Podcasts about demagogues

Robert Misik in conversation with Richard SennettTHE ART OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PERFORMANCE: ACTORS, DEMAGOGUES, SELF-PROMOTERS In his new book, world-famous sociologist and author Richard Sennett dissects the performer – in the German edition called „Der darstellende Mensch“. Sennett, who was a musician and artist before his extraordinary academic career, focuses on theatre and the emancipatory potential of art. But isn't today's dominant social character is also the performing human in a broader sense, curating his or her life, whether in social media or in the roles that he or she has to play? And doesn't the show character of politics give rise to a certain type of politician? Sennett's latest study also provides an opportunity to talk about the big picture of half a century of research. It has been 53 years since Sennett's first legendary work, ‘The Hidden Injuries of Class', was published, which reads as relevant today as ever – followed by ‘The Fall of the Public Man', ‘The Corrosion of Character', ‘On Craftsmanship' and many other works, that deal with the interactions between individuals, identity and society. Taken together, they describe the transformation of the subjects through socialisation, as well as the alienation in neoliberalism, but at the same time they always open windows onto the utopian, onto a non-reified, communal existence.Richard Sennett grew up in the Cabrini Green housing project in Chicago, attended the Julliard School in New York and then studied social relations at Harvard. Over the last five decades, he has written about social life in cities, changes in labour and social theory. His books include The Hidden Injuries of Class , The Fall of Public Man , The Corrosion of Character , The Culture of the New Capitalism , The Craftsman and Building and Dwelling . Sennett has advised the United Nations on urban issues for the past thirty years and currently serves as member of the UN Committee on Urban Initiatives. He is Visiting Professor of Urban Studies at Harvard. Among other awards, he has received the Hegel Prize, the Spinoza Prize and the Centennial Medal from Harvard University.Robert Misik, Author and Journalist

Laurie continues her series of Federalist 10 and 51. This is the second video on Federalist 10, heading into how to handle the effects of a violent faction of the majority. … More James Madison Warns Against Violent Majority Factions & Demagogues (Federalist 10, Part 2)

Laurie discusses Plato's view of democracy--its strengths and weaknesses, particularly its vulnerability to demagogues--and what he thought about other types of regimes. Pardon the reverberation on this recording! … More What Did Plato Say About Democracy and Demagogues?

Host Mitch Jeserich talks about how democracy was born out of a class struggle between the aristocrats and the poor masses in ancient Athens. This episode covers part 2 of the 3 part telling of the oldest fully formed democratic system we know of 2500 years ago.  In this episode we hear about tyrants, demagogues, coups, reformers, and the people. The post A History of the Athenian Democracy (Part 2): Demagogues, Tyrants, Coups, and the People appeared first on KPFA.

We don't think it's an exaggeration to say that we're standing at the precipice of what could be a third world war. At the very least, the thing that we refer to as the “Free World” is burning at its outer edges. Just a few weeks ago, Iran launched its largest-ever ballistic missile attack against Israel, while its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, continue to wage war against Israel, making use of the steady flow of weaponry and funding from Iran—which is ever closer to having nuclear weapons. The war in Ukraine continues to rage, with both sides engaged in intense fighting across multiple fronts. After over a year and a half of relentless Russian bombardment, Ukraine is barely holding the line as the grinding war of attrition drags on. According to The Wall Street Journal, more than one million people on both sides of the border have been killed or injured. And then there's China, which has lately been attacking Philippine and Vietnamese vessels in the South China Sea, terrorizing international waters with impunity as the world watches anxiously. Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran have solidified a new axis of autocracy, united in its goal to unravel the Pax Americana and undermine American dominance. The question on our minds tonight is: What should America do about it? Many Americans are saying they don't want the United States to continue leading the world order. A 2023 Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey revealed that 42 percent of Americans think that the U.S. should stay out of world affairs, which is the highest number recorded since 1974. It is easy to talk about foreign policy as an abstract idea because war, for us, is thousands of miles away. But foreign policy is a matter of life and death. Not just for people around the world, but for the more than two million Americans that serve in our armed forces. It's conventional wisdom that American voters don't prioritize foreign policy. But this year, given the state of the world, that might be different. Which is why we hosted a debate, live in NYC, on this very topic.  Arguing that, yes, the U.S. should still police the world is Bret Stephens. Stephens is an opinion columnist for The New York Times and editor in chief of Sapir. As a foreign affairs columnist of The Wall Street Journal, he was awarded the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. And he is the author of America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. Bret was joined by James Kirchick, contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, writer at large for Air Mail, and contributing writer for Tablet. He is the author of The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age. He is also a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Arguing that no, the U.S. should not still police the world is none other than Matt Taibbi. Taibbi is a journalist, the founder of Racket News, and the author of 10 books, including four New York Times bestsellers. Matt was joined by Lee Fang. Lee is an independent investigative journalist, primarily writing on Substack at LeeFang.com. From 2015 to 2023, he was a reporter for The Intercept. Be it resolved: The U.S. should still police the world. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pultizer Prize-winning historian Gordon Wood discusses how the founders of America intended to thwart the ascendance of demagogues, who could provoke mobs, in the fledgling democracy they were building. To see additional resources and our other programs, please visit humanmedia.org . Humankind specials are  heard on NPR and PRX member-stations, in association with GBH Boston.

Pultizer Prize-winning historian Gordon Wood discusses how the founders of America intended to thwart the ascendance of demagogues, who could provoke mobs, in the fledgling democracy they were building. To see additional resources and our other programs, please visit humanmedia.org . Humankind specials are  heard on NPR and PRX member-stations, in association with GBH Boston.

Lies and disinformation are as old as humanity itself.  But Steven Brill argues that the witches brew of 30-year-old legislative consequences; mixed with technological innovation; and bad actors threaten the lives of democratic institutions and truth itself.   Brill is an award-winning journalist, author, and the founder of Court TV, The American Lawyer Magazine, American Lawyer Media, Brill's Content Magazine, Journalism Online and The Yale Journalism Initiative. He is also the co-founder and co-CEO of NewsGuard, a media platform that rates the reliability of news and information websites. His latest book, “The Death of Truth: How Social Media and the Internet Gave Snake Oil Salesmen and Demagogues the Weapons They Needed to Destroy Trust and Polarize the World – and What We Can Do About it” explores the threat of disinformation on society.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pray for the repose of the soul of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. Pray for hurricane victims. Is vigilantism Catholic? Demagogues promote and provoke hatred and violence. Stoicism vs meekness. Charity vs enabling. How to overcome envy: St Bernadette and the nun. How to recognize gluttony. Embryonic cells in food? Galileo persecuted? To vote or not to vote? This episode was recorded on 10/8/2024 Our Links: http://linkwcb.com/ Please consider making a monetary donation to What Catholics Believe. Father Jenkins remembers all of our benefactors in general during his daily Mass, and he also offers one Mass on the first Sunday of every month specially for all supporters of What Catholics Believe. May God bless you for your generosity! https://www.wcbohio.com/donate Subscribe to our other YouTube channels: ‪@WCBHolyMassLivestream‬ ‪@WCBHighlights‬ May God bless you all!

As the war in Ukraine spills into Poland, Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski makes an impassioned call to countries around the world to wake up to what he sees as Putin's true imperialist intentions. RECOMMENDATIONS:Geraldine: America's Role in the World Is Hard. It Just Got Much Harder. Thomas Friedman in The New York Times.Hamish: Take Me To Your Leader Season 3: Dictators & Demagogues on ABC Listen App.VOTE FOR US:Love the pod? Vote for us in the Australian Podcast Awards here: Voting - Australian Podcast AwardsGET IN TOUCH: We'd love to hear from you! Email us at global.roaming@abc.net.au

Father will be attending the ordination of Rev. Mr. Michael Butler to the Holy Priesthood at Immaculate Heart Seminary on Tuesday August 27th, so there will be no episode of What Catholics Believe next week. Enjoy this bonus episode in the meantime! The meaning of: "They shall be created." Proof of God's love for us? The reason for God's love for us? Why does God love us after we are so cruel to Him? Can we love God more than angels do? Godparents' responsibilities. Help for a weak faith? If God gave Old Law, can it be imperfect? How to hate sin but love sinner. Republicrats, Demagogues and price controls. Repent and pray! This episode was recorded on 8/24/2024. Our Links: http://linkwcb.com/ Please consider making a monetary donation to What Catholics Believe. Father Jenkins remembers all of our benefactors in general during his daily Mass, and he also offers one Mass on the first Sunday of every month specially for all supporters of What Catholics Believe. May God bless you for your generosity! https://www.wcbohio.com/donate Subscribe to our other YouTube channels: ‪@WCBHolyMassLivestream‬ ‪@WCBHighlights‬ May God bless you all!

Blessed are the poor in spirit: Work for prosperity, pray for detachment. How to know if you're "attached" to the world. Americanism and Vatican II: active vs. passive virtues. Read the Didache. Men's voices in church choirs. Holzhauser prophecy: the Great Monarch and the Angelic Shepherd. Creating cardinals? Demagogues convene in Chicago: Cupich invokes God's blessing for party of abortion and perversion. Praying with the Blessed Mother. This episode was recorded on 8/20/2024. Our Links: http://linkwcb.com/ Please consider making a monetary donation to What Catholics Believe. Father Jenkins remembers all of our benefactors in general during his daily Mass, and he also offers one Mass on the first Sunday of every month specially for all supporters of What Catholics Believe. May God bless you for your generosity! https://www.wcbohio.com/donate Subscribe to our other YouTube channels: ‪@WCBHolyMassLivestream‬ ‪@WCBHighlights‬ May God bless you all!

About the Olympics, Athenian demagogues, and the importance of cultivating a love of Latin in local communities. Bob Simmons is an Associate Professor and Chair of Classics at Monmouth College in Monmouth, Illinois. His research interests include Athenian demagogues, political and social conflict in 5th-century Athens, and sports in ancient Greece and Rome. He is the author of Demagogues, Power, and Friendship in Classical Athens: Leaders as Friends in Aristophanes, Euripides, and Xenophon, a book published by Bloomsbury in 2023. Over the course of his career, Bob has received such recognitions as the Award for Excellence in College Teaching from the Classical Association of the Middle West and South, the Outreach Prize from the Society for Classical Studies, and the Charles Humphreys Award for Innovative Pedagogy from the American Classical League. In the summer of 2024, he served as the Co-Director of The Ancient Olympics and Daily Life in Ancient Olympia: A Hands-On History, a National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Institute for K-12 teachers.  The other Co-Director of this NEH Institute – friend of the podcast Nathalie Roy. You can learn more about Nathalie and her innovative approach to classical studies in Episode 31 and Episode 3. How Can We Save Latin in our Public High Schools? (Bob's 2019 article for the SCS Blog) Show Me the Money: Pliny, Trajan, and the Iselastic Games (referenced by Bob at the very end of the episode) Recorded in July of 2024 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quintilian⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is supported by a Bridge Initiative Grant from the Committee for the Promotion of Latin and Greek, a division of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Classical Association of the Middle West and South⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Music: "Echo Canyon Instrumental" by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Clive Romney⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Comments or questions about this podcast may be directed to ryangsellers@gmail.com. Thanks for listening! If you're enjoying ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quintilian⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, please leave us a rating and/or a review on your favorite podcast distribution platform.

American democracy relies on nonpartisan civil servants to detect and combat corruption. Alexander Vindman was one such civil servant when he reported abuses of power by former President Trump, resulting in Vindman being fired from the federal government and retiring from the armed forces. Vindman discusses what a second Trump administration and Project 2025 would mean not only for democracy in the US, but also in Ukraine. Vindman explains the history of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and its implications for global democracy. Alexander Vindman is a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and an expert in national security. He has previously served as the director for European affairs on the United States National Security Council, the political-military affairs officer for Russia at the Pentagon, and as an attaché at the American embassies in Moscow and Kyiv. In addition to being a Hauser Leader at Harvard University and a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University's Foreign Policy Institute, he is a Kettering Foundation Senior Fellow.

