Podcasts about Edmund Burke

Full video and PowerPoint: https://www.patreon.com/posts/129440128?pr=true&forSale=trueEdmund Burke's conservative principles, as articulated in his seminal work Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), emphasize the preservation of societal order through tradition, hierarchy, and organic social bonds over radical innovation and egalitarian abstraction. Burke championed the value of inherited institutions—such as the monarchy, peerage, and established church—arguing that they embody the wisdom of generations and foster stability by aligning with human nature and historical experience. He rejected the revolutionary fervor of his time, particularly the French Revolution's pursuit of abstract liberty and equality, which he saw as destabilizing and disconnected from practical realities. Instead, Burke advocated for "ordered liberty," where freedom is tempered by duty, social gradation, and reverence for the past, ensuring that societal change respects existing structures and customs. His belief in the sanctity of property, the necessity of religion as a moral and social anchor, and the importance of local attachments over universal ideals laid the foundation for modern conservative thought, prioritizing continuity and community over disruptive individualism.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this week's episode, the last of Season 6,  Patrick and Greg pull back the curtain and reveal how the Quantitude sausage is actually made. Their motivation is to share their own joys and challenges in making a podcast in the hope that others might consider doing this themselves, whether it be for simple self-satisfaction or for using it as a free speech platform in a time when other avenues of communication are feeling increasingly compromised. Along the way they also discuss baring your soul, being 20 minutes away, losing money, Guglielmo Marconi, palak paneer, Taylor Swift, Machiavelli's bad rap, Quincy Jones, hostage negotiations, two blind squirrels, our Innies, for love of the game, Jiffy (in moderation), Blood Meridian, and Edmund Burke.Stay in contact with Quantitude! Web page: quantitudepod.org TwitterX: @quantitudepod YouTube: @quantitudepod Merch: redbubble.com

