murder spike, felt in rural communities as well as cities. Sometimes things really are complicated, and that’s ok.Scott followed up his post by replying to the best dissents from his readers, including Matt Yglesias, who began his reply, “I agree with almost everything in this post except for the media criticism parts.” You rarely see this kind of debate in the MSM. Check it out.Next up, abortion. First, a dissent from the right:Your wrong characterization of the rejection of Roe v. Wade is another example of your conversion to the Left. No mention of the 63 million babies who were murdered in the last 49 years, but oh how well you stand up for women and their right to have as many one-night stands as they want without consequences, guilt, or their morality even being questioned. Instead you should be praising the Supreme Court for finally beginning to bring our democracy back to the original standard — that only the legislature makes laws — not the president and not the courts. You should be rejoicing over the fact that abortion rights are forced back into the hands of the state legislatures, and ultimately (to some extent) into the hands of the voters. It should have been this way for the last 50 years, but a radical leftist cabal took over our Supreme Court and made decisions with very little legal support or logic. If it really is a fundamental right of women to control their bodies and ignore the consequences of killing the babies they produce, 50 years of debate and voting would have proved it to be so, and abortion would be largely legal throughout the US today. But instead, the Supreme Court dictated the law from out of nowhere, dictatorially legislated the law of the land, and the cost has been the unjust murder of some portion of 63 million babies. You should be sickened by it.So today I leave your blog. You’ve transformed from my favorite writer, defender of liberty and “explainer” of the evils of CRT and the transgender movement, to just another gay leftist parroting the lies of immoral people who have no concept of what makes our country different from all the rest. Your conversion is sad and twisted because you have the ability to reach out to the citizens who have no idea how important liberty is or what is required to safeguard it.I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. The entire piece was a defense of abortion as a subject for democratic deliberation and not judicial fiat. That’s been my view for years. In this fraught and complex topic, I think a compromise on the European lines is the least worst option. I also believe — and have said so on multiple times — that I share your view that abortion is a moral evil, and the taking of human life. I could never be a party to one. But many disagree with me and you. And we live in a pluralistic society. And the question of when human life becomes a human person is a highly debatable one. Banning all abortion would be a disaster. Limiting and regulating it is a far better option. As for sexual freedom, you’ve got me there. As long as it’s between adults, and consensual, I have no problem with it, and lots of experience with it. I truly don’t think it is intrinsically wrong. Human beings’ sexuality is far more expansive and diverse than most other species’, and if children and marriage are not involved, I see no reason to curtail it, and many reasons to celebrate it.Next, a dissent from the left:You seem to argue from the perspective that Roe was not a compromise. It was. It was a politically failed attempt to pick a middle ground. Culturally, Roe succeeded. If you check Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans favor unrestricted abortion early in pregnancy, allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. Americans favor restrictions later, allowing for life of the mother and viability of the fetus concerns. This is the compromise between no abortions even for pregnancies of non-consensual sex and abortion on demand for any reason.In vitro fertilization remains a corner case. Generally, fertility clinics have legally binding contracts saying what should be done with unused embryos if a couple separates. However, if state laws regard all embryos as human beings, this raises important questions. Can a couple discard viable embryos when their family has reached the size they desire? If there is a dispute, does the party who wishes to bring an embryo to term have a right to do that over the objection of the party who does not? If a couple is conceiving through IVF to avoid a serious genetic anomaly, will it be legal to discard a viable but non-normal embryo, such as one with trisomy 21?What to do about pregnancies conceived through non-consensual sex continues to be the biggest challenge for the right-to-life movement. If the State can compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, even if the sex act was non-consensual, what other things can the State compel regarding our bodies? Surely states could compel mandatory vaccination, which is much less invasive and less likely to result in negative outcomes.Following that, what about states that forbid abortion but do not engage in good-faith efforts to catch and convict rapists? The map at End The Backlog does not correlate well with states based on their abortion laws. The map shows Alabama as “unknown.” A quick Internet search of “rape kit backlog Alabama” pulls up articles about backlogs of over 1,000 kits. One article talks about a community that can’t gather evidence anymore because they don’t have any specially-trained nurses. Texas is listed as having over 6,000 backlogged kits. Oklahoma has 4,600. (To be fair, California’s backlog is almost 14,000 and New York’s is unknown.) Ancestry DNA websites have made even very cold cases possible to solve. Yet, our society continues to let rapists repeat.You wrote: “I also believe that the Court could approximate your vision, in defending minority rights. But women are hardly a minority, and many women — at about the same rate as men — want abortion to be illegal.” You also wrote: “Those rights are related to minorities who cannot prevail democratically — not half the human population.”Rights are defensible when they belong to the minority — but if the right belongs to the majority, it doesn’t need to be defended? I know you are a fan of George Orwell, but this is sounding a lot like, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” I thought rights were rights regardless of how many or which people have them. Isn’t that the point?I'd love to see you engage with what should be the conservative argument for widespread access to contraception and abortion in the first trimester. If the conservative goal is a society where everyone contributes and rises or falls on merit, then access to reproductive health care should be a conservative priority. We know from developing nations one of the best ways to improve standards of living is to improve family planning. Most women will size their families to match the resources at hand. If conservatives want to reduce the welfare state, affordable and accessible family planning would go a long way toward doing that. Instead, the poorest states and most conservative states in our country are the ones who make it difficult.Conservatives are the ones arguing for limited government. Getting in the middle of one of the most difficult decisions anyone will ever make does not look like limited government.As always, thank you for an engaging read, even when I disagree.I truly don’t think Roe is in line with public opinion, or a compromise. Here’s where Americans stand on the question from a recent Marist/PBS poll:Nearly seven in ten (68%) support some type of restrictions on abortion. This includes 13% who think abortion should be allowed within the first six months of pregnancy, 22% who believe abortion should be allowed during the first three months of pregnancy, 23% who say abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the pregnant person, and 10% who say abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the pregnant person.Even 52% of Democrats think limits should be put on abortion.Roe mandated the most expansive abortion regime in the West. A democratic adjustment to the Western norm does not seem to me to be an outrage — as the polls suggest. Yes, I do think that rapists should be brought to justice; that a complement to abortion restrictions should be much more accessible healthcare for pregnant mothers before and after birth; more distribution of contraception; greater availability of adoption options; and medical exceptions for late-term abortions where the mother desperately wants the child but deformity or genetic disease makes delivery traumatizing, and the child’s life almost certainly short. Which is to say: in that situation, it should be up to mothers and doctors. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Esteemed AEI scholar Matthew Continetti returns to the podcast for a woefully brief overview of his latest book, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism   From the book's description:   When most people think of the history of modern conservatism, they think of Ronald Reagan.  Yet this narrow view leaves many to question: How did Donald Trump win the presidency?  And what is the future of the Republican Party?   In The Right, Matthew Continetti gives a sweeping account of movement conservatism's evolution, from the Progressive Era through the present.  He tells the story of how conservatism began as networks of intellectuals, developing and institutionalizing a vision that grew over time, until they began to buckle under new pressures, resembling national populist movements.  Drawing out the tensions between the desire for mainstream acceptance and the pull of extremism, Continetti argues that the more one studies conservatism's past, the more one becomes convinced of its future.   Deeply researched and brilliantly told, The Right is essential reading for anyone looking to understand American conservatism.   About Matthew Continetti   Matthew Continetti holds a BA in history from Columbia University and is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work is focused on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century.  A prominent journalist, analyst, author, and intellectual historian of the right, Mr. Continetti was the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon.  Previously, he was opinion editor at The Weekly Standard.   Mr. Continetti is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine.  He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, among other outlets.  He also appears frequently on Fox News Channel's “Special Report” with Bret Baier and MSNBC's “Meet the Press Daily” with Chuck Todd.   Mr. Continetti is the author of two additional books: “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star” (Sentinel, 2009) and “The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine” (Doubleday, 2006).   You can find Matthew Continetti on Twitter @continetti.   Introducing the Are We Right? Podcast   If you like Saving Elephants you'll love the new podcast Are We Right? featuring Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis along with three other co-hosts: Cal Davenport, Brooke Medina, and Calvin Moore. Cal, Josh Brooke, and Calvin debate a wide range of topics from politics to religion to culture and invite the audience to weigh in on whether or not they're right. You can find the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen, find us on Twitter @ TheAWRPodcast, and email us at arewerightpodcast@gmail.com.  