How did we become a world with facts, shared truths, have lost their power to hold us together as a community as a country, globally? Bestselling journalist Steven Brill documents the forces and people from Silicon Valley to Madison Avenue to Moscow to Washington that have created and exploited this world of chaos and division and offers practical solutions for what can be done about it. His new book is "The Death of Truth: How Social Media and the Internet Gave Snake Oil Salesmen and Demagogues the Weapons They Needed to Destroy Trust and Polarize the World--And What We Can Do About It.”

"...How Social Media and the Internet Gave Snake Oil Salesmen and Demagogues the Weapons They Needed to Destroy Trust and Polarize the World--And What We Can Do"   We're on Patreon! Join the community:  https://www.patreon.com/politicsandreligion   It would mean so much if you could leave us a review:  https://ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics   In this episode, we're joined by Steven Brill, an acclaimed author and co-founder of NewsGuard, a service that rates the reliability of online news. After learning a bit about Steve's renowned career, we explore some critical issues such as the health of American democracy, the effects of misinformation, and the role of NewsGuard in combating fake news. Steve also presents potential solutions to these issues, such as enforcing online platforms' terms of service and increasing news literacy. Then we dive into Steve's new book THE DEATH OF TRUTH, exploring how social media and the internet have eroded trust and polarized society.   03:07 Steven Brill's Background and Career Journey  05:43 The Birth of NewsGuard  32:31 The Importance of Transparency in Journalism  35:34 The Role of Algorithms and Programmatic Advertising  38:56 Understanding Section 230 and Its Impact  48:21 The Human Element: Susceptibility and Demagoguery  52:53 Proposed Solutions to Combat Misinformation  56:43 Final Thoughts and How to Engage in Better Conversations    Let us know what you think. You can find Corey on all the socials @coreysnathan such as www.threads.net/@coreysnathan.   Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.   Very grateful for our sponsor Meza Wealth Management. Reach out to Jorge and his team: www.mezawealth.com   http://reportfraud.ftc.gov/​#/form/​main    https://www.newsguardtech.com/ 

"...How Social Media and the Internet Gave Snake Oil Salesmen and Demagogues the Weapons They Needed to Destroy Trust and Polarize the World--And What We Can Do"   We're on Patreon! Join the community:  https://www.patreon.com/politicsandreligion   It would mean so much if you could leave us a review:  https://ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics   In this episode, we're joined by Steven Brill, an acclaimed author and co-founder of NewsGuard, a service that rates the reliability of online news. After learning a bit about Steve's renowned career, we explore some critical issues such as the health of American democracy, the effects of misinformation, and the role of NewsGuard in combating fake news. Steve also presents potential solutions to these issues, such as enforcing online platforms' terms of service and increasing news literacy. Then we dive into Steve's new book THE DEATH OF TRUTH, exploring how social media and the internet have eroded trust and polarized society.   03:07 Steven Brill's Background and Career Journey  05:43 The Birth of NewsGuard  32:31 The Importance of Transparency in Journalism  35:34 The Role of Algorithms and Programmatic Advertising  38:56 Understanding Section 230 and Its Impact  48:21 The Human Element: Susceptibility and Demagoguery  52:53 Proposed Solutions to Combat Misinformation  56:43 Final Thoughts and How to Engage in Better Conversations    Let us know what you think. You can find Corey on all the socials @coreysnathan such as www.threads.net/@coreysnathan.   Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.   Very grateful for our sponsor Meza Wealth Management. Reach out to Jorge and his team: www.mezawealth.com   http://reportfraud.ftc.gov/​#/form/​main    https://www.newsguardtech.com/ 

Jen Rubin is joined this week by Adam Hochschild to discuss his book 'American Midnight: Fear, Magic, and the Reconstruction of Race in America'. He explores the parallels between the early 20th century and the present day, highlighting the rise of nativism, paranoia, and conspiracy theories.  Adam delves into the factors that fueled fear and prejudice during World War I, including the conflict between nativists and immigrants, racial tensions, and the conflict between business and labor. He also discusses the role of figures like Louis F. Post and J. Edgar Hoover, as well as the lasting impact of the Immigration Act of 1924.  Jen & Adam chat about how we all  learn from history to prevent the repetition of such events.

In this podcast we welcome back regular guest, Professor Shane O'Mara, neuroscientist and professor at Trinity College Dublin.I a review of an important new book by Dan Davies, professor Brad de Long of Berkley asks the question: given we are over 15 times better off than our pre-industrial ancestors, why are we so miserable. Davies gives one answer: things have become so complex, few people know how anything works any more and nobody is in charge. So nobody is accountable. 'Nothing works any more' is a constant refrain and Davies gives us his ideas about why so many of us feel that way. His answers may also give pointers as to why the established order - which seems to to make us so unhappy - was overthrown by Brexit, Trump and is going that way in many other countries, not least France.Professor O'Mara pushes back, gently, against some of this. Demagogues know how to trigger the 30ish % of us that have latent authoritarian tendencies. Make us afraid of immigrants, the deep state, Brussels - we all know the mantras by now. Le Pen & co just know how to get a significant minority afraid and angry. Maybe it was ever thus. Chris argues that something has, in fact, changed and some things are worse. Shane says there is plenty of evidence that says we are happier than the headlines suggest. But measuring 'life satisfaction' is nuanced and tricky.But isn't it obvious where the increase in unhappiness has occurred? France, the US the UK?The UK was the first to give manifest expression to its anger with the rupture - disaster - that was Brexit. Maybe because of a form of collective PTSD, Brexit cannot be talked about because of the fear of triggering precisely that post-traumatic stress. Maybe its just too soon to have the adult conversation. But those who brought forth the trauma are about to get their just deserts. Maybe. Populists appeal but cannot deliver - or just govern.Some more thoughts on Biden and cognitive decline - don't jump to hasty conclusions.And much more! Enjoy! We certainly did! Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/the-other-hand-with-jim.power-and-chris.johns. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Disinformation, spread far and wide online, threatens the health of a democracy. But a new book offers prescriptions for how to counter disinformation. The Death of Truth: How Social Media and the Internet Gave Snake Oil Salesmen and Demagogues the Weapons They Needed to Destroy Trust and Polarize the World-And What We Can Do About It is a new book chronicling how wild conspiracy came to be so widely embraced. Author Steven Brill joins us to discuss the book. Brill is an attorney, an entrepreneur and a journalist. He is also the founder of Court TV, American Lawyer Magazine and several other businesses, including NewsGuard, which he co-founded in 2018, an organization that attempts to monitor the vast amounts of misinformation coursing through the internet.Email us at midday@wypr.org, tweet us: @MiddayWYPR, or call us at 410-662-8780.

James Kirchick's New York Times op-ed, “A Chill Has Fallen Over Jews in Publishing”, has elicited much controversy. I have to admit that I'm not entirely convinced by Kirchick's thesis, particularly on his position that a Jew these days has no choice but to be a Zionist, but it's a provocative argument. While meritocracy has “been good for the Jews”, he explains, our new “woke” politics, especially surrounding Israel, has transformed Jews into “the new whites”. So Jewish writers are now being silenced by a censorious publishing industry if they express even the slightest ambivalence about Gaza. Is this the new McCarthyism or just another storm in the literati teacup?James Kirchick is a journalist and the New York Times-bestselling author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington and The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age. A writer at large for Air Mail and a contributing writer for Tablet, he has reported from over 40 countries and his writing has appeared in many publications including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Former Senator Al Franken weighs in on Justice Alito further eroding Americans' trust in the Supreme Court. Deputy Editor for Balls and Strikes, Madiba Dennie, details her new book, 'The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole The Constitution And How We The People Can Take It Back.' Newsguard founder Stephen Brill examines his new book, 'The Death of Truth: How Social Media and the Internet Gave Snake Oil Salesmen and Demagogues the Weapons They Needed to Destroy Trust and Polarize the World—And What We Can Do.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some of the greatest crimes in history began not on battlefields or politicians' offices but in classrooms. Demagogues often seize control of educational institutions as a means of indoctrinating the young, filling their minds with false narratives meant to guide them toward evil. As a teacher, this both terrifies and enrages me in equal measure. As we approach the end of this season on villains, let us look back at some examples of this hateful practice from an objective, historical viewpoint. Listeners on every side of the widening political and cultural divide may notice some familiar trends, and these are signposts on the road to evil. Join us as we show you these trends, their outcomes, and how those outcomes have played out in history. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/15minutehistory/support

Jeff Guinn is the author of the new book Waco: David Koresh, the Branch Davidians, and a Legacy of Rage. He has written several other best-selling books including; The Life & Times of Charles Manson, and War on the Border. Jeff was the co-executive producer alongside Leonardo DiCaprio on the TV docuseries "Terror in the Jungle," which is based on his book, The Road to Jonestown. He currently resides in Fort Worth, Texas, where he is a member of the Texas Literary Hall of Fame and a two-time winner of the Texas Book Award.

Language authorities. Right-wing politicians. White supremacists and feminists. What do they have in common? They're all working together to fight gender-inclusive language. But why bring language into this fight? What extra does this give them? Dr Caitlin Green and Maureen Kosse join us to explain on this big episode.

On Political Analysis we look at an interesting opinion piece by Mphuthumi Ntabeni on Litnet.co.za titled “Who can save us from political demagogues?”. The articles looks at the political parties that we currently have and questions who can best serve South Africans at large from corruption and wreckage that has besieges us. It questions the manifestos of apolitical parties and their genuine intentions to serve South Africans. To tell us more about this we're joined Mphuthumi Ntabeni, a South African author who's debut novel, The Broken River Tent, won the University of Johannesburg Debut Novel Prize 2019.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Energy News Beat Daily Standup, hosted by Stuart Turley, several key topics in the energy sector are discussed. Turley covers various stories, including John Kerry's remarks on demagoguery hindering climate action, Apple's exit from the electric vehicle market, conflicts between homebuilders and green building standards, Texas's regulatory advantages attracting businesses, Warren Buffett's regrets about owning electric utilities, and Atlas's acquisition of High Crush Permian assets. Turley emphasizes the need for balanced energy approaches, efficient regulatory frameworks, and the importance of industry voices in shaping discussions. Throughout, he underscores the complexity of energy transitions and the challenges facing both industry players and policymakers.Highlights of the Podcast00:00 - Intro 01:38 - Demagogues imperilling global fight against climate breakdown, says Kerry03:34 - Apple's EV exit shows the challenges of the once red-hot market05:04 - Homebuilders Are Fighting Green Building. Homeowners Will Pay.08:16 - Dimon Suggests Other States Should Be More Like Texas10:35 - Warren Buffett Regrets Owning Electric Utilities12:32 - Atlas to Acquire Hi-Crush Permian Proppant Assets for $450MM13:50 - Markets Update14:14 - OutroPlease see the links below or articles that we discuss in the podcast.Demagogues imperilling global fight against climate breakdown, says KerryFebruary 28, 2024 Mariel AlumitThe populist backlash against net zero around the world is imperilling the fight against climate breakdown and must be countered urgently or we face planetary destruction “beyond comprehension”, the US climate chief, John Kerry, has warned. […]Apple's EV exit shows the challenges of the once red-hot marketFebruary 28, 2024 Mariel AlumitHi! Be prepared to start scheduling your trips to Wendy's during off hours if you want to save money. The fast-food joint is rolling out surge pricing as early as next year. (More on why it could be […]Homebuilders Are Fighting Green Building. Homeowners Will Pay.February 28, 2024 Stu TurleyBack in the 1990s, political guru James Carville said he wanted to be reincarnated as the bond market because it could “intimidate everybody.” Here in the 2020s, you might prefer to come back as a […]Dimon Suggests Other States Should Be More Like TexasFebruary 28, 2024 Stu TurleyJamie Dimon applauded Texas for its business-friendly policies and said other areas including New York City should do more to attract investment. The chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co. praised Texas's lack of an income tax […]Warren Buffett Regrets Owning Electric UtilitiesFebruary 28, 2024 Mariel AlumitThis year's Berkshire Hathaway investor letter should be sobering for US electric utility investors. Mr. Buffett discusses two reasons why he appears to have soured on the business prospects for US-regulated electric utilities. Buffett recognizes […]Atlas to Acquire Hi-Crush Permian Proppant Assets for $450MMFebruary 28, 2024 Stu TurleyAustin-based Atlas Energy Solutions Inc. is acquiring all of Hi-Crush Inc.'s Permian Basin proppant production assets and North American logistics operations in a transaction valued at $450 million as it aims to create the largest […] Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and TwitterFollow Michael On LinkedIn and TwitterENB Top NewsENBEnergy DashboardENB PodcastENB Substack– Get in Contact With The Show –

Chris and Shayna consider Ralph Ellison's quote, from his speech upon receiving the National Book Award in 1953: "The way home we seek, is that condition of man's being at home in the world, which is called love, and which we term democracy."