So why did Harris lose in 2024? For one very big reason, according to the progressive essayist Bill Deresiewicz: “because she represented the exhausted Democratic establishment”. This rotting establishment, Deresiewicz believes, is symbolized by both the collective denial of Biden's mental decline and by Harris' pathetically rudderless Presidential campaign. But there's a much more troubling problem with the Democratic party, he argues. It has become “the party of institutionalized liberalism, which is itself exhausted”. So how to reinvent American liberalism in the 2020's? How to make the left once again, in Deresiewicz words, “the locus of openness, playfulness, productive contention, experiment, excess, risk, shock, camp, mirth, mischief, irony and curiosity"? That's the question for all progressives in our MAGA/Woke age. 5 Key Takeaways * Deresiewicz believes the Democratic establishment and aligned media engaged in a "tacit cover-up" of Biden's condition and other major issues like crime, border policies, and pandemic missteps rather than addressing them honestly.* The liberal movement that began in the 1960s has become "exhausted" and the Democratic Party is now an uneasy alliance of establishment elites and working-class voters whose interests don't align well.* Progressive institutions suffer from a repressive intolerance characterized by "an unearned sense of moral superiority" and a fear of vitality that leads to excessive rules, bureaucracy, and speech codes.* While young conservatives are creating new movements with energy and creativity, the progressive establishment stifles innovation by purging anyone who "violates the code" or criticizes their side.* Rebuilding the left requires creating conditions for new ideas by ending censoriousness, embracing true courage that risks something real, and potentially building new institutions rather than trying to reform existing ones. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everyone. It's the old question on this show, Keen on America, how to make sense of this bewildering, frustrating, exciting country in the wake, particularly of the last election. A couple of years ago, we had the CNN journalist who I rather like and admire, Jake Tapper, on the show. Arguing in a piece of fiction that he thinks, to make sense of America, we need to return to the 1970s. He had a thriller out a couple of years ago called All the Demons Are Here. But I wonder if Tapper's changed his mind on this. His latest book, which is a sensation, which he co-wrote with Alex Thompson, is Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, its Cover-up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Tapper, I think, tells the truth about Biden, as the New York Times notes. It's a damning portrait of an enfeebled Biden protected by his inner circle. I would extend that, rather than his inner circle protected by an elite, perhaps a coastal elite of Democrats, unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that Biden was way, way past his shelf life. My guest today, William Deresiewicz—always get his last name wrong—it must be...William Deresiewicz: No, that was good. You got it.Andrew Keen: Probably because I'm anti-semitic. He has a new piece out called "Post-Election" which addresses much of the rottenness of the American progressive establishment in 2025. Bill, congratulations on the piece.William Deresiewicz: Thank you.Andrew Keen: Have you had a chance to look at this Tapper book or have you read about Original Sin?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I read that piece. I read the piece that's on the screen and I've heard some people talking about it. And I mean, as you said, it's not just his inner circle. I don't want to blame Tapper. Tapper did the work. But one immediate reaction to the debate debacle was, where have the journalists been? For example, just to unfairly call one person out, but they're just so full of themselves, the New Yorker dripping with self-congratulations, especially in its centennial year, its boundless appetite for self-celebration—to quote something one of my students once said about Yale—they've got a guy named Evan Osnos, who's one of their regulars on their political...Andrew Keen: Yeah, and he's been on the show, Evan, and in fact, I rather like his, I was going to say his husband, his father, Peter Osnos, who's a very heavy-hitting ex-publisher. But anyway, go on. And Evan's quite a nice guy, personally.William Deresiewicz: I'm sure he's a nice guy, but the fact is he's not only a New Yorker journalist, but he wrote a book about Biden, which means that he's presumably theoretically well-sourced within Biden world. He didn't say anything. I mean, did he not know or did he know?Andrew Keen: Yeah, I agree. I mean you just don't want to ask, right? You don't know. But you're a journalist, so you're supposed to know. You're supposed to ask. So I'm sure you're right on Osnos. I mean, he was on the show, but all journalists are progressives, or at least all the journalists at the Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And there seemed to be, as Jake Tapper is suggesting in this new book, and he was part of the cover-up, there seemed to be a cover-up on the part of the entire professional American journalist establishment, high-end establishment, to ignore the fact that the guy running for president or the president himself clearly had no idea of what was going on around him. It's just astonishing, isn't it? I mean, hindsight's always easy, of course, 2020 in retrospect, but it was obvious at the time. I made it clear whenever I spoke about Biden, that here was a guy clearly way out of his depth, that he shouldn't have been president, maybe shouldn't have been president in the first place, but whatever you think about his ideas, he clearly was way beyond his shelf date, a year or two into the presidency.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, but here's the thing, and it's one of the things I say in the post-election piece, but I'm certainly not the only person to say this. There was an at least tacit cover-up of Biden, of his condition, but the whole thing was a cover-up, meaning every major issue that the 2024 election was about—crime, at the border, woke excess, affordability. The whole strategy of not just the Democrats, but this media establishment that's aligned with them is to just pretend that it wasn't happening, to explain it away. And we can also throw in pandemic policy, right? Which people were still thinking about and all the missteps in pandemic policy. The strategy was effectively a cover-up. We're not gonna talk about it, or we're gonna gaslight you, or we're gonna make excuses. So is it a surprise that people don't trust these establishment institutions anymore? I mean, I don't trust them anymore and I want to trust them.Andrew Keen: Were there journalists? I mean, there were a handful of journalists telling the truth about Biden. Progressives, people on the left rather than conservatives.William Deresiewicz: Ezra Klein started to talk about it, I remember that. So yes, there were a handful, but it wasn't enough. And you know, I don't say this to take away from Ezra Klein what I just gave him with my right hand, take away with my left, but he was also the guy, as soon as the Kamala succession was effected, who was talking about how Kamala in recent months has been going from strength to strength and hasn't put a foot wrong and isn't she fantastic. So all credit to him for telling the truth about Biden, but it seems to me that he immediately pivoted to—I mean, I'm sure he thought he was telling the truth about Harris, but I didn't believe that for one second.Andrew Keen: Well, meanwhile, the lies about Harris or the mythology of Harris, the false—I mean, all mythology, I guess, is false—about Harris building again. Headline in Newsweek that Harris would beat Donald Trump if an election was held again. I mean I would probably beat—I would beat Trump if an election was held again, I can't even run for president. So anyone could beat Trump, given the situation. David Plouffe suggested that—I think he's quoted in the Tapper book—that Biden totally fucked us, but it suggests that somehow Harris was a coherent progressive candidate, which she wasn't.William Deresiewicz: She wasn't. First of all, I hadn't seen this poll that she would beat Trump. I mean, it's a meaningless poll, because...Andrew Keen: You could beat him, Bill, and no one can even pronounce your last name.William Deresiewicz: Nobody could say what would actually happen if there were a real election. It's easy enough to have a hypothetical poll. People often look much better in these kinds of hypothetical polls where there's no actual election than they do when it's time for an election. I mean, I think everyone except maybe David Plouffe understands that Harris should never have been a candidate—not just after Biden dropped out way too late, but ever, right? I mean the real problem with Biden running again is that he essentially saddled us with Harris. Instead of having a real primary campaign where we could have at least entertained the possibility of some competent people—you know, there are lots of governors. I mean, I'm a little, and maybe we'll get to this, I'm little skeptical that any normal democratic politician is going to end up looking good. But at least we do have a whole bunch of what seem to be competent governors, people with executive experience. And we never had a chance to entertain any of those people because this democratic establishment just keeps telling us who we're going to vote for. I mean, it's now three elections in a row—they forced Hillary on us, and then Biden. I'm not going to say they forced Biden on us although elements of it did. It probably was a good thing because he won and he may have been the only one who could have won. And then Harris—it's like reductio ad absurdum. These candidates they keep handing us keep getting worse and worse.Andrew Keen: But it's more than being worse. I mean, whatever one can say about Harris, she couldn't explain why she wanted to be president, which seems to me a disqualifier if you're running for president. The point, the broader point, which I think you bring out very well in the piece you write, and you and I are very much on the same page here, so I'm not going to criticize you in your post-election—William Deresiewicz: You can criticize me, Andrew, I love—Andrew Keen: I know I can criticize you, and I will, but not in this particular area—is that these people are the establishment. They're protecting a globalized world, they're the coast. I mean, in some ways, certainly the Bannonite analysis is right, and it's not surprising that they're borrowing from Lenin and the left is borrowing from Edmund Burke.