In this episode, author and intellectual historian of the right, Matthew Continetti talks about the past and current strains of American Conservatism. Continetti notes that the territory on which politics is conducted has moved from the size and scope of the State to arguments over the "nature of America“ itself. His most recent book "The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism" was published in 2022. Mr. Continetti is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Ideas have consequences. From the early 2000s Matt Continetti, the author of the fascinating new book The Right, has worked at some of the leading institutions of American conservatism. He has seen firsthand how many of them fallen or lost their way. But where conservatism's critics see a movement that has become unrecognizable and even dangerous, Continetti sees instead a rich, vibrant, and messy war of ideas, institutions, and personalities. This week, Continetti—the co-founder of the Washington Free Beacon and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—offered us a panoramic look at the past and future of the American right and its sometimes odd intellectual evolution. How much do ideas really matter? How might the Republican Party have been different had 9/11 not happened? And would the conservative movement have even been possible without the pervasive threat of communism? In Part 2, available here for subscribers, the conversation zeroes in on the extent to which conservatism and the right have diverged. Conservatism is meant to conserve, where the New Right is defined by populism and radicalism. Shadi pushes Matt by asking a question that is top of mind for many on the left: To what extent is the Republican Party still democratic? What is it drawing young men to such a revolutionary view of American politics? Is there a limit to anti-American ideas in American politics? Required Reading The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism, by Matthew Continetti (Amazon) Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World (Irving Kristol Lecture), by Charles Krauthammer "The Unipolar Moment" by Charles Krauthammer (Foreign Affairs) Trump's American Carnage Innaugural Address (CSPAN)