George A. Papandreou is the former Prime Minister of Greece (2009-2011) and is currently a Member of Parliament with the Panhellenic Socialist Movement/Movement of Change. As an MP, he represents the Hellenic Parliament in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and has led over the years the work of several Committees in producing recommendations for the deepening of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law across its 47 member-states. During his premiership, he applied a series of structural reforms in his attempt to modernize his country whilst avoiding bankruptcy during Greece's 2010 debt crisis. For his achievements related to government Transparency, he received the Quadriga Award in the category “Power of Veracity.. In 2010, he was named one of the Foreign Policy magazine's TOP 100 Global Thinkers. In 2017, he was honored with the International Leadership Association (ILA) Distinguished Leadership Award.Dr. Ron Heifetz is among the world's foremost authorities on the practice and teaching of leadership. He speaks extensively and advises heads of governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations across the globe. Heifetz founded the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard Kennedy School where he has taught for nearly four decades. He is the King Hussein bin Talal Senior Lecturer in Public Leadership. His research addresses two challenges: developing a conceptual foundation for the analysis and practice of leadership; and developing transformative methods for leadership education, training, and consultation. Dr. Cynthia Cherrey is President and CEO of the International Leadership Association (ILA), a global community committed to increasing quality research, teaching, and leadership practices contributing to the world's common good. As president of a multi-sector and global professional association, she promotes rigor and relevance of leadership at the intersection of theory and practice. Previously, Cynthia was Lecturer in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Vice President for Campus Life at Princeton University.  A Quote From This Episode"There has to be a sense of justice. If you don't have that, you will get a sense of injustice, which then will be used by demagogues. Demagogues will polarize. Polarization will bring chaos, and chaos will bring tyranny. "About The International Leadership Association (ILA)The ILA was created in 1999 to bring together professionals interested in studying, practicing, and teaching leadership. Plan for ILA's 26th Global Conference in Chicago, IL - November 7-10, 2024.About The Boler College of Business at John Carroll UniversityBoler offers four MBA programs – 1 Year Flexible, Hybrid, Online, and Professional. Each track offers flexible timelines and various class structure options (online, in-person, hybrid, asynchronous). Boler's tech core and international study tour opportunities set these MBA programs apart. Rankings highlighted in the intro are taken from CEO Magazine.About  Scott J. AllenWebsiteWeekly Newsletter: The Leader's EdgeMy Approach to HostingThe views of my guests do not constitute "truth." Nor do they reflect my personal views in some instances. However, they are views to consider, and I hope they help you clarify your perspective. Nothing can replace your reflection, research, and exploration of the topic.

In the long-awaited (whoopsie!) second part of their Spotify series, the Demagogues explore what can be done to rebalance the music biome. What is this elusive context, and how does the indie artist create it for themselves? What is really happening with "good guy" distributors? What is Spotify doing wrong, and why? And what is the listener's role in this ecosystem? Sally puts on her finest podcast bro regalia and flexes her business nerd muscles (thank you, ketones), while Gabbie grounds the conversation with repartée the people are actually interested in. It is, all in all, their best episode yet...and they have no plans to ever be this good again. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Spotify has made some major changes to how they're paying artists in 2024, and people are pretty pissed about it. People, sure, but what about the Demagogues? Gabbie admits to being a total fraud who actually knows nothing about the music industry, then blithely demands that Sally explain everything to her. What are royalties, even? Does every artist deserve to have them? Are the changes to the payment model as bad as everyone says they are? Plus, Sally channels her inner bootstrap-puller in some harsh (yet loving) advice to indie musicians everywhere. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In their riveting first episode of 2024, the Demagogues have finally christened their listeners (welcome, Teacups!). Sally makes chaos coquette by adorning her new year In/Out list with pink bows. Gabbie has big feelings about the poetry of Anthony Kiedis. Oldheads get an intermediate lesson in finding new music. Our masterful orator podcast bros who are also, somehow, simultaneously just girls, give a rundown of upcoming 2024 releases with tepid anticipation. All of these treasures (and more?) culminate in yet another incredible episode. The Demagogues have done it again, and they'll do it again next week, too. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On the seventh episode of The Constitutionalist, Shane Leary and Dr. Benjamin Kleinerman are joined by Dr. Charles U. Zug, the Kinder Assistant Professor of Constitutional Democracy and Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at University of Missouri, and author of the book "Demagogues in American Politics." In the Constitutionalist's first guest episode, they discuss the unique way in which demagoguery manifests itself in constitutional democracy and the state of American rhetoric today. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, and his student, Shane Leary. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

DeSantis Administration Instructs Florida Universities to Suspend Pro-Hamas Student Groups https://www.nationalreview.com/news/desantis-administration-instructs-florida-universities-to-suspend-pro-hamas-student-groups/ Links: Good Morning Liberty WATCH on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz3YDYP6bFMR4BAPCZdvk1g This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.  Give online therapy a try at Betterhelp.com/gml and get on your way to being your best self.  Join the private discord & chat during the show! joingml.com Like our intro song? https://www.3pillmorning.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week we are sharing an episode from our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. In this episode, these three leading experts on American presidents—Sidney Milkis and Barbara Perry of the University of Virginia's Miller Center, and Stephen Knott of Ashland University—warn about the increasingly demagogic nature of the presidency. Their discussion traces a historical journey, from George Washington, who governed as a neutral and unifying officeholder, to modern presidents—from Teddy Roosevelt to FDR and Woodrow Wilson onward—who fanned populist passions. They also offer solutions for how to restore the Framers' vision of the constitutional presidency today. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.     Resources:   Stephen Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal (2020)  Nicholas Jacobs and Sidney Milkis, What Happened to the Vital Center?: Presidentialism, Populist Revolt, and the Fracturing of America (2022)  Michael Nelson and Barbara Perry, The Presidency: Facing Constitutional Crossroads (Miller Center Studies on the Presidency) (2021)  Stephen Knott, Coming to Terms with John F. Kennedy (2022)  Sidney Milkis, Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the Transformation of American Democracy (2009)     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Rahim Taghizadegan joins me to discuss what Jungian psychology and Austrian economics have in common, the problem with the deterministic worldview, the nature of incentives, and whether Bitcoin is a fundamental innovation. Rahim Taghizadegan is an economist, author, physicist, philosopher, investor, and entrepreneur. He is the last Austrian economist of the Austrian School in the direct tradition. // GUEST // Twitter: https://twitter.com/scholarium_at Website: https://scholarium.at/// SPONSORS // In Wolf's Clothing: https://wolfnyc.com/iCoin Hardware Wallet (use discount code BITCOIN23): https://www.icointechnology.com/ CrowdHealth: https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/breedloveWasabi Wallet: https://wasabiwallet.io/ Bitcoin Apparel (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://thebitcoinclothingcompany.com/ Feel Free Tonics (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://botanictonics.com Carnivore Bar (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://carnivorebar.com/ // OUTLINE // 00:00:00 - Coming up 00:00:44 - Intro 00:02:17 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing 00:03:03 - Introducing Rahim Taghizadegan 00:03:47 - Rahim's Journey from Austrian Economics to Bitcoin 00:05:20 - Switching the Field of Interest 00:07:10 - Recommended Books 00:08:35 - Jungian Psychology & Austrian Economics 00:11:37 - The Complexity Theory 00:13:38 - Behavior vs. Action 00:18:19 - Praxeology 00:19:17 - Distinguishing Human from Animal 00:23:11 - 20th Century Crisis 00:30:10 - Innovation Led to Social Change 00:36:14 - Fighting Against the Demagogues 00:42:28 - Preservation of Privilege 00:43:24 - Guiding Light and the Narrative of Mythology 00:45:44 - Human Capability of Rational Argumentation 00:47:30 - Following the Leader 00:51:35 - Rules vs. Regulation 00:53:10 - Differentiating Epistemology & Philosophy 00:55:16 - Replacing Philosophy with Science 01:01:05 - Simplicity vs. Complexity 01:02:23 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with the iCoin Hardware Wallet 01:03:19 - Mismanagement of Science 01:07:07 - Science is Not the Only Answer 01:10:38 - DDT Pesticide Disaster 01:12:53 - The Line Between Proper Intervention and Abuse 01:16:02 - From Newtonian Theory to Einsteinian Theory 01:19:41 - Problem with the Newtonian Worldview of Human Beings 01:22:29 - Difference Between Theory and Observation 01:26:43 - Attributes of Real Science 01:29:04 - Tradition of Speculation & Exaggeration 01:33:38 - Choosing the Right Facts 01:35:23 - Verifying the Ideals 01:38:13 - Spotting the Irregularities and Discussing Metaphysics 01:43:27 - Axiom of Action 01:46:11 - Predicting Human Behaviour 01:49:22 - The Freedom to Choose 01:52:31 - The Metaphor of Language & Money 01:55:28 - Bitcoin is an Idealized Money 01:57:46 - Is Bitcoin Discovered or Invented? 02:00:17 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth 02:01:18 - A Bitcoin Wallet with Privacy Built-In: Wasabi Wallet 02:02:10 - Bitcoin a Fundamental Innovation 02:03:42 - Can Bitcoin Be Established in Today's World? 02:07:40 - The Nature of Incentives 02:11:06 - How Incentives Influence Action 02:17:32 - Fiat Currency Incentivizes Debt 02:21:09 - How Incentives Interact with Morality 02:25:25 - Restructuring the Incentives 02:29:13 - Private Property & Social Cooperation 02:32:20 - Being an Entrepreneur of Change 02:37:02 - Bitcoin Enhances Private Property 02:39:33 - The Feedback Loops of Bitcoin 02:41:27 - How to Find Rahim's Work// PODCAST // Podcast Website: https://whatismoneypodcast.com/ Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-what-is-money-show/id1541404400Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/25LPvm8EewBGyfQQ1abIsE? RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/MLdpYXYI// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL // Bitcoin: 3D1gfxKZKMtfWaD1bkwiR6JsDzu6e9bZQ7 Sats via Strike: https://strike.me/breedlove22 Sats via Tippin.me: https://tippin.me/@Breedlove22 Dollars via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/RBreedlove// WRITTEN WORK // Medium: https://breedlove22.medium.com/ Substack: https://breedlove22.substack.com/// SOCIAL // Breedlove Twitter: https://twitter.com/Breedlove22 WiM? Twitter: https://twitter.com/WhatisMoneyShow LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/breedlove22Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breedlove_22 TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@breedlove22 All My Current Work: https://vida.page/breedlove22