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean I think, and I think this is the real problem. I mean, part of what I say in the piece is that it just seems, maybe this is too organicist, but there just seems to be an exhaustion that the liberal impulse that started, you know, around the time I was born in 1964, and I cite the Dylan movie just because it's a picture of that time where you get a sense of the energy on the left, the dawning of all this exciting—Andrew Keen: You know that movie—and we've done a show on that movie—itself was critical I guess in a way of Dylan for not being political.William Deresiewicz: Well, but even leaving that aside, just the reminder you get of what that time felt like. That seems in the movie relatively accurate, that this new youth culture, the rights revolution, the counterculture, a new kind of impulse of liberalism and progressivism that was very powerful and strong and carried us through the 60s and 70s and then became the establishment and has just become completely exhausted now. So I just feel like it's just gotten to the end of its possibility. Gotten to the end of its life cycle, but also in a less sort of mystical way. And I think this is a structural problem that the Democrats have not been able to address for a long time, and I don't see how they're going to address it. The party is now the party, as you just said, of the establishment, uneasily wedded to a mainly non-white sort of working class, lower class, maybe somewhat middle class. So it's sort of this kind of hybrid beast, the two halves of which don't really fit together. The educated upper middle class, the professional managerial class that you and I are part of, and then sort of the average Black Latino female, white female voter who doesn't share the interests of that class. So what are you gonna do about that? How's that gonna work?Andrew Keen: And the thing that you've always given a lot of thought to, and it certainly comes out in this piece, is the intolerance of the Democratic Party. But it's an intolerance—it's not a sort of, and I don't like this word, it's not the fascist intolerance of the MAGA movement or of Trump. It's a repressive intolerance, it's this idea that we're always right and if you disagree with us, then there must be something wrong with you.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, right. It's this, at this point, completely unearned sense of moral superiority and intellectual superiority, which are not really very clearly distinguished in their mind, I think. And you know, they just reek of it and people hate it and it's understandable that they hate it. I mean, it's Hillary in a word. It's Hillary in a word and again, I'm wary of treading on this kind of ground, but I do think there's an element of—I mean, obviously Trump and his whole camp is very masculinist in a very repulsive way, but there is also a way to be maternalist in a repulsive way. It's this kind of maternal control. I think of it as the sushi mom voice where we're gonna explain to you in a calm way why you should listen to us and why we're going to control every move you make. And it's this fear—I mean what my piece is really about is this sort of quasi-Nietzschean argument for energy and vitality that's lacking on the left. And I think it's lacking because the left fears it. It fears sort of the chaos of the life force. So it just wants to shackle it in all of these rules and bureaucracy and speech codes and consent codes. It just feels lifeless. And I think everybody feels that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and it's the inability to imagine you can be wrong. It's the moral greediness of some people, at least, who think of themselves on the left. Some people might be listening to this, thinking it's just these two old white guys who think themselves as progressives but are actually really conservative. And all this idea of nature is itself chilling, that it's a kind of anti-feminism.William Deresiewicz: Well, that's b******t. I mean, let me have a chance to respond. I mean I plead guilty to being an old white man—Andrew Keen: I mean you can't argue with that one.William Deresiewicz: I'm not arguing with it. But the whole point rests on this notion of positionality, like I'm an older white man, therefore I think this or I believe that, which I think is b******t to begin with because, you know, down the street there's another older white guy who believes the exact opposite of me, so what's the argument here? But leaving that aside, and whether I am or am not a progressive—okay, my ideal politician is Bernie Sanders, so I'll just leave it at that. The point is, I mean, one point is that feminism hasn't always been like this. Second wave feminism that started in the late sixties, when I was a little kid—there was a censorious aspect to it, but there was also this tremendous vitality. I mean I think of somebody like Andrea Dworkin—this is like, "f**k you" feminism. This is like, "I'm not only not gonna shave my legs, I'm gonna shave my armpits and I don't give a s**t what you think." And then the next generation when I was a young man was the Mary Gates, Camille Paglia, sex-positive power feminism which also had a different kind of vitality. So I don't think feminism has to be the feminism of the women's studies departments and of Hillary Clinton with "you can't say this" and "if you want to have sex with me you have to follow these 10 rules." I don't think anybody likes that.Andrew Keen: The deplorables!William Deresiewicz: Yes, yes, yes. Like I said, I don't just think that the enemies don't like it, and I don't really care what they think. I think the people on our side don't like it. Nobody is having fun on our side. It's boring. No one's having sex from what they tell me. The young—it just feels dead. And I think when there's no vitality, you also have no creative vitality. And I think the intellectual cul-de-sac that the left seems to be stuck in, where there are no new ideas, is related to that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I think the more I think about it, I think you're right, it's a generational war. All the action seems to be coming from old people, whether it's the Pelosis and the Bidens, or it's people like Richard Reeves making a fortune off books about worrying about young men or Jonathan Haidt writing about the anxious generation. Where are, to quote David Bowie, the young Americans? Why aren't they—I mean, Bill, you're in a way guilty of this. You made your name with your book, Excellent Sheep about the miseducation...William Deresiewicz: Yeah, so what am I guilty of exactly?Andrew Keen: I'm not saying you're all, but aren't you and Reeves and Haidt, you're all involved in this weird kind of generational war.William Deresiewicz: OK, let's pump the brakes here for a second. Where the young people are—I mean, obviously most people, even young people today, still vote for Democrats. But the young who seem to be exploring new things and having energy and excitement are on the right. And there was a piece—I'm gonna forget the name of the piece and the author—Daniel Oppenheimer had her on the podcast. I think it appeared in The Point. Young woman. Fairly recent college graduate, went to a convention of young republicans, I don't know what they call themselves, and also to democrats or liberals in quick succession and wrote a really good piece about it. I don't think she had ever written anything before or published anything before, but it got a lot of attention because she talked about the youthful vitality at this conservative gathering. And then she goes to the liberals and they're all gray-haired men like us. The one person who had anything interesting to say was Francis Fukuyama, who's in his 80s. She's making the point—this is the point—it's not a generational war, because there are young people on the right side of the spectrum who are doing interesting things. I mean, I don't like what they're doing, because I'm not a rightist, but they're interesting, they're different, they're new, there's excitement there, there's creativity there.Andrew Keen: But could one argue, Bill, that all these labels are meaningless and that whatever they're doing—I'm sure they're having more sex than young progressives, they're having more fun, they're able to make jokes, they are able, for better or worse, to change the system. Does it really matter whether they claim to be MAGA people or leftists? They're the ones who are driving change in the country.William Deresiewicz: Yes, they're the ones who are driving change in the country. The counter-cultural energy that was on the left in the sixties and seventies is now on the right. And it does matter because they are operating in the political sphere, have an effect in the political sphere, and they're unmistakably on the right. I mean, there are all these new weird species on the right—the trads and the neo-pagans and the alt-right and very sort of anti-capitalist conservatives or at least anti-corporate conservatives and all kinds of things that you would never have imagined five years ago. And again, it's not that I like these things. It's that they're new, there's ferment there. So stuff is coming out that is going to drive, is already driving the culture and therefore the politics forward. And as somebody who, yes, is progressive, it is endlessly frustrating to me that we have lost this kind of initiative, momentum, energy, creativity, to what used to be the stodgy old right. Now we're the stodgy old left.Andrew Keen: What do you want to go back to? I mean you brought up Dylan earlier. Do you just want to resurrect...William Deresiewicz: No, I don't.Andrew Keen: You know another one who comes to mind is another sort of bundle of contradictions, Bruce Springsteen. He recently talked about the corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous nature of Trump. I mean Springsteen's a billionaire. He even acknowledged that he mythologized his own working-class status. He's never spent more than an hour in a factory. He's never had a job. So aren't all the pigeons coming back to roost here? The fraud of men like Springsteen are merely being exposed and young people recognize it.William Deresiewicz: Well, I don't know about Springsteen in particular...Andrew Keen: Well, he's a big deal.William Deresiewicz: No, I know he's a big deal, and I love Springsteen. I listened to him on repeat when I was young, and I actually didn't know that he'd never worked in a factory, and I quite frankly don't care because he's an artist, and he made great art out of those experiences, whether they were his or not. But to address the real issue here, he is an old guy. It sounds like he's just—I mean, I'm sure he's sincere about it and I would agree with him about Trump. But to have people like Springsteen or Robert De Niro or George Clooney...Andrew Keen: Here it is.William Deresiewicz: Okay, yes, it's all to the point that these are old guys. So you asked me, do I want to go back? The whole point is I don't want to go back. I want to go forward. I'm not going to be the one to bring us forward because I'm older. And also, I don't think I was ever that kind of creative spirit, but I want to know why there isn't sort of youthful creativity given the fact that most young people do still vote for Democrats, but there's no youthful creativity on the left. Is it just that the—I want to be surprised is the point. I'm not calling for X, Y, or Z. I'm saying astonish me, right? Like Diaghilev said to Cocteau. Astonish me the way you did in the 60s and 70s. Show me something new. And I worry that it simply isn't possible on the left now, precisely because it's so locked down in this kind of establishment, censorious mode that there's no room for a new idea to come from anywhere.Andrew Keen: As it happens, you published this essay in Salmagundi—and that predates, if not even be pre-counterculture. How many years old is it? I think it started in '64. Yeah, so alongside your piece is an interesting piece from Adam Phillips about influence and anxiety. And he quotes Montaigne from "On Experience": "There is always room for a successor, even for ourselves, and a different way to proceed." Is the problem, Bill, that we haven't, we're not willing to leave the stage? I mean, Nancy Pelosi is a good example of this. Biden's a good example. In this Salmagundi piece, there's an essay from Martin Jay, who's 81 years old. I was a grad student in Berkeley in the 80s. Even at that point, he seemed old. Why are these people not able to leave the stage?William Deresiewicz: I am not going to necessarily sign on to that argument, and not just because I'm getting older. Biden...Andrew Keen: How old are you, by the way?William Deresiewicz: I'm 61. So you mentioned Pelosi. I would have been happy for Pelosi to remain in her position for as long as she wanted, because she was effective. It's not about how old you are. Although it can be, obviously as you get older you can become less effective like Joe Biden. I think there's room for the old and the young together