Over the past century, Americans have seen several iterations of the Republican Party, from the post-WWII Eisenhower days to Reaganomics to the rise of Trump's MAGA movement. Amid so much change, how does one define the modern-day Republican Party, and what does it mean to be a conservative in 2022? Political scholar Matthew Continetti seeks to answer these questions and more in his book, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism. In The Right, Continetti takes readers through the history of the party and how the ideology that drives it has evolved over the decades, in the face of changing social, political, and economic circumstances. From a “network of intellectuals” to a 21st century political organization, Continetti explains the intricacies behind what many see as the party's “desire for mainstream acceptance and the pull of extremism.” Matthew Continetti is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies American political thought and history, emphasizing on the Republican Party and conservative movements throughout the 20th century. Continetti has written two books, The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star and The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine. He is also the founding editor of The Washington Free Beacon, as well as a contributing editor at National Review. He holds a B.A. in history from Columbia University. . . Do you believe in the importance of international education and connections? The nonprofit World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth is supported by gifts from people like you, who share our passion for engaging in dialogue on global affairs and building bridges of understanding. While the Council is not currently charging admission for virtual events, we ask you to please consider making a one-time or recurring gift to help us keep the conversation going through informative public programs and targeted events for students and teachers. Donate: https://www.dfwworld.org/donate

In The Right, Matthew Continetti gives a sweeping account of movement conservatism's evolution, from the Progressive Era through the present. He tells the story of how conservatism began as networks of intellectuals, developing and institutionalizing a vision that grew over time, until they began to buckle under new pressures, resembling national populist movements. Drawing out […]

In The Right, Matthew Continetti gives a sweeping account of movement conservatism's evolution, from the Progressive Era through the present. He tells the story of how conservatism began as networks of intellectuals, developing and institutionalizing a vision that grew over time, until they began to buckle under new pressures, resembling national populist movements. Drawing out the tensions between the desire for mainstream acceptance and the pull of extremism, Continetti argues that the more one studies conservatism's past, the more one becomes convinced of its future.