The words for today are: Cabal, Unequivocal, Salubrious, Demagogue VictorPrep's vocab podcast is for improving for English vocabulary skills while helping you prepare for your standardized tests! This podcast isn't only intended for those studying for the GRE or SAT, but also for people who enjoy learning, and especially those who want to improve their English skills. I run the podcast for fun and because I want to help people out there studying for tests or simply learning English. The podcast covers a variety of words and sometimes additionally covers word roots. Using a podcast to prep for the verbal test lets you study while on the go, or even while working out!  If you have comments or questions and suggestions, please send me an email at sam.fold@gmail.com

Vivek Ramaswamy labeled Trump the best president of the 21st century. Chris Christie compared Ramaswamy to ChatGPT. Conservative callers share their reflections on the first Republican presidential debate, and Mona Charen from The Bulwark breaks down why having just 12 minutes of airtime can encourage bad behavior. Send us your song for our summer playlist! What's a song that represents your personal diaspora story? Go to notesfromamerica.org and click on the “RECORD” button to leave a voice note with your answer. Tell us the name of that song and the artist, and a 1-minute story that goes along with it. We'll gather all of the songs and your stories in a Spotify playlist that we'll update all summer.  Tell us what you think. Instagram and X (Twitter): @noteswithkai. Email us at notes@wnyc.org. Send us a voice message by recording yourself on your phone and emailing us, or going to Instagram and clicking on the link in our bio. “Notes from America” airs live on Sunday evenings at 6pm ET. The podcast episodes are lightly edited from our live broadcasts. Tune into the show on Sunday nights via the stream on notesfromamerica.org.

Walter Olson of CATO joins the panel for debate analysis, including the rise of “RamaSMARMY.” Plus, a discussion of the 14th Amendment argument for disqualifying Trump, and disentangling the Hunter Biden story threads. And in our Highlights and Lowlights segment, Linda celebrates the election of Bernardo Arévalo, an anti-corruption crusader, as president of Guatemala. show notes: University of Pennsylvania Law Review article on the 14th Amendment Linda's highlight: https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/8/20/23838763/guatemala-elections-alvarez-torres-democracy-corruption Walter's lowlight: https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/06/republicans-rehash-vaccine-mandate-policies-ndaa-amendments/387774/ Damon's highlight: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/09/disabled-children-institutionalization-history/674763/ Mona's lowlight: https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/1694012835842375809?s=20

Host Mitch Jeserich tells the story of the oldest democracy we have account of, how it started and evolved 500 thousand years ago in ancient Athens. KPFA is offering The Trial of Socrates by I.F. Stone (limited edition) In unraveling the long-hidden issues of the most famous free speech case of all time, noted author I.F. Stone ranges far and wide over Roman as well as Greek history to present an engaging and rewarding introduction to classical antiquity and its relevance to society today. The post KPFA Special – A History of the Athenian Democracy (Part 2): Demagogues, Tyrants, and the People appeared first on KPFA.

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESE-Verify opposition continues to build — and it must! Good news: Biden will veto entire border bill. Bad news: GOP keeps coming back with this at both national & state level, blinded to its danger to liberty and Constitution. 2:10What does Matt Drudge's firing from FOX 24 yrs ago tell us about FOX and possibly about Tucker's departure? 32:06Listener disagrees with my take on Building 7. Here's why I believe what I believe…44:08 Did military bioweapon site flush anthrax into water supply? Forget about Wuhan, look at the hundreds of bolas in US. 1:01:10Deputized State censorship extends to "Mail Chimp" as US Senator learns 1:19:3040 years ago, Solzhenitsyn sums up problems with Russia and the West — "Men have forgotten God". 1:21:18Just as there can be no "public health" if individual health is despised and trampled upon, there is no "Christian Nationalism" apart from the spiritual health of individuals 1:34:56WATCH: North Korean "defector" (escapee) says the dictatorship is a religion 1:42:52AI - how it "thinks", why it will never be like humans, the potential for scams and cons (including those done by government), and why it is dangerous 1:49:32Are After School Satan Clubs more dangerous than what happens DURING school? Are the clubs protected as free exercise of religion? Why are you & I on the hook to pay for indoctrination with which we disagree? Is THAT the establishment of a religion? Is THAT what schools are?2:46:00Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESE-Verify opposition continues to build — and it must! Good news: Biden will veto entire border bill. Bad news: GOP keeps coming back with this at both national & state level, blinded to its danger to liberty and Constitution. 2:10What does Matt Drudge's firing from FOX 24 yrs ago tell us about FOX and possibly about Tucker's departure? 32:06Listener disagrees with my take on Building 7. Here's why I believe what I believe…44:08 Did military bioweapon site flush anthrax into water supply? Forget about Wuhan, look at the hundreds of bolas in US. 1:01:10Deputized State censorship extends to "Mail Chimp" as US Senator learns 1:19:3040 years ago, Solzhenitsyn sums up problems with Russia and the West — "Men have forgotten God". 1:21:18Just as there can be no "public health" if individual health is despised and trampled upon, there is no "Christian Nationalism" apart from the spiritual health of individuals 1:34:56WATCH: North Korean "defector" (escapee) says the dictatorship is a religion 1:42:52AI - how it "thinks", why it will never be like humans, the potential for scams and cons (including those done by government), and why it is dangerous 1:49:32Are After School Satan Clubs more dangerous than what happens DURING school? Are the clubs protected as free exercise of religion? Why are you & I on the hook to pay for indoctrination with which we disagree? Is THAT the establishment of a religion? Is THAT what schools are?2:46:00Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

From Xi Jinping to Putin, to Stalin and Hitler, strong-man leaders who rule with an iron hand appear throughout history. In this talk, Ben Gliniecki explains the Marxist concept of Bonapartism.

In This Episode:Joseph T. Salerno, Academic Vice President of the Mises Institute, joins the podcast to talk about Murray Rothbard's political and economic thoughtwhy a demagogue is necessary for the masses to re-establish control over their government in the age of social democracya primer on the economic theory of the Austrian economists, as well as their underlying anthropology and praxeologyTexts Mentioned:“Education in Economic Liberty” by Wilhelm Röpke in What is Conservatism? edited by Frank S. Meyer“Why I am Not a Conservative” by F.A. Hayek“The Use of Knowledge in Society” by F.A. HayekAmerica's Great Depression by Murray RothbardHuman Action by Ludwig von Mises“Murray Rothbard versus the Progressives” by Joseph T. Salerno“In Defense of Demagogues” by Murray RothbardRothbard versus the Philosophers edited by Roberta Modugno“Why a Socialist Economy is Impossible” by Joseph T. Salerno“The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited” by Murray RothbardThe Road to Serfdom by F.A. HayekThe Constitution of Liberty by F.A. Hayek“Joe Salerno on His Career as an Heir to Rothbard” by Joseph T. Salerno“A Radical Right-wing Alternative” in the New York Times, 1971Dan McCarthy “Conservative Conversations” special lectureMises InstituteMoney: Sound and Unsound  by Joseph T. SalernoBecome a part of ISI:Become a MemberSupport ISIUpcoming ISI Events

We take a look at what a demagogue is and what you can do to make sure you aren't being played as a fool. You can access a link through the podcast documents page below to follow along with the visuals discussed in the podcast.  www.healthy-perspectives.com/podcast www.healthy-perspectives.com/podcast-documents https://www.facebook.com/healthyperspectivesinc www.linkedin.com/in/jeremiah-guidos-915b3426  https://rumble.com/c/c-2235930 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEXZdWuBoM6KXof4YcP9nkQ

A conversation with Charles Zug about his recent book "Demagogues in American Politics" (Oxford UP).