if the old are saying valuable things and if the young are saying valuable things. It's not like there's a shortage of young voices on the left now. They're just not interesting voices. I mean, the one that comes immediately to mind that I'm more interested in is Ritchie Torres, who's this congressman who's a genuinely working-class Black congressman from the Bronx, unlike AOC, who grew up the daughter of an architect in Northern Westchester and went to a fancy private university, Boston University. So Ritchie Torres is not a doctrinaire leftist Democrat. And he seems to speak from a real self. Like he isn't just talking about boilerplate. I just feel like there isn't a lot of room for the Ritchie Torres. I think the system that produces democratic candidates militates against people like Ritchie Torres. And that's what I am talking about.Andrew Keen: In the essay, you write about Andy Mills, who was one of the pioneers of the New York Times podcast. He got thrown out of The New York Times for various offenses. It's one of the problems with the left—they've, rather like the Stalinists in the 1930s, purged all the energy out of themselves. Anyone of any originality has been thrown out for one reason or another.William Deresiewicz: Well, because it's always the same reason, because they violate the code. I mean, yes, this is one of the main problems. And to go back to where we started with the journalists, it seems like the rationale for the cover-up, all the cover-ups was, "we can't say anything bad about our side. We can't point out any of the flaws because that's going to help the bad guys." So if anybody breaks ranks, we're going to cancel them. We're going to purge them. I mean, any idiot understands that that's a very short-term strategy. You need the possibility of self-criticism and self-difference. I mean that's the thing—you asked me about old people leaving the stage, but the quotation from Montaigne said, "there's always room for a successor, even ourselves." So this is about the possibility of continuous self-reinvention. Whatever you want to say about Dylan, some people like him, some don't, he's done that. Bowie's done that. This was sort of our idea, like you're constantly reinventing yourself, but this is what we don't have.Andrew Keen: Yeah, actually, I read the quote the wrong way, that we need to reinvent ourselves. Bowie is a very good example if one acknowledges, and Dylan of course, one's own fundamental plasticity. And that's another problem with the progressive movement—they don't think of the human condition as a plastic one.William Deresiewicz: That's interesting. I mean, in one respect, I think they think of it as too plastic, right? This is sort of the blank slate fallacy that we can make—there's no such thing as human nature and we can reshape it as we wish. But at the same time, they've created a situation, and this really is what Excellent Sheep is about, where they're turning out the same human product over and over.Andrew Keen: But in that sense, then, the excellent sheep you write about at Yale, they've all ended up now as neo-liberal, neo-conservative, so they're just rebelling...William Deresiewicz: No, they haven't. No, they are the backbone of this soggy liberal progressive establishment. A lot of them are. I mean, why is, you know, even Wall Street and Silicon Valley sort of by preference liberal? It's because they're full of these kinds of elite college graduates who have been trained to be liberal.Andrew Keen: So what are we to make of the Musk-Thiel, particularly the Musk phenomenon? I mean, certainly Thiel, very much influenced by Rand, who herself, of course, was about as deeply Nietzschean as you can get. Why isn't Thiel and Musk just a model of the virility, the vitality of the early 21st century? You might not like what they say, but they're full of vitality.William Deresiewicz: It's interesting, there's a place in my piece where I say that the liberal can't accept the idea that a bad person can do great things. And one of my examples was Elon Musk. And the other one—Andrew Keen: Zuckerberg.William Deresiewicz: But Musk is not in the piece, because I wrote the piece before the inauguration and they asked me to change it because of what Musk was doing. And even I was beginning to get a little queasy just because the association with Musk is now different. It's now DOGE. But Musk, who I've always hated, I've never liked the guy, even when liberals loved him for making electric cars. He is an example, at least the pre-DOGE Musk, of a horrible human being with incredible vitality who's done great things, whether you like it or not. And I want—I mean, this is the energy that I want to harness for our team.Andrew Keen: I actually mostly agreed with your piece, but I didn't agree with that because I think most progressives believe that actually, the Zuckerbergs and the Musks, by doing, by being so successful, by becoming multi-billionaires, are morally a bit dodgy. I mean, I don't know where you get that.William Deresiewicz: That's exactly the point. But I think what they do is when they don't like somebody, they just negate the idea that they're great. "Well, he's just not really doing anything that great." You disagree.Andrew Keen: So what about ideas, Bill? Where is there room to rebuild the left? I take your points, and I don't think many people would actually disagree with you. Where does the left, if there's such a term anymore, need to go out on a limb, break some eggs, offend some people, but nonetheless rebuild itself? It's not going back to Bernie Sanders and some sort of nostalgic New Deal.William Deresiewicz: No, no, I agree. So this is, this may be unsatisfying, but this is what I'm saying. If there were specific new ideas that I thought the left should embrace, I would have said so. What I'm seeing is the left needs, to begin with, to create the conditions from which new ideas can come. So I mean, we've been talking about a lot of it. The censoriousness needs to go.I would also say—actually, I talk about this also—you know, maybe you would consider yourself part of, I don't know. There's this whole sort of heterodox realm of people who did dare to violate the progressive pieties and say, "maybe the pandemic response isn't going so well; maybe the Black Lives Matter protests did have a lot of violence"—maybe all the things, right? And they were all driven out from 2020 and so forth. A lot of them were people who started on the left and would even still describe themselves as liberal, would never vote for a Republican. So these people are out there. They're just, they don't have a voice within the Democratic camp because the orthodoxy continues to be enforced.So that's what I'm saying. You've got to start with the structural conditions. And one of them may be that we need to get—I don't even know that these institutions can reform themselves, whether it's the Times or the New Yorker or the Ivy League. And it may be that we need to build new institutions, which is also something that's happening. I mean, it's something that's happening in the realm of publishing and journalism on Substack. But again, they're still marginalized because that liberal establishment does not—it's not that old people don't wanna give up power, it's that the established people don't want to give up the power. I mean Harris is, you know, she's like my age. So the establishment as embodied by the Times, the New Yorker, the Ivy League, foundations, the think tanks, the Democratic Party establishment—they don't want to move aside. But it's so obviously clear at this point that they are not the solution. They're not the solutions.Andrew Keen: What about the so-called resistance? I mean, a lot of people were deeply disappointed by the response of law firms, maybe even universities, the democratic party as we noted is pretty much irrelevant. Is it possible for the left to rebuild itself by a kind of self-sacrifice, by lawyers who say "I don't care what you think of me, I'm simply against you" and to work together, or university presidents who will take massive pay cuts and take on MAGA/Trump world?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is going to be the solution to the left rebuilding itself, but I think it has to happen, not just because it has to happen for policy reasons, but I mean you need to start by finding your courage again. I'm not going to say your testicles because that's gendered, but you need to start—I mean the law firms, maybe that's a little, people have said, well, it's different because they're in a competitive business with each other, but why did the university—I mean I'm a Columbia alumnus. I could not believe that Columbia immediately caved.It occurs to me as we're talking that these are people, university presidents who have learned cowardice. This is how they got to be where they got and how they keep their jobs. They've learned to yield in the face of the demands of students, the demands of alumni, the demands of donors, maybe the demands of faculty. They don't know how to be courageous anymore. And as much as I have lots of reasons, including personal ones, to hate Harvard University, good for them. Somebody finally stood up, and I was really glad to see that. So yeah, I think this would be one good way to start.Andrew Keen: Courage, in other words, is the beginning.William Deresiewicz: Courage is the beginning.Andrew Keen: But not a courage that takes itself too seriously.William Deresiewicz: I mean, you know, sure. I mean I don't really care how seriously—not the self-referential courage. Real courage, which means you're really risking losing something. That's what it means.Andrew Keen: And how can you and I then manifest this courage?William Deresiewicz: You know, you made me listen to Jocelyn Benson.Andrew Keen: Oh, yeah, I forgot and I actually I have to admit I saw that on the email and then I forgot who Jocelyn Benson is, which is probably reflects the fact that she didn't say very much.William Deresiewicz: For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, she's the Secretary of State of Michigan. She's running for governor.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and she was absolutely diabolical. She was on the show, I thought.William Deresiewicz: She wrote a book called Purposeful Warrior, and the whole interview was just this salad of cliches. Purpose, warrior, grit, authenticity. And part of, I mentioned her partly because she talked about courage in a way that was complete nonsense.Andrew Keen: Real courage, yeah, real courage. I remember her now. Yeah, yeah.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, she got made into a martyr because she got threatened after the 2020 election.Andrew Keen: Well, lots to think about, Bill. Very good conversation, as always. I think we need to get rid of old white men like you and I, but what do I know?William Deresiewicz: I mean, I am going to keep a death grip on my position, which is no good whatsoever.Andrew Keen: As I half-joked, Bill, maybe you should have called the piece "Post-Erection." If you can't get an erection, then you certainly shouldn't be in public office. That would have meant that Joe Biden would have had to have retired immediately.William Deresiewicz: I'm looking forward to seeing the test you devise to determine whether people meet your criterion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, maybe it will be a public one. Bread and circuses, bread and elections. We shall see, Bill, I'm not even going to do your last name because I got it right once. I'm never going to say it again. Bill, congratulations on the piece "Post-Election," not "Post-Erection," and we will talk again. This story is going to run and run. We will talk again in the not too distant future. Thank you so much.William Deresiewicz: That's good.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer's Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and […]