In conversation with Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of National Review A senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Matthew Continetti works in the field of American political thought and history, with an emphasis on the Republican Party and the history of 20th-century conservatism. His books include The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Media Elite Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star and The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine. The founding editor of The Washington Free Beacon, the former opinion editor at The Weekly Standard, and currently a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine, his writing has been published in The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, among other places. In The Right, Continetti provides a survey of the U.S. conservative movement's evolution and intellectual history. Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, and a contributing editor to National Affairs. A visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 2012, he has been a commentator on a wide array of media outlets, including Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and PBS NewsHour, among many others. He is the author of The Party of Death and his articles have been published in numerous newspapers and magazines.  (recorded 5/17/2022)

The election of Donald J. Trump in 2016 and the years that followed have brought significant changes to the Republican Party and, for many, what it means to be conservative. These shifts have been in process for many years, but the Trump presidency brought these significant changes to the center of America's political system. In short, from the start of the Reagan Revolution in 1980 to Trump's on-going role in the Republican Party today, the right is undergoing a massive transformation. Where this process leads will impact the shape of America's political system for decades to come, and is of interest to all across the political spectrum. For Matthew Continetti, to know where American conservatism is going one must know where it's been, and this 40 -year shift clouds the history of the conservative movement and its struggles within. In Continetti's latest book, The Right, he describes how the conservative movement began as networks of intellectuals growing a vision for a more perfect government that eventually came under pressure from populist forces. To him, within conservatism there have been two opposing forces, one pulling closer to the center and one toward the fringe, and that these patterns both continue to the present day and explain the shifts of the movement between these two extremes. Join us as Continetti lays out the long history of one of America's largest political ideologies, and shows that by understanding the past, we can better understand American conservatism's future. SPEAKERS Matthew Continetti Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Founding Editor, The Washington Free Beacon,; Author, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism; Twitter: @continetti George Hammond Author, Conversations With Socrates—Moderator In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on Mayhttps://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/matthew-continetti-hundred-year-war-american-conservatism 2nd, 2022 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Right now, Republicans of all stripes — Ron DeSantis, J.D. Vance, Mike Pence, Glenn Youngkin — are trying to figure out how to channel the populist energies of Donald Trump into a winning political message. The struggle to achieve such a synthesis is the defining project on the American right today. Its outcome will determine the future of the Republican Party — and American politics.To understand what the post-Trump future of the G.O.P. will look like, it helps to have a clearer understanding of the party's past — particularly the chapters that many conservatives prefer to forget. Traditional histories of American conservatism view Donald Trump's election as an aberration in the lineage of the American right — an unprecedented populist rejection of the conservatism of Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr.But Matthew Continetti's new book “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism” flips that conventional history on its head. In Continetti's view, the “populist” energies that Trump harnessed in 2016 aren't anything new for the American right — they have always been central to it. The American right has always been defined by a back-and-forth struggle — and at times a synthesis — between its populist grass roots and its elites.I wanted to bring Continetti on the show because this history is crucial to understanding where the Republican Party could go next. And also because this is the first episode in a new series we are producing called “The Rising Right.” Over the next few weeks, “The Ezra Klein Show” will feature conversations with conservative writers, scholars and thinkers who are trying to harness the forces that Trump unleashed and build a superstructure of ideas, institutions and policy around them. But to see where that movement is going, you have to take seriously where it came from.Mentioned:“Can Reaganism Rise Again?” by Ross DouthatBook Recommendations:Let Us Talk of Many Things by William F. Buckley Jr.Making It by Norman PodhoretzThe Prince of Darkness by Robert D. NovakThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Mary Marge Locker and Jenny Casas; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Jeff Geld; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski.

Matt Continetti is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work is focused on American political thought and history, specifically focusing on the development of the Republican party and the American conservative movement in the 20th Century. Matt joins Robert and Phoebe on the podcast this week to discuss his new book, “The Right: […]

Matt Continetti is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work is focused on American political thought and history, specifically focusing on the development of the Republican party and the American conservative movement in the 20th Century. Matt joins Robert and Phoebe on the podcast this week to discuss his new book, "The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism" (Basic Books 2022). Matt and our hosts dive into significant figures on the Right, past and present, and the conservative movement's historic successes and tensions. You can learn more about the book https://www.the-right-book.com (here).