It was a fantastic pleasure to welcome Bryan Caplan back for a third time on the podcast! His most recent book is Don't Be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice.He explains why he thinks:* Feminists are mostly wrong,* We shouldn't overtax our centi-billionaires,* Decolonization should have emphasized human rights over democracy,* Eastern Europe shows that we could accept millions of refugees.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.More really cool guests coming up; subscribe to find out about future episodes!You may also enjoy my interviews with Tyler Cowen (about talent, collapse, & pessimism of sex), Charles Mann (about the Americas before Columbus & scientific wizardry), and Steve Hsu (about intelligence and embryo selection).If you end up enjoying this episode, I would be super grateful if you share it, post it on Twitter, send it to your friends & group chats, and throw it up wherever else people might find it. Can't exaggerate how much it helps a small podcast like mine.A huge thanks to Graham Bessellieu for editing this podcast and Mia Aiyana for producing its transcript.Timestamps(00:12) - Don't Be a Feminist (16:53) - Western Feminism Ignores Infanticide(19:59) - Why The Universe Hates Women(32:02) - Women's Tears Have Too Much Power(46:37) - Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!(51:09) - Affirmative Action is Philanthropic Propaganda(54:12) - Peer-effects as the Only Real Education(58:46) - The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness(1:08:49) - Why Society is Becoming Mentally Ill(1:11:49) - Open Borders & the Ultra-long Term(1:15:37) - Why Cowen's Talent Scouting Strategy is Ludicrous(1:22:11) - Surprising Immigration Victories(1:37:26) - The Most Successful Revolutions(1:55:34) - Anarcho-Capitalism is the Ultimate Government(1:57:00) - Billionaires Deserve their WealthTranscriptDwarkesh PatelToday, I have the great honor of interviewing Bryan Caplan again for the third time. Bryan, thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Bryan CaplanI've got the great honor of being interviewed by you, Dwarkesh. You're one of my favorite people in the world!Don't Be a FeministDwarkesh PatelIt's a greater pleasure every time (for me at least). So let's talk about your book, Don't Be a Feminist. Is there any margin of representation of women in leadership roles at which you think there should be introduced bias to make sure more women get in, even if the original ratio is not because of bias?Bryan CaplanNo, I believe in meritocracy. I think it is a good system. It is one that almost everyone sees the intuitive appeal of, and it works. Just looking at a group and saying, “We need to get more members of Group X,” is the wrong way to approach it. Rather, you need to be focusing on, “Let's try to figure out the best way of getting the top quality people here.”Dwarkesh PatelIf there's an astounding ratio of men in certain positions, could that potentially have an impact on the company's ability to do business well? Perhaps the company could just care about increasing the ratio for that reason alone. Bryan CaplanRight. I mean, one can imagine that! I think in our culture, it really goes the other way. People are more likely to be trying to get rid of men, despite the fact that the men are delivering value. If you really pushed me into starting to think, “Suppose you're running a bar, would you have ladies' night?” well yeah, I would have ladies' night in a bar because that actually works, and it's good business! However, if what you're doing is trying to actually get correct answers to things, if you're trying to go and make something run effectively, and if you're just trying to make progress and you're trying to learn new things, the thing to focus on is what actually leads to knowledge and not focusing on just trying to get demographic representation. I think what we've seen is once you go down that route, it is a slippery slope. So besides defending meritocracy on its merits, I would actually also say that the slippery slope argument is not one that should be dismissed lightly. There's a lot of evidence that it does actually fit the facts. When you make an exception of that kind, it really does lead you to bad places. Dwarkesh PatelOkay. But changing topics a bit, I wonder if this gives you greater sympathy for immigration restrictionists because their argument is similar, that there's no natural shelling point for your keyhole solutions where you let tens of millions of people in, but you don't give them welfare or voting rights. There's a slippery slope when you let them in because, eventually, the civil rights argument is going to extend to them. There'll be adverse consequences that these keyhole solutions can't solve for.Bryan CaplanFirst of all, I would say maybe. That is one of the best arguments against keyhole solutions. I'm also guessing that a lot of your listeners have no idea what keyhole solutions are, Dwarkesh, so maybe we want to back up and explain that. Dwarkesh PatelGo for it. Sure.Bryan CaplanSo I have a totally unrelated book called Open Borders, the Science and Ethics of Immigration. One of the chapters goes over ways of dealing with complaints about immigration that fall short of stopping people from actually excluding or kicking out people that are already there. So just to back up a little bit further, most of the book talks about complaints about immigration–– saying that they're either totally wrong or overstated. But then I have another chapter saying, “Alright, fine, maybe you don't agree with that, but isn't there another way that we could deal with this?” So, for example, if you're worried about immigrants voting poorly, you could say, “Fine, we won't extend voting rights to immigrants or make them wait for a longer time period.” That's one where I would just say that the focal point of citizen versus noncitizen is one of the strongest ones. So I think that it actually is one that has a lot of stability. This line of, “Well, you're not a citizen, therefore…” really does have a lot of intuitive appeal. Although, yes, I do think that keyhole solutions would probably not work multi-generationally, so to go and say this is a keyhole solution where you're not a citizen, your kids are not citizens, and their kids after them are not citizens, that's one that I think would be hard to maintain. However, again, at the same time, the problems people are worried about, if they ever were severe, are also getting diluted over time. So I wouldn't worry about it so much. That is one of the very best objections to keyhole solutions that I know of.Dwarkesh PatelOkay, so going back to feminism. Over time, doesn't feminism naturally become true? One of the things you can say is that the way that society is unfair to men includes how they fight in wars or do difficult and dangerous jobs, but society, over time, becomes more peaceful (or at least has in our timeline), and the difficult jobs get automated. At the same time, the gains for people who are at the very peak of any discipline keep going up fairly, but the implication still is that if men are overrepresented there, even for biological reasons, then the relative gains that they get go up, right? So over time, feminism just becomes more true, not because society necessarily discriminated against women, but just because of the trends in technology. Bryan CaplanOnce again, I feel like we should just back up a little bit. What is feminism anyway, because if we don't know what that is, then it's very hard to talk about whether it's becoming more true over time. In my book, I begin with some popular dictionary definitions that just say feminism is the theory that women should be political, social, economic, and cultural equals of men. I say that this is a terrible definition, which violates normal usage. Why? Well, we actually have public opinion data on, first of all, whether people are or are not feminists, and second of all, what they believe about the political, social, economic, and cultural equality of women. And guess what? An overwhelming majority of people that say they are not feminists still agree with the equality of women in all those mentions, which really makes you realize that really can't be the definition of feminism. That would be like saying feminism is the theory that the sky is blue.Well, feminists do believe the sky is blue, but that isn't what distinguishes feminists from other people. So what distinguishes them? What I say is that the really distinguishing view of feminism is that society treats women less fairly than men. The view is that society treats women less fairly than men or treats men more fairly than women. This definition fits actual usage. It would be very strange for someone to say, “I'm a feminist, but I think that men get terrible treatment in our society, and women are treated like goddesses.” Then you say, “Well, then you're not really a feminist, are you?” That doesn't make sense. On the other hand, for someone to say, “I am not a feminist, but God, we treat women so terribly, we're awful.” That, again, just would not fit. So I'm not saying this is the one true definition, but rather that it is much closer to what people actually mean by feminism than what dictionaries say. So to be fair, every now and then, there'll be a better definition. I think the Wikipedia definition in the second sentence adds that it also has the view that women are treated very unfairly. Dwarkesh PatelIs another way of defining feminism just that we should raise the status of women? That's slightly different from the fairness issue because if you think of a feminist historian, maybe their contention is not that women were treated unfairly in the past. Maybe they just want to raise the status of women in the past who are underrepresented. If you think of somebody today who wants to, let's say, raise the status of Asians in our society, and they want to acknowledge the great things that Asians are doing in our society, then maybe their contention is not even that Asians are treated unfairly. They just want to raise their status. So what would you think of that definition?Bryan CaplanSo first of all, it could be, but I don't think so. Here's what I think. There could be a few people like that, but that's not what the word means in normal use. If someone were to say, “Women are treated absolutely fantastically, way better than men, and I want it to get even higher.” You say, hmm. Well, that's not what I think. Somebody might say, “Well, I can still be a feminist and think that,” okay, but that's not what the word actually means. It's not the typical view of people who call themselves feminists. The typical view is precisely that women are treated very unfairly. They want to raise that and alleviate that in a way that's almost by definition. If you think that someone's being treated unfairly, then to say, “I think they're being really unfair, but I think it's great that it's unfair.” It's almost self-contradictory. Dwarkesh PatelI guess I was making a slightly different point, which is not even that these people don't want to raise the status (the actual living standards of women) in some way. It's just that they want to raise the rhetorical status.Bryan CaplanYes, but again, if someone were to say, “I think that women are treated absolutely fantastically in society, way better than men, who we treat like dogs. But I also want women's status to be even higher than it already is.” That would be something where you could argue that “Well, that person may still be a feminist, but that is not what the word means.” Because hardly anyone who calls themselves a feminist believes that weird thing that you're talking about. Dwarkesh PatelLet me make an analogy. Let's say you or I are libertarians, right? And then we think we should raise the status of billionaires. Now, it's not like we think society mistreats billionaires. They're pretty fine, but we think their status should be even higher.Bryan CaplanYeah, I mean, this just goes to the definition. In order to find out whether a definition is correct, you just have to think, “Well, how is the word commonly used?” Logically speaking, it's possible to have a different view or two things that are compatible. The whole idea of a definition is that, ideally, you're trying to find necessary and sufficient conditions such that everybody who satisfies the conditions falls under the category and that everybody who doesn't satisfy the conditions doesn't. In ordinary language, of course, it's notoriously hard to really do that. Defining a table is actually quite difficult in a necessary and sufficient-condition sense, but we can still say, “Well, a table is not by definition something that people sit on, right?” Someone could say, “Well, I suppose you could sit on a table, but that's not the definition in ordinary use in any language of which I'm aware.”But why don't we actually go back to your real question. Which was..Dwarkesh PatelOverall, the left tail of society is being compressed, and the right tail is being expanded. Does feminism become more true over time?Bryan CaplanThe answer is that we really need to look at all of the main measures to get an idea of this. With some of the ones that you're talking about, it does make more sense. As jobs become less physically dangerous, then at least you might say that things are less unfair to men. Although in the book, what I say is that even that is a bit more superficially complicated, at least on the surface. The immediate reaction is that society's less fair to men because they do the most dangerous jobs. Although I also say, “Yeah, but they get monetary compensation for that.” So, all things considered, you probably shouldn't think of it as unfair. It's something where it's reasonable to say, “Hey, wait a second, how come men are the ones that are enduring 90 percent of the workplace deaths” and say, “Well, because they're getting 90 percent of the combat pay.” Broadly construed it's not mostly actual for combat. So anyway, that's one area where you should be careful. But I can see the possibility there. I do have a section in the book where I go over what's happening over time. What I'll say is, well, one big thing that's happened over time is that people have become very hyper-concerned with the mistreatment of women, which means that feminism is becoming less true as a result because when people are really hyper-concerned that they might be unfair to someone, they are even less likely to be unfair to them. So I think that's one thing where society where feminisms become less true over time. Another area that I talk about and which I think really does tip the scales, although again, you really need to go through the book because I do try to work through a lot of different margins…I think the one that really does settle it against feminism in today's age is precisely the level of false feminist accusations about unfairness. When we go over all the objective measures, then you say, well, it's close to a wash in terms of which gender is treated more or less fairly overall. But then you realize, “Yes, but there's one gender that has to endure a whole lot of grossly exaggerated hyperbolic accusations and unfairness and another gender that gets to make those accusations.” The gender that has to endure the unfair accusations is men, and the gender that gets to make them is women. Obviously, not all women make them, and not all men receive them. But still, if we're talking about the average fairness of the treatment of men and women or society, I say that this climate of false accusation and intimidation is what really tips it. It didn't have to be this way, Dwarkesh! [laughs] We could have just had conditions change without a whole lot of flinging of wildly inaccurate accusations, but that's not the world we're in. Dwarkesh PatelWhen would you say was the flipping point? Was there a particular decade that you thought “unbalanced things are equal now?”Bryan CaplanYeah. So one of the things I say in the book is that there are a bunch of ways where you can say that women were treated less fairly in earlier decades, but there are aspects that are probably more important overall where women are treated worse now. The main one is paternal support for children. In 1940, the odds that you could count on the biological father of your children to help you to raise them was maybe 90%. Now it's probably more like 60%, 70%. So that's one of the main ways that I say that women probably are treated less fairly than men. And the unfairness has gotten worse over time. Again, just understand this is not the kind of book that most people are used to where someone argues like a lawyer and they just say, look, I've got 20 arguments for why I'm right. And everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is the kind of book that I liked to write where I really say, let's just calm down and just go through every issue separately, weigh each one on its merits. There are a bunch of points where someone could say, “Why do you concede that? That makes your argument weaker.” Well, I concede it because it's true! Then in the end, I have my overall judgment. I will just say that there are a number of books that are written in this terrible modern style of lawyerly reasoning, where you basically have a thesis that you just try to defend in every possible way. I don't write books like that. I try to write books that are honest and self-reflective, and where if there's some weakness in what I'm saying, I don't just acknowledge it if someone points it out; I try to be the first person to reveal it so that people feel like they can trust me. It's my own conscience. I don't feel right when I say something not really quite right. I feel like I should've always said the other thing. So I try to just write with candor. Dwarkesh PatelNow, would you say that feminism in the United States is overcorrected but that it's still true in the global sense? In the way that, on average, across the world, women are treated more unfairly than men. Because if that's the case, then if the US is at the center of global feminism, then, of course, they're going to overcorrect here, but overall they're making the world a better place. Bryan CaplanSo that is a much better argument. I would say that if we think about most areas of Europe, then I think that it's very similar to what's going on in the US. In the book, I do go over this especially. I start with Saudi Arabia, where it's really obvious what's going on and how poorly women are treated. But then I go over to India and China and just think about plausible rates of female infanticide. I think it is very likely that overall the treatment of women in India and China is more unfair than that of men. In Saudi Arabia, I'm almost sure that it is. In terms of “Is the US providing a useful corrective for the world while messing up things in the US?” It's possible. I think the problem is that it does discredit a lot of the reasonable points because the US just doesn't focus on the really big issues. The amount of time that American feminists spend on female infanticide in China and India… I don't think it would even be 1% of the rhetoric. It's just not something that they care about.So I would say that there's more harm being done by the sheer distraction of putting so much emphasis upon small, exaggerated, or reverse problems that bother feminists in the first world while ignoring and indirectly causing people to forget or neglect actual serious problems in some other countries. Positively shifting the Overton WindowWestern Feminism Ignores InfanticideDwarkesh PatelBut let me apply the argument you make in Open Borders that you can effect change by shifting the Overton window. So advocating for open borders just shifts immigration policy slightly towards the open end. Can American feminists make the same point that through making the crazy arguments they make in America, they're making Saudi Arabia more liberal for women? Bryan CaplanI would say that when the arguments are crazy, then it's not clear that shifting the Overton window actually happens. That may be where you discredit the other view. In particular, I think what I say in that part of the book is that people generally confuse being radical with being unfriendly. And most of the harm that is done to radical causes is due to the unfriendliness rather than the radicalism. So in that case, I would say that feminism has a definite friendliness problem. It is not a movement that goes out of its way to go and make other people feel like they are respected, where even if you disagree with me, I want to be your friend and listen to what you have to say, and maybe we could go and come to some understanding. I think it is a movement where the main emotional tenure of the elites is, “We are totally right, and anyone who disagrees had better watch out.” So I think that there is a discrediting of it. The other thing is just that I think there's too much cultural separation between the feminist movement as we know it and places like China and India, where I just don't see the attitude of being really angry about exaggerated or false complaints about unfair treatment of women in the United States is going to do anything for infanticide in India. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dwarkesh. Do you see much influence of Western feminism on infanticide in India?Dwarkesh PatelI don't know, but maybe yes. More generally, one of the common arguments that libertarians make about India and its elites is, “Oh, all of India's elites go study in Oxford or something, and they learn about the regulations the West is adopting that make no sense for a country with $2,000 GDP per capita.” I feel like some of the things could be true of feminism where all these Indian elites go to American universities and UK universities where they learn about radical feminism, and they go back, and they adopt some of these things.Bryan CaplanYes, although you might remember what Alex Tabarrok says about these very things. You can go to India and have people pushing paper straws on you, and yet the streets are still totally covered in trash. In fact, the pushing of the paper straws probably actually distracts people from the much more serious problem of the horrible trash, right? Again, I don't know enough about India to speak with any confidence here, but if you go and learn radical feminism in Western universities, come back to India and start complaining about how we need to have more female CEOs in a country where you have millions of female infanticides per year, I think it probably is like the paper straws problem where you are so focused on a trivial problem that maybe is not only a problem, is not even a problem at all. At the same time, that anger really blinds you to an actual, really serious problem that's going on. But you know India better than me, I could be wrong. Why The Universe Hates WomenDwarkesh PatelI believe rape within a marriage is still legal in India and is still not recognized. Maybe it was just recently changed. Let's say this is an interview, and a feminist says, “Oh my gosh, okay Bryan, maybe you're right that society as a whole doesn't mistreat women, but maybe the cosmos mistreats women.” So women are forced to have children. All of these things combined make women's lives worse on average than men's lives. It's not because society mistreats them, but in some sense, there's still unfairness geared toward women. What do you make of this argument?Bryan CaplanSo unfairness, where there's no human being that does it, seems like a very strange idea to me. Just from the get-go, well, so who was unfair to you? “The universe is unfair.” Then I mean, the correct term there is unfortunate, not unfair. So that aside, I would say it's a really interesting question. Who actually has better lives just as a matter of biological endowments, men or women? I mean, in terms of demonstrated preference, I think the overwhelming result is that most people just want to remain in whatever gender they're born in. So this is not actually transgenderism. This is like a genie wish. If you could change your gender just with a wish, costlessly, perfectly, I think a very large majority of people would still want to stay with whatever gender they have because it's part of their identity. It's some kind of endowment effect, status quo bias, or whatever. But then if you say, “Okay, yeah, right, fine. Like you, like you just want to stay whatever you were because that's your identity, but if you could put that aside, what would you want to be?” It's a tough question. You can say, “Well, women have a harder personality to deal with because of higher neuroticism, and they've also got higher agreeableness.” But that gives them some other advantages in terms of getting along with other people. For example, men's disagreeableness makes it hard for men to just bite their tongues and shut up when someone's saying something they don't like. I think that is easier for women to do. You may have noticed that having to shut up and bite your tongue while someone around you says something stupid you don't like is actually a big part of life. That is one thing. Now, in terms of things that I feel that I would get out of being a woman, just being able to have as many kids as I wanted would matter a lot to me. So I only have four kids right now. If it were totally up to me, I would have had more kids. I think, as a woman, it would have been easy to do. [laughs] So again, you know, there is the issue. How are you going to find a guy that wants to have a lot of kids? This is one where I've looked at the data on family size and what determines it. While both men and women seem to have a say on family size, it just looks like women's traits have a much larger effect. Men are more likely to say, “OK, fine, whatever. We'll do what you want to do on family size.” Whereas women seem to have much more pronounced preferences, which they then tend to get. I think that if I were a woman, I could have had more kids, and it would have been easier for me to do it. That would be something that matters to me. It's not something that matters to everybody, but that's something there. Again, there is just the nice fact of people caring about your suffering. In the book, I do talk about the ethos of women and children first, which is very pronounced. It's a modern society where we can simultaneously have something like “women and children first”, but then also have a lot of rhetoric about how people don't care about women. It's like, “Hmm, that's not right.”Dwarkesh PatelWhat do you think of this theory that maybe society cares a lot more about women suffering, but it sympathizes a lot more with men's success? If you think of a default character in a movie or a novel, at least for me, then the default is a man. Then maybe there's some victim that defaults as a woman. But I'd rather be the sympathy of some sort of success than get it for suffering.Bryan CaplanI mean, do you need sympathy for success? Or do you want admiration? I mean, I guess what I would say is that everybody's got suffering, and only a small share of people have any notable success. If all that you knew was you're going to be a man or woman, I would say, “Well, gee, if I'm a woman, then people will sympathize with my suffering, which is almost definitely coming because that's the human condition.” Whereas to have admiration for your success is something where it just affects a much smaller number of people. I know that hanging out in Austin among hyper-successful people may be biasing your sample a bit, but I do think it's believable that men get more unmitigated admiration for their success. Of course, there are also differences in the mating opportunities that you get for being a successful man versus a successful woman. So that is there too, but again, this is something that really is only relevant for a very small share of the population.But then the argument is, “Well, that small share of the population matters so much in terms of the story we tell ourselves about our civilization or just in terms of who controls more resources overall.” So if being a woman billionaire is harder, maybe for biological reasons, maybe for the reasons of our society, you can say, “Well, that only affects a small percentage of women in society.” But on the other hand, billionaires matter a lot.In terms of what life is like for most people, the main way they matter is that billionaires just provide awesome stuff. In terms of the stories that people tell, it's true that if you go and look at most classic movies or novels, the main characters are male. Even in cartoons, actually, the main characters traditionally have been male. But on the other hand, that's just fiction. In terms of daily life. I'd rather have people be really concerned about me in real life but have my perspective underrepresented stories than the other way around. Dwarkesh PatelSo what do you make of the argument that employers hold defects in women's personalities much more against them than they hold defects in men's personalities? I think Tyler cited some of this research in his new book on talent that being too agreeable or being too aggressive harms women more than it harms men. Bryan CaplanI would say that it's complicated in terms of willingness to fire. I think employers are much more willing to fire men. For defects and for insubordination. Another thing on the list is a small one, but I think that it is indicative of a broader trend. For people working at workplaces with dress codes, men are much more likely to be dinged on dress code violations than women because for men, there's a definite thing men are supposed to do. If you're not doing it, you are in violation. For women, on the other hand, it's like, “Well, gee, I mean, it seems kind of like that's not what you should be wearing, but I don't want to be the person that says anything about it. And who knows? Who am I to judge what a woman ought to be wearing on the job?”  But a man, on the other hand, needs to be wearing a suit in 110-degree weather. What was the high this summer over in Austin? [laughter] Dwarkesh PatelWhy do you think that women have gotten less happy since the sixties in America?Bryan CaplanRight. So the main thing I know about this is Stevenson and Wolfer's research on this. The main thing to remember is the magnitude. If I remember correctly, they find that in the sixties, women had about a two percentage point advantage relative to men in terms of their odds of saying they're very happy. 25% of men said they were very happy, then 27% of women in the sixties said that they were very happy. Whereas now, it seems like women have a two percentage point deficit relative to men. So now, if 25% of men say they're very happy, then 23% of women say they're very happy. It's always important in these papers to look at those magnitudes because the media coverage is going to say, “Oh, women are miserable now.” It's not that women are miserable now! We're talking about a two-percentage point difference. It's a data set large enough for this to actually be meaningful, but we do want to keep it in perspective in terms of what's really going on. The paper probably actually goes over a bunch of stories and says the obvious ones are all wrong. That would be what Justin Wolfersustin especially would normally do. I think he's usually right that simple stories about something like this are wrong. In terms of what I would pursue if I read through the paper and reminded myself of what they found and then said, “Okay, well, what will work?” I think I would, on one end, focus on single moms because they'll become much more common, and their lives really are hard. A rise in single motherhood is coming. I would guess that's one important part of it. Then, I would also be wondering how much of it is actual feminism telling women that they should be unhappy because the world is unfair and that causes unhappiness. Again, I'm not saying that these are right. It's plausible to me. The main thing I would say about feminism causing unhappiness in the adherents is that it probably doesn't matter most for most self-identified feminists because most people just are not that intellectual and they don't think about their ideas very often. So it's one thing to say, look, if you believe you're going to hell, you'll be unhappy. It's like, well, if you believe it once a year, does it make you unhappy? If you remember, “Oh yeah, once a year, I think I'm going to hell.” The rest of the time, you don't think it.On the other hand, the person who is always thinking, “I'm going to hell, I'm going to hell,” probably will be unhappy. So I think feminism is very likely to reduce the happiness of people who are feminist elites and take it really seriously, where they're talking about it all the time. That is likely to cause unhappiness. I'd be amazed if it didn't. But on the other hand, for the vast majority of people who say, “Yeah, I am a feminist. Moving on…” I don't think it's too likely to be messing up their lives. Dwarkesh PatelThat raises an interesting possibility. This is not my theory, but let's run with this. So feminism has actually gotten more true over time, but it's precisely because of feminism.  Maybe it's made elite women more unhappy. As you said earlier, the amount of single mothers has gone up. Maybe part of that is the reason, and part of that is because of feminist trends in terms of family formation. Maybe women prefer to be at home caring for children on average more, but then feminism encourages them to have careers, which makes them less happy. So if you add all these things up, plus mentorship, which men are less likely to give because of #metoo. So add all these things up, maybe they're the result of feminism, but they still make feminism more right. Would you agree with that?Bryan CaplanYeah. If we go back to this definition of feminism and this theory that our society treats women less fairly than men, then if the story is that women have made a lot of false accusations against men and then men have responded by changing their behavior, that would seem to be a strange example of saying the society is treating women less fairly than men. It would seem to be a case that society is treating men unfairly, and this is having some negative side effects for women as well. But it's one where if you really were trying to draw the line… Well actually, here's actually one of the weaknesses of the definition that I proposed. So foot binding in China. From my understanding, the main drivers of foot binding in China were women. So women are binding feet, and they're also telling their daughters they have to have their feet bound. Men seemed to care less, actually, it was more of an intra-female abuse. This is one where you could say that in China, women are treated less fairly than men, even though the perpetrators are women. I think that does actually make sense. I would just say that the definition that we use in our society isn't really calibrated to deal with that kind of thing. When it comes to what the right way to describe it would be, it just gets a bit confusing. It's useful just to say, all right, well, if women are mistreating women and that's what's making women's lives hard, how do we count that? I think I would just say that we don't have any really good way of counting it, and might be useful to just come up with a new word to describe this kind of thing. Women's Tears Have Too Much PowerDwarkesh PatelWhat do you make of Hanania's argument that women's tears win in the marketplace of ideas? Bryan CaplanYeah. So we might want to back up a little bit and explain what the argument is. So Richard Hanania on his substack has a very famous essay where he points out that in fiction, when there is a mob of angry college students, it's very demographically diverse. But when you look at actual footage, it seems like women are highly overrepresented. He generalizes this by saying that a lot of what's going on in terms of cancel culture and related problems is that women are the main ones that get angry about these things, and people don't know what to do about it. So he, if I remember correctly, says that a man can, in a way, actually enjoy an argument with another man. Even if you lose or even if it's a physical fight, he says, you can sort of feel invigorated by it. We got through this. We resolved something. Whereas no guy feels this way about an argument with his wife. “What do I need to do in order for this argument to end as soon as possible” would be a more normal reaction. This sort of generalizes to the majority of social arguments, specifically ones that involve someone being offended or angry, or hurt. He says a lot of what's going on is that it is mainly women that are presenting these complaints and that it's hard to deal with it because men don't want to argue with angry women. It just makes them feel bad. It's sort of a no-win situation. So anyway, that is Hanania's argument. Overall, it seemed pretty plausible to me. I haven't thought about it that much more, but it's one that does seem to make a fair bit of sense in terms of just what I'm writing about feminism. You know, one really striking thing is just how one-sided this conversation is. It is a conversation where women have complaints, and men mostly just listen in silence. Ofcourse, men will sometimes complain amongst each other when women aren't around. It's not a real dialogue where women have complaints about men, and then men are very eager to say, “Oh, but I have something I would like to say in rebuttal to that.” A lot of it is what he calls “women's tears.” It's sadness, but mingled with or supported by intimidation: “If you don't give me what I want, if you don't pretend that you agree with me, I will be very angry, and I will be fairly sad.” So you should be afraid. I think a lot of what's probably going on with the rhetorical dominance of feminism, is that people are just afraid to argue against it because, in a way, it does sort of violate the women and children first ethos. If women complain about something, you aren't supposed to go and say, “I disagree. Your complaints are unjustified.” You're supposed to say, “Look, what can I do to make it better?” Dwarkesh PatelBut that seems like a good description of race issues and class issues as well. Bryan CaplanI mean, the main difference there is that there are a lot of people who have a lot more firsthand experience of intergender relations, and they spend a lot more time in intergender relations than they spend in all of the other ones. So I mean, the dynamic is probably pretty similar, but in terms of the really negative firsthand experience that men have, Hanania probably is right about that. Then that generalizes to bigger issues. Dwarkesh PatelYou have an essay about endogenous sexism. Could this just not be the cause of society being unfair to a woman? We start off with men being in power, they get sexist just because they're around other men and they like them more. So then, the starting position matters a lot, even if men aren't trying to be sexist. Bryan CaplanSo let me just back up and explain the argument. The argument says to imagine that in reality, men and women are equally good in absolutely every way, but people are more likely to have close friends with their own gender, (which is totally true). So if I remember the essay, I think that for close male friends, the male-to-female ratio was 6:1, and for women, it was 4:1. So most people's close friends are of the same gender. When you meet these people, and they're your close friends, you know them really well. Furthermore, because you have handpicked them, you're going to think well of them. So then the question is, “What about people of the opposite gender? What will your interaction with them be like?” What I point out is that a lot of the opposite gender you hang out with will be the spouses and partners of your friends. On average, you're going to think worse of them because you didn't pick them. Basically, there are two filters there: I like you because you're my friend, and I put up with your partner because that person is your partner. So this means that the women that men are around are going to be the partners of their friends. They're not going to like them less and think less of them than they think of their friends. On the other hand, the partners of women's friends will be men, and women will get to know them and say, “Wow, they're not that great. They're at least kind of disappointing relative to my same-gender friends.” So anyway, this is an argument about how the illusion of your own gender being superior could arise. Now, as to whether this is actually the right story, I leave that open. This was just more of a thought experiment to understand what could happen here. Could this actually explain the unfair treatment of women in society? Especially if we start off with men being the gatekeepers for most of the business world? It's totally plausible that it could. That's why we really want to go to the data and see what we actually find. In the data I know of, the evidence of women earning less money than men while doing the same job is quite low. So there's very little gender disparity in earnings once you make the obvious statistical adjustments for being in the same occupation. Again, the main area that probably actually has gotten worse for women is mentoring. Mentoring is partly based on friendship. I like this person. I like working with them. So I will go and help them to go and acquire more human capital on the job. This is one that feminism has visibly messed up, and many feminists will, in a strange way, admit that they have done it while not taking responsibility for the harm. I've got an essay on that in the book as well.Looking at the evidence, it is totally standard now for male managers to admit that they are reluctant to mentor female employees because they're so worried. When I go and track down a bunch of feminist reactions to this, they basically just say, “I can't believe how horrible these guys are.” But it's like, look, you're asking them for a favor to get mentorship. They're scared. If someone's scared, do you really want to yell at them more and offer more mostly empty threats? It's really hard to scare someone into doing something this informal, so you really do need to win them over. Dwarkesh PatelTactically, that might be correct, but it seems to just be a matter of “Is their argument justified?” I can see why they'd be frustrated. Obviously, you want to point out when there's a sexual harassment allegation, and that may have the effect of less mentorship. Bryan CaplanWell, is it obvious that you want to point that out? Part of what I'm saying is that there are different perceptions here. There are differences of opinion. If you want to get along with people, a lot of it is saying, “How does it seem from the other person's point of view?” Obviously, do not assume that the most hypersensitive person is correct. So much of the problem with mentorship comes down to hypersensitivity. I've