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer’s Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and […]

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer’s Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and […]

In this episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Pioneer's Mary Connaughton interview Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law professor emerita and former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Glendon reflects on her formative education, mentors, and how law and faith have shaped her worldview. She discusses her admiration for Western Civilization's intellectual and spiritual heritage—especially Cicero, Edmund Burke, and the harmony of Catholicism with reason. Ambassador Glendon offers insights from her memoir In the Courts of Three Popes, recounting her service under Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. She explores Vatican diplomacy, the Church's governance, the Vatican Bank, and key challenges facing the Church today, including the upcoming papal conclave. In closing, she reads a passage from her book, In the Courts of Three Popes.

On this May Day edition of Parallax Views w/ J.G. Michael, political theorist Matt McManus joins us to unpack The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, his groundbreaking new book. We explore: Liberal Socialism Defined: Why liberal rights and socialist economics aren't mutually exclusive—and how methodological collectivism and normative individualism unite them. Historical Roots: From Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine's radical democracy to John Stuart Mill's social liberalism, contrasted with Edmund Burke and Ludwig von Mises. Core Principles: A developmental ethic over mere inquiry, economic democracy within a liberal framework, and, for some, extending democratic values into the family. Key Influences: John Rawls's Theory of Justice, Samuel Moyn's critique of Cold War liberalism and the relationship between Samuel Moyn's book LIBERALISM AGAINST ITSELF: COLD WAR INTELLECTUALS AND THE MAKING OF OUR TIMES and Matt's book, and a speculative look at Richard Rorty's pragmatic liberalism in relation to Liberal Socialism. Global & Anti-Colonial Critiques: Addressing charges of Eurocentrism and imperialist bias by anti-colonial and Global South critiques of Liberal Socialism. Critiques from the Left & Right: Responses to neoliberal, libertarian, and Marxist-Leninist objections, and why caricaturing Marx misses his nuanced view of liberal institutions. If you're interested in the crossroads of political philosophy, the future of democratic socialism, and reclaiming a tradition of freedom and equality, tune in to this deep dive with Matt McManus.

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Tristan Rogers is a philosopher, author, and teacher. He teaches Logic and Latin at Donum Dei Classical Academy in San Francisco. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona in 2017. He works in political philosophy, ethics, and ancient philosophy. He is the author of Conservatism, Past and Present: A Philosophical Introduction. In this episode, we focus on Conservatism, Past and Present. We start by discussing philosophical conservatism, and the virtues of gratitude, humility, and justice. We then go through the history of conservatism, and talk about thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, David Hume, Edmund Burke, attitudes toward the American Revolution and the French Revolution, the 19th century and freedom through authority, the 20th century, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, Roger Scruton, and the present in Donald Trump and his supporters. We discuss issues surrounding immigration, the family, sexual ethics, responsibilities and rights, and religion. Finally, we talk about the future of conservatism.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, AND ROBINROSWELL!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, AND BENJAMIN GELBART!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

In this episode from 2021, Alex Aragona speaks with Graeme Thompson about the classical liberal tradition in Canada, and what the evolution of that tradition has looked like. References from The Curious Task Episode 94 with Graeme Thompson A collection of the speeches of Wilfred Laurier can be found in an edited edition by Arthur Milnes, available from Amazon here. Macdonald Laurier and the Election of 1891 by Christopher Pennington can be found from Penguin House here. Graeme Thompson's piece “Whatever Happened to Laurier” can be found in the National Post here. Graeme mentions positive and negative liberty by Isaiah Berlin, which is discussed on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. The works of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and J.S. Mill can be read for free through the Online Library of Liberty.  

Oliver Goldsmith (born Nov. 10, 1730, Kilkenny West, County Westmeath, Ire.—died April 4, 1774, London) was an Anglo-Irish essayist, poet, novelist, dramatist, and eccentric, made famous by such works as the series of essays The Citizen of the World, or, Letters from a Chinese Philosopher (1762), the poem The Deserted Village (1770), the novel The Vicar of Wakefield (1766), and the play She Stoops to Conquer (1773).Goldsmith was the son of an Anglo-Irish clergyman, the Rev. Charles Goldsmith, curate in charge of Kilkenny West, County Westmeath. At about the time of his birth, the family moved into a substantial house at nearby Lissoy, where Oliver spent his childhood. Much has been recorded concerning his youth, his unhappy years as an undergraduate at Trinity College, Dublin, where he received the B.A. degree in February 1749, and his many misadventures before he left Ireland in the autumn of 1752 to study in the medical school at Edinburgh. His father was now dead, but several of his relations had undertaken to support him in his pursuit of a medical degree. Later on, in London, he came to be known as Dr. Goldsmith—Doctor being the courtesy title for one who held the Bachelor of Medicine—but he took no degree while at Edinburgh nor, so far as anyone knows, during the two-year period when, despite his meagre funds, which were eventually exhausted, he somehow managed to make his way through Europe. The first period of his life ended with his arrival in London, bedraggled and penniless, early in 1756.Goldsmith's rise from total obscurity was a matter of only a few years. He worked as an apothecary's assistant, school usher, physician, and as a hack writer—reviewing, translating, and compiling. Much of his work was for Ralph Griffiths's Monthly Review. It remains amazing that this young Irish vagabond, unknown, uncouth, unlearned, and unreliable, was yet able within a few years to climb from obscurity to mix with aristocrats and the intellectual elite of London. Such a rise was possible because Goldsmith had one quality, soon noticed by booksellers and the public, that his fellow literary hacks did not possess—the gift of a graceful, lively, and readable style. His rise began with the Enquiry into the Present State of Polite Learning in Europe (1759), a minor work. Soon he emerged as an essayist, in The Bee and other periodicals, and above all in his Chinese Letters. These essays were first published in the journal The Public Ledger and were collected as The Citizen of the World in 1762. The same year brought his Life of Richard Nash, of Bath, Esq. Already Goldsmith was acquiring those distinguished and often helpful friends whom he alternately annoyed and amused, shocked and charmed—Samuel Johnson, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Thomas Percy, David Garrick, Edmund Burke, and James Boswell. The obscure drudge of 1759 became in 1764 one of the nine founder-members of the famous Club, a select body, including Reynolds, Johnson, and Burke, which met weekly for supper and talk. Goldsmith could now afford to live more comfortably, but his extravagance continually ran him into debt, and he was forced to undertake more hack work. He thus produced histories of England and of ancient Rome and Greece, biographies, verse anthologies, translations, and works of popular science. These were mainly compilations of works by other authors, which Goldsmith then distilled and enlivened by his own gift for fine writing. Some of these makeshift compilations went on being reprinted well into the 19th century, however.By 1762 Goldsmith had established himself as an essayist with his Citizen of the World, in which he used the device of satirizing Western society through the eyes of an Oriental visitor to London. By 1764 he had won a reputation as a poet with The Traveller, the first work to which he put his name. It embodied both his memories of tramping through Europe and his political ideas. In 1770 he confirmed that reputation with the more famous Deserted Village, which contains charming vignettes of rural life while denouncing the evictions of the country poor at the hands of wealthy landowners. In 1766 Goldsmith revealed himself as a novelist with The Vicar of Wakefield (written in 1762), a portrait of village life whose idealization of the countryside, sentimental moralizing, and melodramatic incidents are underlain by a sharp but good-natured irony. In 1768 Goldsmith turned to the theatre with The Good Natur'd Man, which was followed in 1773 by the much more effective She Stoops to Conquer, which was immediately successful. This play has outlived almost all other English-language comedies from the early 18th to the late 19th century by virtue of its broadly farcical horseplay and vivid, humorous characterizations.During his last decade Goldsmith's conversational encounters with Johnson and others, his foolishness, and his wit were preserved in Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. Goldsmith eventually became deeply embroiled in mounting debts despite his considerable earnings as an author, though, and after a short illness in the spring of 1774 he died.-bio via Britannica This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