Author & journalist Matthew Continetti talks about the history of the American right-wing since the early 20th century. He says that a populist strain challenged mainstream conservatism several times over that period, ultimately triumphing with the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Mr. Continetti is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and founding editor at the Washington Free Beacon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Matthew Continetti is a journalist and historian of American conservatism. He is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He joins this Saturday Edition of the Daily Signal Podcast to discuss his new book, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism.Continetti covers the history of American conservatism stretching back to the 1920s and the presidencies of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. He makes a number of thought-provoking observations in the book. He notes that "I'm looking at how the intellectuals, the writers, the thinkers, the economists responded to politics, how they influence politics, how they reacted to political developments. And then I'm also looking at how the institutional Republican Party, how did it fit into this picture? What conservative ideas did it adopt? How did it begin to regain its majority after the new deal era?"He also adds that much of conservatism is now led by the Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College's DC Kirby Campus, and the Claremont Institute's Center for the American Way of Life. The challenge is for these institutions to help provide policy solutions rooted in a populist conservatism that is grounded in constitutional institutions. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The American Right is at a crossroads. Donald Trump's presidency continues to divide and challenge the conservative movement both intellectually and politically. What is the future of a principles-first movement in the era of America-First populism? Issues like immigration, the international rules-based order, partisan media, and rising military threats place countervailing pressures on a conservative movement struggling to define its future. Matt Continetti joined Dany and Marc to discuss his new book, “The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism” (Basic Books, 2022). The book examines a century of the history of the American Right, Warren Harding to Donald Trump. Matt, Dany and Marc analyze historic ties between the conservative movement and populism and the tension between grassroots conservatives and elites. They also talk about implications for foreign policy and the isolationist streak among conservatives. Matt Continetti is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work is focused on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine. He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, among other outlets. He also appears frequently on Fox News Channel's “Special Report” with Bret Baier and MSNBC's “Meet the Press Daily” with Chuck Todd. You can learn more about his book https://www.the-right-book.com/ (here).

Matthew Continetti's new book, The Right, gives readers a clear historical perspective of the conservative movement—from the Progressive era to the present. He tells the story of how conservatism began as networks of intellectuals, developing and institutionalizing a vision that grew over time. This book is essential for anyone looking to understand what it truly means to be an American conservative. In this episode of Acton Line, Eric Kohn, Acton's director of marketing and communications, sits down with Continetti to discuss The Right and especially where the conservative movement is headed. Subscribe to our podcasts About Matthew Continetti The Right by Matthew Continetti An Awkward Alliance: Neo-Integralism and National Conservatism | Acton Institute Rise of the national conservatives with Matthew Continetti | Acton Institute See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Peter Schweizer, author of "Red Handed," and Matthew Continetti, author of "The Right," to talk about President Biden's connection to Hunter Biden's business deals, what Biden has said vs. what we know now from Hunter's laptop, how Hunter made money from China, the leverage against President Biden from Hunter's business deals, the status of the investigations, how the Republicans grew in power (and then grew out of it), the importance of personality to political candidates, what's behind the dismal Biden poll numbers and what it might mean for 2022, the battle between elites and populists on the right, which party really supports the working class, how Obama was able to win in 2008 and then Trump in 2016, the fixation on Trump among pundits on the right and the left, whether the cultural pendulum will swing back the other direction, and more.Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Matthew Continetti, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, joins Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss his book "The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism" and explain why the right isn't defined by Cold War conservatism. You can find Continetti's book here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/matthew-continetti/the-right/9781541600522/

Matthew Continetti, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, joins Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss his book “The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism” and explain why the right isn’t defined by Cold War conservatism. You can find Continetti’s book here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/matthew-continetti/the-right/9781541600522/