got another piece in the book where I talk about misunderstandings and how we have so much lost sight of this very possibility. When there's a conflict between two people, who's right and who's wrong? Ofcourse, it could be that one person is the conscious malefactor and the other person is an obvious victim that no one could deny. That does happen sometimes. But much more often in the real world, there's a misunderstanding where each person, because of the imperfection of the human mind, has the inability to go and get inside another person's head. To each person, it seems like they're in the right and the other person is in the wrong, and one of the most helpful ways for people to get along with each other is to realize that this is the norm. Most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings, not by deliberate wrongdoing. This is the way the people who keep their friends keep their friends. If any time there's a conflict with a friend, you assume that you're right and your friend is in the wrong, and you demand an immediate abject apology, you're going to be losing friends left and right. It is a foolish person who does that. Friendship is more important than any particular issue. This is not only my personal view, it is the advice that I give to everyone listening. Keep your friends, bend over backward in order to keep your friends, and realize that most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings. It's not the other person is going out of their way to hurt you. They probably don't see it that way. If you just insist, “I'm right, I demand a full apology and admission of your wrongdoing,” you're probably going to be losing friends, and that's a bad idea. The same thing I think is going on in workplaces where there is an ideology saying that we should take the side of the most hypersensitive person. This is not a good approach for human beings to get along with each other.Dwarkesh PatelYeah. That's very wise. What do you make the argument that a lot of these professions that are dominated by men are not intrinsically things that must appeal to men, but the way that they are taught or advertised is very conducive to what males find interesting? So take computer science, for example; there are claims that you could teach that or economics in a way that focuses on the implications on people from those practices rather than just focusing on the abstractions or the “thing-focused stuff.” So the argument is these things shouldn't be inherently interesting to men. It's just in the way they are taught. Bryan CaplanThe word inherently is so overused. It's one where you say, "Well, are you saying that inherently X?” Then someone says, “Well, not inherently X, just you'd have to bend over backward and move heaven and earth for it not to be. So I guess it's not really inherent.” That is a lot of what is worth pointing out. So if you're going to put the standard to that level, then it's going to be hard to find differences. You could say, “There's absolutely no way under the sun to go and teach math in a less male way.” On the other hand, maybe we should ask, “Is it reasonable to expect the whole world to revolve around making every subject equally appealing to men and women?” That's an unreasonable demand. If there's a subject like math that is male-dominated, the reasonable thing is to say, “Well, if you want to get in on that, you're going to need to go and become simpatico with the mindset of the people that are already there and then push the margin.” You can say that it's “so unfair that male ways of doing math are dominant.” Or maybe you could say that it's unfair for someone who's just shown up to demand that an entire discipline change its way of doing things to make you feel better about it. Obviously, there are large areas that are very female-dominated, and there's no pressure on women to go and change the way that flower arranging is done, or cooking in order to make it more welcoming to men.So this is one where if you had a really high bar for how things are fair, then unless the rigorous conditions are met, you're going to see a lot of unfairness in the world. Although even then, as long as you have an equally high bar for both men and women, I don't think it's going to make feminism any more true by my definition. I also just say, I think these really high bars are unreasonable. If a friend had these bars of standards saying, “Look, why is it that when we meet for food, we have to go and meet at standard hours of breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I actually like meeting in the middle of the night. Why can't we have half of the time be my way?” You respond, “Well yeah, but you're only one person, so why should I change?” It depends upon what subfield you're in as well. There are actually groups of people really like hanging out in the middle of the night, so if you ask, “Why is it we always have to meet in the middle of the night? Why can't we do it my way?” You are entering into a subculture that works this way. You could demand that we totally change our way of being to accommodate you, but it just seems like an unreasonable imposition on the people who are already here. Now, when you sort of go through the list of different things that people think of as making something a male or a not-male field, sometimes people will treat things like acting like there's an objectively correct answer as a male trait. If that's a male trait, then we need to keep that trait because that is vital to really any field where there are right and wrong answers. I mean, that's an area where I am very tempted rhetorically to say, “It's just so sexist to say that it's male to think that things are right and wrong. I think that is a trait of both genders”. In a way, I end the essay stating, “Yes, these are not male; not only do they not make a male monopoly, but they are also not uniquely male virtues. They are virtues that can and should be enjoyed by all human beings.” At the same time, you could ask whether virtues are equally represented by both genders and well, that's an empirical question. We have to look at that. Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!Dwarkesh PatelWe're shifting subjects. You recently performed at the Comedy Cellar. How was that experience? Bryan CaplanYeah, that was super fun and a big challenge! I am a professional public speaker. Standup comedy is professional public speaking. I was curious about how much transfer of learning there would be. How many of the things that I know as a regular public speaker can I take with me to do standup comedy? I'm also just a big fan of standup comedy– if you know me personally, I just find life constantly funny. Dwarkesh PatelYes, I can confirm that. You're a very pleasant person to be around. Bryan CaplanLife is funny to me. I like pointing out funny things. I like using my imagination. A lot of comedy is just imagination and saying, look, “Imagine that was the opposite way. What would that be like?” Well, actually, just to back up again: during COVID, I did just create a wiki of comedy ideas just on the idea that maybe one day I'll go and do standup comedy. Comedy Cellar actually has a podcast, kind of like Joe Rogan, where comedians go and talk about serious issues. I was invited to that, and as a result, I was able to talk my way into getting to perform on the actual live stage of the biggest comedy club in New York. The main thing I could say about my performance is that it was me and nine professional comedians, and I don't think I was obviously the worst person. So that felt pretty good.Dwarkesh PatelIt was a pretty good performance.Bryan CaplanI felt good about it! There were some main differences that I realized between the kind of public speaking I was used to doing and what I actually did there. One is the importance of memorizing the script. It just looks a lot worse if you're reading off a note. Normally I have some basic notes, and then I ad-lib. I don't memorize. The only time I have a script is if I have a very time-constrained debate, then I'd normally write an opening statement, but otherwise, I don't. The thing with comedy is it depends so heavily upon exact word choice. You could go and put the same sentence into Google Translate and then back-translate it and get another sentence that is synonymous but isn't funny at all. That was something that I was very mindful of. Then obviously, there are things like timing and being able to read an audience (which I'm more used to). That was what was so hard during COVID–– not being able to look at the faces of a live audience. I can see their eyes, but I can't tell their emotions or reactions to their eyes. I don't know whether I should talk more or less about something. I don't know whether they're angry or annoyed or curious or bored. So these are all things that I would normally be adjusting my talk for in normal public speaking. But with comedy, it's a bit hard to do. What successful comedians actually do is they try it in a bunch of different ways, and then they remember which ways work and which ones don't. Then they just keep tweaking it, so finally, when they do the Netflix special, they have basically done A/B testing on a hundred different audiences, and then it sounds great–– but the first time? Not that funny. Dwarkesh PatelIt didn't occur to me until you mentioned it, but it makes a lot of sense that there are transfers of learning there in both disciplines. There are a lot of hypotheticals, non-extra events, and putting things in strange situations to see what the result is…Bryan CaplanA lot of it is just not having stage fright. So I probably had just a tiny bit of stage fright at the Comedy Cellar, which normally I would have basically zero, but there it was a little bit different because it's like, “Am I going to forget something?” I actually have a joke in the set about how nothing is scarier than staying silent while thousands of people stare at you. So that was a self-referential joke that I worked in there.Dwarkesh PatelI can't remember if it was Robin Hanson who said this, but didn't he have a theory about how the reason we have stage fright is because somehow, you're showing dominance or status, and you don't want to do that if you're not actually the most confident. Bryan CaplanYou're making a bid for status. In the ancestral environment, we're in small groups of 20-40 people. If you go and want to speak, you're saying, “I'm one of the most important people in this band here.” If you're not, or if there are a lot of people voicing that that guy is not important, then who knows? They might shove you off the cliff the next time they get a chance. So yeah, watch out. Affirmative Action is Philanthropic PropagandaDwarkesh PatelI wonder if this explains the cringe emotion. When somebody makes a bid for status, and it's not deserved. Okay, I want to talk about discrimination. So as you know, there's a Supreme court case about Harvard and affirmative action. You might also know that a lot of companies have filed a brief in favor of Harvard, saying that affirmative action is necessary for them to hire diverse work for ourselves, including Apple, Lyft, General Motors. So what is the explanation for corporations wanting to extend affirmative action? Or are they just saying this, but they don't want it? Bryan CaplanIf those individual corporations could press a button that would immunize them from all employment lawsuits, I think they would press it. When you look at their behavior, they don't just give in whenever they get sued. They have a normal team of lawyers that try to minimize the damage to the company and pay as little as possible to make the problem go away. So I think really what's going on is public relations. They are trying to be on that team. As to whether it's public relations vis a vis their consumers or public relations vis a vis other people in the executive boardroom is an interesting question. I think these days, it probably is more of the latter. Although even under Reagan, there were a bunch of major corporations that did make a similar statement saying that they wanted affirmative action to continue. I think that the real story is that they want to get the status of saying, “we are really in favor of this. We love this stuff.” But at the same time, if it just went away, they wouldn't voluntarily adopt a policy where they give you a right to go and sue them for mistreatment.I think there would still be a lot of propaganda. I mean, here's the general thing. You think about this as a species of corporate philanthropy sticking your neck out in favor of a broad social cause. Some people disagree and say that it's self-interest. They say, “Look, the odds that even Apple is going to change the Supreme Court's mind is super low.” So I don't think it's that. Basically, what they're doing is a kind of philanthropy. What's the deal with corporate philanthropy? The deal with corporate philanthropy is you are trying to go and, first of all, make the public like you, but also, you're trying to look good and jockey for influence within your own company. One really striking thing about corporate philanthropy is when you look closer, normally, they spend way more resources marketing the philanthropy and letting everyone know, “Oh, we did all this philanthropy!” Then they actually spend on philanthropy. So I had a friend who was a marketing person in charge of publicizing her company's philanthropy. They gave away about a thousand dollars a year to the Girl Scouts, and she had a hundred thousand dollars salary telling everyone about how great they were for giving this money to the Girl Scouts. So I think that's the real story. Get maximally cynical. I think without denying the fact that there are true believers now in corporate boardrooms who are pushing it past the point of profitability. The cost of philanthropy is just the production budget of the TV commercial. A rounding error. The donations are a rounding error, and then they go, “Hey, everyone, look at us. We're so freaking philanthropic!” Peer effects as the Only Real EducationDwarkesh PatelOkay. So this question is one that Tyler actually suggested I ask you. So in The Myth of the Rational Voter, you say that education makes you more pro-free market. Now, this may have changed in the meantime, but let's just say that's still true. If you're not really learning anything, why is education making you more free market? Bryan CaplanIt's particularly striking that even people who don't seem to take any economics classes are involved. I think that the best story is about peer effects. When you go to college, you're around other peers who though not pro-market, are less anti-market than the general population. The thing about peer effects is that they really are a double-edged sword from a social point of view. Think about this. Right now, if you are one of the 1% of non-Mormons that goes to Brigham Young University, what do you think the odds are that you'll convert to Mormonism? Dwarkesh PatelHigher than normal. Bryan CaplanYeah. I don't know the numbers, but I think it's pretty high. But suppose that Brigham Young let in all the non-Mormons. What would Brigham Young do for conversion to Mormonism? Probably very little. Furthermore, you realize, “Huh, well, what if those Mormons at Brigham Young were dispersed among a bunch of other schools where they were that were a minority?” Seems quite plausible. They'd be making a lot more converts over there. So if you achieve your peer effects by segregation (which is literally what college does, it takes one part of society and segregates it from another part of society physically when you're in school, and then there's social segregation caused by the fact that people want to hang out with other people in their own social circles, your own education levels, etc.), in that case, in terms of whether or not education actually makes society overall pro-free market, I think it's totally unclear because, basically, when people go to college, they make each other more pro-free market. At the same time, they remove the possibility of influencing people of other social classes who don't go to college, who probably then influence each other and make each other less free market. I think that's the most plausible story.Dwarkesh PatelWhat about the argument that the people who go to elite universities are people who are going to control things? If you can engineer a situation in which the peer effects in some particular direction are very strong at Harvard (maybe because the upper class is very liberal or woke), they make the underclass even more woke, and then it's a reinforcing cycle after every generation of people who come into college. Then that still matters a lot, even though presumably somebody becomes more right-wing once they don't go to Harvard because there are no peers there. But it doesn't matter. They're not going to be an elite, or it doesn't matter as much. Bryan CaplanIt could be, although what we've seen is that we now just have very big gaps between elite opinion and mass opinion. Of course, it is a democracy. If you want to run for office, that is a reason to go and say, “Yeah, what is the actual common view here? Not just the view that is common among elites.” However, I will say that this is a topic that deserves a lot more study. Now the other thing to question is, “Wouldn't there be peer effects even without college?” If elites didn't go to college and instead they went and did elite apprenticeships at top corporations instead, I think you'd still wind up getting a very similar elite subculture. I think that this kind of social segregation is very natural in every human society. Of course, you can see it under communism very strongly where it's like, “I don't want my kid going and playing with a kid whose parents aren't in the communist party.” So every society has this kind of thing. Now, if you push the dynamics enough…. let's put it this way. If you were the prophet of the Mormon religion, what would be the very best thing for you to do to maximize the spread of Mormonism? It is not at all clear to me that trying to get all Mormons to go bring them young is a good strategy.Dwarkesh PatelI wonder if there are nonlinear dynamics to this. Bryan CaplanYeah. Well, there's gotta be, right? But as soon as you're talking about nonlinear dynamics, those are truly hard to understand. So I would just say to keep a much more open mind about this, and if anyone is listening and wants to do research on this, that sounds cool, I'll read it. Dwarkesh PatelRight. I remember you saying that one of the things you're trying to do with your books is influence the common view of elite opinion. So in that sense, there are elite subcultures in every society, but they're not the same elite subcultures, and therefore you might care very much about which particular subculture it is. Bryan CaplanNotice that that's one where I'm taking it as a given that we have the current segregation, and I'm going to try to go and take advantage of it. But if it were a question of if I could change the dial of what kind of segregation we have, then it's much less clear. The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness Dwarkesh PatelStudent loan forgiveness. What is your reaction? Bryan CaplanOh, give me a freaking break. This is one subject where I think it's very hard to find almost any economist, no matter how left-wing and progressive, who really wants to stick their necks out and defend this garbage. Look, it's a regressive transfer. Why then? Why is it that someone who is left-wing or progressive would go and favor it? Maybe it's because people who have a lot of education and colleges are on our team, and we just want to go and help our team. Obviously, the forgiveness really means, “We're going to go and transfer the cost of this debt from the elites that actually ran up the bill to the general population.” Which includes, of course, a whole lot of people who did not go to college and did not get whatever premium that you got out of it. So there's that. In terms of efficiency, since the people have already gotten the education, you're not even “increasing the amount of education” if you really think that's good. The only margin that is really increasing education is how it's making people think, “Well, maybe there'll be another round of debt forgiveness later on, so I'll rack up more debt. The actual true price of education is less than it seems to be.” Although even there, you have to say, “Huh, well, but could people knowing this and the great willingness to borrow actually wind up increasing the ban for college and raising tuition further?” There's good evidence for that. Not 100%, but still a substantial degree.Again, just to back up–– that can be my catchphrase [laughter]. So I have a book called The Case Against Education, and my view is much more extreme than that of almost any normal economist who opposes student loan debt forgiveness. I think that the real problem with education is that we have way too much of it. Most of it is very socially wasteful. What we're doing with student loan forgiveness is we're basically going and transferring money to people who wasted a lot of social resources. The story that you are on the slippery slope to free college for all is, in a way, the best argument in favor of it. If you thought that free college for all was a good idea, then this puts us on that slippery slope. It's terrible because the real problem with education is that we just spend way too many years in school. It is generally