In his perpetual quest to mildly trigger his Straussian pals, Josh invites fellow Millennial and Burkean conservative Greg Collins on to discuss how Leo Strauss misconstrued Edmund Burke's political views and lasting impact.  Also discussed are Burke's complex views on natural rights, manners, reform, revolution, social contract theory, classical liberalism, and Rousseau.  Fair warning, dear listener, this one gets nerdy in a hurry!   About Greg Collins From The Kirk Center Dr. Gregory Collins is one of the most celebrated Burke scholars of the rising generation. He is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Program on Ethics, Politics, and Economics at Yale University. He recently received the Buckley Institute's 2024 Lux and Veritas Faculty Prize. His first book, Commerce and Manners in Edmund Burke's Political Economy, examined Edmund Burke's understanding of the connection between markets and morals. Greg has also published articles on Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Frederick Douglass, Eric Voegelin, Leo Strauss, and Britain's East India Company. His additional writings and book reviews can be found in Modern Age, Law & Liberty, National Affairs, National Review, and University Bookman.  You can follow Greg on Twitter @GregCollins111   About the Russell Kirk Center's School of Conservative Studies As is noted in the episode, Josh met Greg during a recent virtual course on Burke. In the month of February, the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal hosted two of the nation's foremost Burke scholars, Ian Crowe and Gregory Collins, as they taught a special class on Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. This was a pilot course offered in anticipation of the official launch of the Russell Kirk Center's School of Conservative Studies in the Fall of 2025. For information about the School and future courses, sign up for the Center's e-letter and print newsletter, Permanent Things. https://kirkcenter.org/permanent-things/  

For decades, conservatives have been plagued by an affliction—an almost allergic reaction to power. It's as if the only way to be truly virtuous is to lose, and to lose gracefully. Political wins are viewed with suspicion, as if governing with authority is somehow unseemly, or worse, un-Christian. But what if that mindset is not just wrong—but harmful?Take a look at Donald Trump. Like him or not, he's leading a populist resurgence that is centered not just on rhetoric, but on wielding power—on winning. Recently, he made headlines for appearing to defy a court order that would have prevented the deportation of Venezuelan gang members. Then, he took aim at President Biden's use of an autopen for signing pardons, questioning the validity of those signatures. Predictably, his critics shriek: "Tyranny!" But is it tyranny—or is it the legitimate use of power for the good of the nation?There is a long and deep conservative tradition that supports the responsible use of authority. Edmund Burke warned that power unused is power lost, and that liberty without virtue is the greatest of all evils. Russell Kirk argued that moral order requires strong governance. Sam Francis lambasted the Right for its obsession with losing honorably rather than governing effectively. Even American history is filled with examples of presidents who who defied courts and insisted on doing what they believed was right. Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, even Andrew Jackson understood that sometimes, the law is wrong, and justice demands action. Yet, modern evangelicals often act as if any use of power is suspect, embracing what Francis called the "beautiful loser syndrome"—preferring to be righteous victims rather than victorious defenders of truth and order. But what does Scripture actually say? Joseph wielded power in Egypt to save his people. Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem despite opposition. Even Christ declared, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."So today, we ask: Is Trump a tyrant, or is he acting within a legitimate and necessary conservative tradition? And more importantly, why do so many conservatives still believe that surrender is a virtue?This episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reece Fund, as well as our Patreon members and donors. You can join our Patreon at patreon.com/rightresponseministries or you can donate at rightresponseministries.com/donate.Political power is not everything, but it's not nothing either. And when good men refuse to use it, then evil men will pick it up and destroy societies. It's time for Christians to learn to use political power for good ends again. Let's get into it.*MINISTRY SPONSORS:**Private Family Banking*How to Connect with Private Family Banking:1. FREE 20-MINUTE COURSE HERE: ⁠https://www.canva.com/design/DAF2TQVcA10/WrG1FmoJYp9o9oUcAwKUdA/view⁠2. Send an email inquiry to ⁠chuck@privatefamilybanking.com⁠3. Receive a FREE e-book entitled "How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown", by going to ⁠https://www.protectyourmoneynow.net⁠4. Set up a FREE Private Family Banking Discovery call using this ⁠link: https://calendly.com/familybankingnow/30min⁠5. For a Multi-Generational Wealth Planning Guide Book for only $4.99, use this link for my affiliate relationship with "Seven Generations Legacy": ⁠https://themoneyadvantage.idevaffiliate.com/13.html⁠*Reece Fund⁠https://www.reecefund.com/*Dominion: Wealth Strategists* is a full-service financial planning and wealth management firm dedicated to putting more money in the hands of the church. With an education focused approach, they will help you take dominion over your finances.https://reformed.money/

Dive into a provocative discussion with Matt Lewis and Guy Denton as they dissect the news of Elon Musk allegedly welcoming his 13th child with conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair. In this episode, they explore the fascinating intersection of celebrity, traditional conservative values, and modern family dynamics on Presidents Day. Matt, with his deep roots in conservative media, questions the apparent hypocrisy of celebrating Musk as a conservative icon while he leads a lifestyle that starkly contrasts with traditional family values. They tackle whether it's fair game to point out this contradiction or if personal lives should be left out of political critique. The conversation also ventures into the broader implications of celebrity influence on culture, the "no guardrails problem," and how influencers in today's digital age mirror the rock stars of yesteryears. Beyond the Musk controversy, they touch on Trump's latest social media declarations, comparing him to historical figures like Napoleon, and discuss the enduring relevance of classic conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke in modern politics.For fans of cultural commentary and political analysis, this episode is packed with insights, humor, and a bit of wrestling and Super Bowl talk. Join us for a thought-provoking journey through today's headlines, where we promise to make you think, laugh, and maybe even question the status quo.Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more discussions on the intersection of politics, culture, and the bizarre realities of modern life. SEO Keywords: Elon Musk, Ashley St. Clair, Conservative Influencers, Family Values, Political Hypocrisy, Celebrity Culture, Traditional Marriage, Parenting, Presidents Day, WWE Royal Rumble, Super Bowl, NFL, Trump, Napoleon, Edmund Burke, Cultural Commentary, Political Analysis, Matt Lewis, Guy Denton.Support "Matt Lewis & The News" at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattlewisFollow Matt Lewis & Cut Through the Noise:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MattLewisDCTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattklewisInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattklewis/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVhSMpjOzydlnxm5TDcYn0A– Who is Matt Lewis? –Matt K. Lewis is a political commentator and the author of Filthy Rich Politicians.Buy Matt's book: https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Rich-Politicians-Creatures-Ruling-Class/dp/1546004416Copyright © 2024, BBL & BWL, LLC

This week Shauna and Dan explore the phrase, Stick to Your Ribs. Bonus: Visits from series regulars John Ray, Edmund Burke, and Louise Pound, plus our favorite stick to your ribs books. Also, mac-daddi-roni! Copyright 2025 All Rights Reserved

La phase finale d'atterrissage pour Bart De Wever est en cours. Pilote d'un vaisseau politique en turbulence, il s'apprête à devenir Premier ministre si tout se passe bien. Un personnage atypique, à la fois passionné par la Rome antique et philosophe conservateur, De Wever est un intellectuel avant tout. Inspiré par des figures comme l'empereur Auguste et le philosophe Edmund Burke, il défend une vision de la société qui rejette l'idée d'une nation européenne unifiée, insistant sur la solidarité seulement entre ceux qui se reconnaissent. Aujourd'hui, à un pas du pouvoir, il représente un grand écart inattendu : fils de Rik De Wever, qui haïssait la Belgique, Bart semble prêt à prendre les rênes du gouvernement fédéral. Mais ce n'est pas un poste qu'il convoitait. Pendant des années, il a préféré rester à la tête de son parti, la N-VA, en visant l'indépendance de la Flandre. Loin d'être un homme politique traditionnel, il a su cultiver son image en dehors des arcanes du pouvoir, se rendant populaire à travers ses interventions publiques et ses livres. Aujourd'hui, après 12 ans à la tête d'Anvers, il fait face à un défi majeur : gérer le pouvoir fédéral. Son succès à la ville, avec une gestion rigoureuse, pourrait servir de modèle, mais le contexte est radicalement différent. S'il semble avoir mûri politiquement, renonçant à une radicalité passée, il devra maintenant convaincre les francophones, qui lui font souvent défaut. Le défi reste immense, avec des négociations difficiles pour former un gouvernement, tout en portant le poids de l'histoire et de ses choix politiques passés. Un moment crucial se dessine, où son approche, ni trop radicale ni trop modérée, pourrait bien décider de son avenir à la tête de la Belgique. Merci pour votre écoute Les coulisses du Pouvoir c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine vers 7h40 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Les coulisses du Pouvoir sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/11443 Retrouvez tous les contenus de la RTBF sur notre plateforme Auvio.beRetrouvez également notre offre info ci-dessous :Le Monde en Direct : https://audmns.com/TkxEWMELes Clés : https://audmns.com/DvbCVrHLe Tournant : https://audmns.com/moqIRoC5 Minutes pour Comprendre : https://audmns.com/dHiHssrLes couleurs de l'info : https://audmns.com/MYzowgwMatin Première : https://audmns.com/aldzXlmEt ses séquences-phares : L'Invité Politique : https://audmns.com/LNCogwP L'humour de Matin Première : https://audmns.com/tbdbwoQTransversales : notre collection de reportages infos longue forme : https://audmns.com/WgqwiUpN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