In this episode, Sharon speaks with journalist and author Matthew Continetti about the evolving history of conservatism over the past one hundred years. Continetti has spent the past few years researching and writing about the American Right. History is the study of change, and Continetti's book leads readers through the changing landscape of America as it has shaped conservative politics since 1920. Sharon and Matthew talk about Abraham Lincoln, the public embracement of Republican leadership after World War I, immigration, the constitution as an anchor for the Republican Party, and more in this first part of a two-part conversation. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Host Andrew Xu sits down with Matt Continetti, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and contributing editor at National Review. They discuss Barack Obama, populist conservatism and conspiracy theories in order to better understand Trump's influence on the U.S. Republican Party.   References “Chapter 3: Matt Continetti” from The Hangover with Chris Stirewalt Barack Obama Speech at 2004 DNC Convention Barack Obama Roasts Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner “President? Why Not? Says a Man at the Top” by Adam Nagourney, The New York Times "Ipsos/Reuters Poll: The Big Lie" from Ipsos/Reuters "May Verified Voter Omnibus – Political Update" from Echelon Insights "Trump Returns to the Stump in Ohio" by Declan Garvey, The Dispatch

The week features serial Reaganism guest Matt Continetti, a scholar of American conservativism at the American Enterprise Institute. Matt discusses what a “workers party” GOP might look like and President Biden's overreach in the first year of his administration. Continetti's Writings: https://www.aei.org/profile/matthew-continetti/ Rep. Banks Memo: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20534328-banks-working-class-memo Reaganland: America's Right Turn 1976-1980: https://www.amazon.com/Reaganland-Americas-Right-Turn-1976-1980/dp/1476793050

The week features serial Reaganism guest Matt Continetti , a scholar of American conservativism at the American Enterprise Institute. Matt discusses what a “workers party” GOP might look like and President Biden's overreach in the first year of his administration.   Continetti's Writings: https://www.aei.org/profile/matthew-continetti/ Rep. Banks Memo: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20534328-banks-working-class-memo Reaganland: America's Right Turn 1976-1980: https://www.amazon.com/Reaganland-Americas-Right-Turn-1976-1980/dp/1476793050

Chris Stirewalt's third guest is AEI Fellow and Washington Free Beacon founder Matthew Continetti, who gives voice to the story of the GOP's ascendant populism from the historical perspective of the American right and the conservative movement. As Matt says, while Trump may have proved the usefulness of populism as a last-ditch electoral strategy, the long-form history of right-wing populism shows that “apocalypticism is a feature, or even the dark side, of populist movements.” By Matt's lights, conservative politicians in Washington had a vastly different understanding of what “constitutional conservatism” meant compared to the grassroots, but they kept in lockstep regardless. These contradictions simmered under the surface for years, only to explode into the Trump campaign. “For the Tea Partiers, [it meant] that the current government in Washington D.C. was something of an alien, invasive presence. And radical measures were necessary to beat it back.” Additionally, tune in for an analysis of Trump's “mental jiu-jitsu” and a unique critique of the 2012 GOP autopsy.Show Notes:-Matt's book on Sarah Palin-Joe Wurzelbacher becomes ‘Joe the Plumber'-Rick Santelli starts the Tea Party on live television-“The Two Faces of the Tea Party”-Matt discusses Bush's immigration reform proposal-Buchanan's 1992 “Culture War” speech-Obama, a pen, and a phone-David Shor speaks to the importance of “ideological positioning” Get full access to The Hangover at hangoverpodcast.thedispatch.com/subscribe