Around the world, authoritarian leaders are on the rise – from Russia and Hungary to the U.S. They're working from a common playbook: They use violent rhetoric. They attack the media. They see their political rivals as existential enemies to the nation. We examine the return of the Strongman — and how to save democracy. The conversation with Daniel Ziblatt in this episode was recorded at the La Follette Forum on American Power, Prosperity and Democracy, held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison by the La Follette School of Public Affairs. Original Air Date: August 13, 2022 Guests:  Edgar Feuchtwanger — Iliaria Maria Sala — Daniel Ziblatt — Arno Michaelis — Pardeep Singh Kaleka Interviews In This Hour:  The Nazi Next Door — Facing History and Hate Through Museums — Killing democracy? There's a playbook for that. — Understanding The Man Who Hated You Never want to miss an episode? Subscribe to the podcast. Want to hear more from us, including extended interviews and favorites from the archive? Subscribe to our newsletter.

This episode is sponsored by Wren. Signup at wren.co/shermer and Wren will plant 10 trees in your name. Start a monthly subscription to fund climate solutions. Shermer and Kirchick discuss: archives and secret sources of secret histories • the cause of homophobia, and how and why homosexuality was thought of as a “contagious sexual aberrancy” • why there is no lesbian history of Washington • J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson and gay mythmaking • FDR and Sumner Welles • why at the height of the Cold War, it was safer to be a Communist than a homosexual • Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss • the McCarthy hearings and how the Lavender Menace became inextricably linked with the Red Menace • astronomer Franklin Kameny and the Mattachine Society • JFK and his tolerance of homosexuality • Richard Nixon's notorious homophobia • Ronald Reagan's conflicting attitudes toward homosexuality • George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and real progress in acceptance of homosexuality • the trans movement and its homophobic consequences. James Kirchick has written about human rights, politics, and culture from around the world. A columnist for Tablet magazine, a writer at large for Air Mail, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, he is the author of The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age. Kirchick's work has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, the New York Review of Books, and the Times Literary Supplement. A graduate of Yale with degrees in history and political science, he resides in Washington, DC. This episode is also sponsored by Wondrium. 

Nicolle Wallace discusses Trump allies' ongoing and baseless attempts to decertify the 2020 election. Plus, the war in Ukraine enters a new phase, a federal judge overturns the public transit mask mandate, Tucker Carlson's fear mongering on manhood in America, Florida rejects math textbooks, and a challenge to Marjorie Taylor Greene's re-election bid. Joined by: Jackie Alemany, Charlie Sykes, Mike Schmidt, Amb. Michael McFaul, Dr. Kavita Patel, Franco Ordonez, Peter Strzok, Katty Kay, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, Kim Atkins Stohr, and Jonathan Lemire