The success of the classical education movement continues to generate headlines in major publications and the support among parents hoping to see better educational options for their students continues to grow. As the number of classical schools continues to increase, whether they are charter schools, independent private, or parochial schools, people are now debating the extent to which, if any, classical education is (or should be) aligned with a political tradition and affiliation.Classical educators say they are offering a traditional liberal arts education–does that make classical education liberal? Classical educators say they are conserving the intellectual inheritance of the Western tradition–does that make classical education “conservative” in the Edmund Burke valued tradition, a sense of place, and one's intellectual inheritance?Could a content-rich education rooted in the great books of the Western canon, books that molded the minds of the Founding Fathers and history's greatest thinkers and leaders, produce a new generation who may cultivate the same opinions and values as such leaders concerning suspicion of government power, individual rights and freedoms based on the imago dei, and a regard for the truth, virtue, and liberty? This panel is intended to investigate these questions and the extent to which classical education is conservative and where along the conservative tradition we may find such principles. Jenna Robinson (Ph.D) is the president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal in Raleigh, NC. Jake Noland (Ph.D) serves as the Dean of Faculty at St. Thomas More Academy in Raleigh, North Carolina. Robert Luddy is the president of CaptiveAire Systems and the founder of Thales Academy. This panel was delivered live at the Fall Classical Summit, a regional classical conference held at Thales Academy Rolesville Junior High-High School on October 4, 2024. Interested in teaching at Thales Academy? Please check out our website if you are interested in pursuing a career at Thales Academy and learning about needs across our network. Find out more at https://www.thalesacademy.org/contact/careers.

POTUS; "Great Necessities call out great virtues." Edmund Burke. The rise of a hero in POTUS Trump, or not. "He's got to earn it." @ThadMcCotter @theamgreatness 1918 TR with his great-granddaughter, Edith.

As Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is wont to do, here is yet another episode exploring the political and philosophical brilliance of Edmund Burke.  But this time he is aided by scholar and professor Daniel Klein to examine the late writings of Burke's life as Europe was descending into revolutionary chaos.  What was Burke's understanding of liberty and natural rights, and how did it differ from many of his more radical contemporaries?  How did Burke distinguish between reforms that were constructive or destructive, and why did he seem so reluctant to use them in some circumstances and so adamant they should be employed in others?  In what way did Burke inspire his audience to reinvigorate the “magic” of their world?  And how might all this be applied to the politics of today?   About Daniel Klein Daniel Klein is a Professor of Economics and JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center, George Mason University. He leads the Adam Smith Program at GMU Economics and is the chief editor of Econ Journal Watch. Dr. Klein holds degrees from George Mason University and New York University, where in both cases he studied the classical liberal traditions of economics. His teaching focuses on economic principles and public policy issues.   Professor Klein has published research on policy issues including toll roads, urban transit, auto emission, credit reporting, and the Food and Drug Administration. He has also written on spontaneous order, the discovery of opportunity, the demand and supply of assurance, why government officials believe in the goodness of bad policy, and the relationship between liberty, dignity, and responsibility.   Klein is the author of Smithian Morals, Central Notions of Smithian Liberalism, and Knowledge and Coordination: A Liberal Interpretation, as well as coauthor of Curb Rights: A Foundation for Free Enterprise in Urban Transit, editor of Reputation: Studies in the Voluntary Elicitation of Good Conduct, editor of What Do Economists Contribute?, and coeditor of Edmund Burke and the Perennial Battle, 1789–1797 and three volumes on Classical Liberalism by Country.  

durée : 00:58:13 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Antoine Ravon - Le conservatisme britannique se distingue par une tradition singulière incarnée par Edmund Burke, penseur irlandais du 18e siècle. Quelle est exactement sa pensée ? Qui sont ses héritiers, Michael Oakeshott et Roger Scruton ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Françoise Orazi Maître de conférence en civilisation britannique à l'université Lumière Lyon-2; Laetitia Strauch-Bonart Journaliste, essayiste ; Philippe Raynaud Professeur émérite de science politique à l'université Panthéon-Assas, membre de l'Institut universitaire de France

Send us a textThe FTGN Merch Store is Live!! Help Support the site with official FTGN Gear!Joe Byerly sits down with Furman Daniel, author of Blood, Mud, and Oil Paint: The Remarkable Year That Made Winston Churchill. Together, they explore a transformative year in Churchill's life—a time of political humiliation, personal reinvention, and the development of five life-changing gifts, including painting, friendship, and a modern perspective on warfare. Furman shares how Churchill's resilience and adaptability during his darkest days laid the foundation for his iconic leadership during World War II.This conversation is packed with timeless insights on failure, perseverance, and finding restoration through personal passions, offering applicable lessons for leaders at all levels:Failure is a springboard for future success.Creative outlets restore energy and focus.Genuine friendships are invaluable during tough times.Presence builds trust and respect as a leader.Confidence balanced with humility fosters growth.Perseverance leads to breakthroughs over time.Stepping back provides clarity and perspective.Lifelong learning is essential for great leadership.And more!Join Joe and Furman for an inspiring discussion on turning setbacks into triumphs and what it means to stay in the fight when the odds are against you.Dr. John Furman Daniel III is an associate professor of political science at Concordia University. He has authored numerous publications on international relations theory, the influence of fiction on foreign policy decision-making, Edmund Burke, Carl von Clausewitz, George Patton, technology diffusion, space colonization and home-field advantage in Major League Baseball. His four books are 21st Century Patton: Strategic Insights for the Modern Era (2016), The First Space War: How Patterns of History and Principles of STEM Will Shape Its Form (2019), Patton: Battling with History (2020) and Blood, Mud and Oil Paint: The Remarkable Year that Made Winston Churchill (2024).A special thanks to this week's sponsors!Veteran-founded Adyton. Step into the next generation of equipment management with Log-E by Adyton. Whether you are doing monthly inventories or preparing for deployment, Log-E is your pocket property book, giving real-time visibility into equipment status and mission readiness. Learn more about how Log-E can revolutionize your property tracking process here!Exray a veteran-owned apparel brand elevating the custom gear experience. Exray provides free design services and creates dedicated web stores for unitsMy favorite coffee is veteran-owned Alpha Coffee and I've been drinking it every morning since 2020! They make 100% premium arabica coffee. Alpha has donated over 22k bags of coffee to deployed units and they offer a 10% discount for military veterans, first responders, nurses, and teachers! Try their coffee today. Once you taste the Alpha difference, you won't want to drink anything else!  Learn more here