Chris Stirewalt’s third guest is AEI Fellow and Washington Free Beacon founder Matthew Continetti, who gives voice to the story of the GOP’s ascendant populism from the historical perspective of the American right and the conservative movement. As Matt says, while Trump may have proved the usefulness of populism as a last-ditch electoral strategy, the long-form history of right-wing populism shows that “apocalypticism is a feature, or even the dark side, of populist movements.” By Matt’s lights, conservative politicians in Washington had a vastly different understanding of what “constitutional conservatism” meant compared to the grassroots, but they kept in lockstep regardless. These contradictions simmered under the surface for years, only to explode into the Trump campaign. “For the Tea Partiers, [it meant] that the current government in Washington D.C. was something of an alien, invasive presence. And radical measures were necessary to beat it back.” Additionally, tune in for an analysis of Trump’s “mental jiu-jitsu” and a unique critique of the 2012 GOP autopsy.   Show Notes: -Matt’s book on Sarah Palin -Joe Wurzelbacher becomes ‘Joe the Plumber’ -Rick Santelli starts the Tea Party on live television -“The Two Faces of the Tea Party” -Matt discusses Bush’s immigration reform proposal -Buchanan’s 1992 “Culture War” speech -Obama, a pen, and a phone -David Shor speaks to the importance of “ideological positioning” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Interview, Hugh speaks with Dr. Michael Oren, Matt Continetti and Fred Barnes about the conflict in Israel and the Democratic Party's split over the issue. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode features a panel conversation with David French, Senior Editor at the Dispatch, Matthew Continetti, Resident Scholar at AEI, and Tunku Varadarajan, Executive Editor at the Hoover Institute. They discuss the history and importance of inaugural addresses, Joe Biden's speech, and President Reagan's inaugural addresses.Both French and Continetti's essays reflecting on Reagan's speeches are available here: https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/scholarly-initiatives/essay-series-on-presidential-principles-and-beliefs/the-inaugural-addresses/

AEI Fellow, author, and Washington Free Beacon founder Matt Continetti comes back to the program, and Jonah gets to pick his brain about… well, a ton of different things. From his expectations for the Biden presidency, to the shockingly progressive staff of the incoming administration, to the Georgia runoffs and a critical reappraisal of the neoconservatives’ role in deradicalizing the left, Matt provides deep and nuanced answers to the biggest stories of the day as well as the issues of bigger philosophical significance to conservatives. He and Jonah also dial in on some of the upcoming decisions that those on the right will have to make in the near future – decisions that may define basic points of conservative doctrine for a long time to come: What should be counted as a conservative “win,” either in politics or culture? Is conservatism going to be big-tent or selective in its coalition-building? And what should the conservative position on China be, as it becomes clearer that the nation may have grown into a superpower that shares very few of our values?   Show Notes: -Matt’s page at AEI -Obama’s third term - Biden’s campaign manager being… unkind to Republicans -The Remnant with Andy Smarick -“Bobos” -The Polish Beer-Lovers’ Party -The Remnant with Tim Alberta -The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium by Martin Gurri -The Roots of Modern Conservatism by Michael Bowen -The Remnant with Carlos Lozada -What Biden can learn from Nat Glazer -Governing Priorities by AEI -Conservatism has conserved a lot, actually See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matt Continetti is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work focuses on American political thought and the history of the conservative movement. Before coming to AEI, Mr. Continetti was the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon. He is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine. Matt joins the show to talk about the election, President Trump’s legal challenges, President-Elect Biden’s policy priorities, and the changing American political landscape.

Everyone can see that a revolutionary spirit is haunting American public life right now. The demands being made of our laws and culture are uncompromising and radical. The public mood is given to extremes, and notions of gradual improvement and subtle distinctions are thought to be incapable of speaking to the severity of our racial, cultural, scientific, and spiritual challenges So this week, we are rebroadcasting a discussion from the archives that focuses on a figure whose watchwords were the very opposite of America’s present utopian fever—the essayist of American skepticism, empiricism, meliorism, and gradualism—Irving Kristol. Our guest is Matthew Continetti, and the focus of our discussion is an essay he published back in 2014, “The Theological Politics of Irving Kristol.” In it, Continetti argues that there is a rabbinic cast of mind underneath Kristol’s meliorism, that is, his effort to weigh trade-offs and favor gradual improvement when possible within the confines of man’s broken nature.

Today the term “neocon” is often used to depict someone as war hawkish or part of “The Establishment”.  And it’s often used as a pejorative.  To call someone a neocon is to imply they are part of the problem, unsympathetic to the plight of the average Joe, and, quite possibly, evil. Neocon is, of course, short for “neoconservative”.  But what is neoconservatism?  Is it simply a group of elitist gloooobalists on the Right who profit from the status quo and ever-increasing military ventures at the expense of the rest of us?  And who is a neocon?  Politicians ranging from George W. Bush to John McCain to Hillary Clinton have all been labeled neocon.  Is it a label without any meaningful distinction? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Matthew Continetti to untangle this often misused, misunderstood, and definitely underappreciated term.  Josh and Matthew talk through the three iterations or waves of neoconservatism from the godfather of the movement—Irving Kristol—in the 1960s to the conservative responses to the Vietnam War to the post-Cold War iteration with Irving’s son Bill Kristol on to today, and what this historical tradition can tell us about our own political dilemmas. From Continetti’s bio with AEI: Matthew Continetti holds a BA in history from Columbia University and is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work is focused on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century.  A prominent journalist, analyst, author, and intellectual historian of the right, Mr. Continetti was the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon.  Previously, he was opinion editor at The Weekly Standard. Mr. Continetti is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine.  He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, among other outlets.  He also appears frequently on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” with Bret Baier and MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily” with Chuck Todd. Mr. Continetti is the author of two books: “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star” (Sentinel, 2009) and “The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine” (Doubleday, 2006). You can find Matthew Continetti on Twitter @continetti.  

American political journalist Matt Continetti is worried about the repercussions the COVID-19 pandemic will have on our civil liberty. He joins Boyd to discuss ‘Coronavirus and the Common Good.'  Boyd Matheson,Opinion Editor at Deseret News, takes you inside the latest political news and current events, providing higher ground for today's discussions. Listen weekdays 11 am to noon at 1160 AM and 102.7 FM, online at KSLNewsradio.com, or on the app.

Continetti in The Washington Free Beacon: https://freebeacon.com/columns/corona-conservatism/

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, once a Navy Seal, joins the Remnant for a discussion of conservatism, persuasion, and how to move forward in this political moment. (This is a recording of a live event at Texas A&M.) Shownotes –The Dispatch –MrsFields.com/DINGO –Dan Crenshaw  –The most recent Continetti episode –Suicide of the West – Jonah Goldberg  –Dan Crenshaw … Continue reading Episode 151: Jawing with Crenshaw→ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now-AEI Fellow Matt Continetti returns to The Remnant for some high-minded philosophical discussion of conservatism and some low-minded chatting of the rank-punditry variety. Shownotes –The Dispatch  –EthosLife.com/DINGO –OTATrade.com/DINGO  –Matt Continetti’s first Remnant appearance –Sean Trende on the 2010s and the 1870s (and Niall Ferguson and Matt Continetti) –The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 – … Continue reading Episode 150: The Continetti Continuum→ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

11/28/18 | Best of The Program - The Iron Tech Fist of Communist China? - 'Asia Bibi and the First Freedom' (w/ Matthew Continetti)  - Migrant Caravan, The Real Story? (w/ Ami Horowitz)  - Bernie Sanders reads 'Moby Dick'? (w/ Andrew Heaton)  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CNBC contributor Jim Iuorio joins Dan & Amy to talk tariffs and discuss how President Trump's tariff increases are reported in the media. Continetti, editor of theWashington Free Beacon and contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, previews today's historic Senate Hearing with Dan & Amy. Plus, Clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center and bestselling author of Bush on the Couch and Obama on the Couch, Dr. Justin Frank, discusses his new book Trump on the Couch with Dan & Amy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Iran Deal is the subject of the 82nd episode. Our guest is Matt Continetti, editor in chief of The Washington Free Beacon. His recent column, “Donald Trump Ends the Obama Mirage,” explains why he supports President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA. In this conversation, we discuss how strong Trump’s announcement was, whether the decision will have diplomatic or economic consequences for our European allies, whether any agreement with North Korea or Iran should be a treaty and how Syria and Israel are involved.

Matthew Continetti is editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, he was opinion editor of the Weekly Standard, where he remains a contributing editor. The author of The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine (Doubleday, 2006) and The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star (Sentinel, 2009), Continetti’s articles and reviews have appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post..

In this October 5, 2016 interview with Matthew Continetti, editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, Mr. Continetti offers perspective on conservative journalism and commentary. He also provides us his take on the current election and describes what he thinks a Clinton presidency or a Trump presidency might mean for the nation.

This is an archived copy of The Daily Standard podcast. Please note that advertisements, links and other specific references within the content may be out of date.