Podcasts, reviews, interviews, essays, and more at the Ancillary Review of Books.Please consider supporting ARB's Patreon!Credits:Guest: Jon GreenawayTitle: Melmoth by Sarah PerryHost: Jake Casella BrookinsMusic by Giselle Gabrielle GarciaArtwork by Rob PattersonOpening poem by Bhartṛhari, translated by John BroughReferences:Jon's latest books: Capitalism: A Horror Story and A Primer On Utopian PhilosophyEdgar Allen PoeFredric Jameson's The Years of TheorySally Rooney's IntermezzoRoberto Bolaño's The Savage DetectivesNapoleon Dynamite, dir. Jared HessCarmen Maria Machado, George SaundersLeyna Krow's Sinkhole, and Other Inexplicable VoidsCharles Maturin's Melmoth the WandererPerry's The Essex Serpent and EnlightenmentPerry's essay on writing while in pain/on painkillersGoethe's Faust, Dante's Inferno, the myth of the Wandering JewMatthew Lewis's The MonkHorace Walpole's The Castle of OtrantoChina Mieville's idea of anti-fantasyMark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves“participatory anthropology”Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and BeautifulWagner's ParsifalGod's Not Dead, dir. Harold CronkHeidegger's idea of thrownness (Geworfenheit)Philosophical theories of “the gift” and “impossible exchange”Christopher Priest's The PrestigeRoberto Bolaño's 2666Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s Slaughterhouse-FiveVajra Chandrasekera's Rakesfall and The Saint of Bright DoorsPremee Mohamed's The Siege of Burning GrassHorror VanguardJon's Blog & Substack

Recorded November 26th, 2024. The Trinity Long Room Hub is delighted to welcome author and columnist Fintan O'Toole to present the 2024 Edmund Burke Lecture, 'Terror and Self-Pity: The Reactionary Sublime', which is supported by a generous endowment in honour of Padraic Fallon by his family. Fintan O'Toole is an author and columnist. His books include We Don't Know Ourselves: A Personal History of Ireland Since 1958, Heroic Failure: Brexit and the Politics of Pain, and Ship of Fools: How Stupidity and Corruption Sank the Celtic Tiger. A member of the Royal Irish Academy, he is a winner of the European Press Prize and the Orwell Prize for political writing. He is also Professor of Irish Letters at Princeton University. About the Annual Edmund Burke Lectures Edmund Burke (1729-1797) graduated from Trinity College Dublin in 1748. As a student he founded what would later become the College Historical Society, the oldest student society in the world. Burke entered Parliament in 1765 and quickly became a champion for political emancipation. After 1789, he directed his attention to the French Revolution and its immediate ramifications for political stability in England. To mark the university's deep and lasting connection, and to express the inspiration his life and work as a public intellectual offer to us, the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts and Humanities Research Institute has instituted a prestigious annual Edmund Burke lecture, delivered by a leading public intellectual of our time on a topic that engages with the challenges facing us today. One of Burke's central and life-long concerns was what moral codes should underpin the social order, constrain the use of power and inform our behaviour as responsible citizens. This is as important today as it was in Burke's time, and the Edmund Burke lectures will keep his manifold legacies alive by providing a prominent forum for contributing in his spirit to the wider discourse about what society we want to live in and what traditions, perspectives and values we need to draw on in the shaping of our future. Learn more at www/tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub

A.E.I.'s Yuval Levin discusses Trump's mandate (or lack thereof), building coalitions, and how the classic divide between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine remains relevant.

Send us a textSee them first and reach out and connect to my ministry and help me to continue to make and share great FREE Biblical content by supporting my ministry at | PatreonEpisode Notes: Edmund Burke and the Conservatism of Order and Virtue.Welcome to this week's special bonus episode, where I walk and talk my musing on the thoughts of Edmund Burke and his seminal work, "Reflections on the Revolution in France" from 1790. Navigating Burke's non-linear prose and archaic language can be a challenge, but the journey reveals some useful insights into conservatism, morality, and societal order. Recorded live at Lytham Hall in Lancashire on a walk and talk with my Labrador "Ella" around the grounds and gardens of this lovely manor house built at the same time Burke first became an elected member of the British Parliament.Contents:Burke's Background and Influences:Born in 1729 in Dublin, Burke's upbringing, with a Protestant father and Catholic mother, shaped his diverse perspective. Initially involved in law, he later embraced literature and philosophy, catching the attention of literary giant Samuel Johnson. His foray into national politics in the 1760s marked the beginning of a three-decade career in the House of Commons.Key Ideas from "Reflections on the Revolution in France" (1790):Burke's critique of the French Revolution centered on its perceived destruction of societal fabric and traditional institutions, notably the mistreatment of the Church. His famous quote, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," underscores individual moral responsibility against wrongdoing.Burke's Conservatism:Although Burke never explicitly used the term "conservative" in his time, his principles became foundational for modern conservatism. HReligious and Moral Foundations:Burke's worldview was deeply rooted in a divine order, viewing history as the unfolding of God's will. He saw religion as a source of moral strength and emphasized the role of traditions in shaping character and guiding behaviour.Skepticism Towards Ambitious Schemes:Burke's skepticism extended to ambitious government plans, as seen in his critique of the French Revolution's pursuit of a uniform system. He valued the English system, emphasizing its finely tuned rights and balanced evolution across centuries.Consent of the Governed and Living Contract:Contrary to Locke and Hobbes, Burke dismissed the idea of starting politically from scratch. He viewed society as a living contract inherited from ancestors, emphasizing the responsibility to preserve this heritage for future generations. Burke's criticism of the French Revolution went beyond politics; it reflected his belief in the flawed nature of humans. His Christian perspective valued the preservation of moral and social traditions, aligning with the notion of original sin.Burke's Caution on the idea of Freedom:Burke cautioned against unrestrained freedom, emphasizing the need for order, stability, and shared values. His skepticism toward unbridled free speech reflects a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between individual liberties and societal order. As I muse on Burke's ideas, I think they offer some valuable insights into the ongoing debates on governance, tradition, and societal evolution. His emphasis on praSupport the showJeremy McCandless is creating podcasts and devotional resources | PatreonHelp us continue making great content for listeners everywhere.https://thebibleproject.buzzsprout.com

Our increasingly reactionary political environment doesn't lend itself to nuanced, patient understanding of events like the 2024 re-election of Donald Trump. What historical and philosophical resources can help us gain insight and wisdom? How can we successfully know and encounter each other in such a divided society? In this episode, Mark Labberton welcomes David Brooks (columnist, New York Times) for reflections about the 2024 General Election, the state of American politics, and how we got here. Together they discuss the multi-generational class divide; sources of alienation and distrust; how loss of faith and meaning influences political life; intellectual virtues of courage, firmness, humility, and flexibility; what it means to be a Republican in exile; the capacity for self-awareness and self-critique; and much more. About David Brooks David Brooks is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. His latest book is How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen (Random House, 2023). He is also the author of The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement, and founder of Weave: The Social Fabric Project. Show Notes A spiritual or emotional crisis we're working out in American politics Should we blame inflation and economic factors? (Biden's Covid-19 overstimulation) Class divide is a generational thing High-school-educated voters are increasingly alienated from the Democratic Party Alienation and distrust is a multi-decade process Loss of Faith, Loss of Meaning, and the “Death of God” An exiled Republican “Confessions of a Republican Exile” (via The Atlantic): ”A longtime conservative, alienated by Trumpism, tries to come to terms with life on the moderate edge of the Democratic Party.” “I'm a Whig.” (”Abraham Lincoln was a Whig.”) Edmund Burke and epistemological modesty—”don't revolutionize something you don't understand.” You should operate on society in the way you operate on your father, with care. Alexander Hamilton Whig tradition is unrepresented in contemporary American politics How David Brooks waffles between Democrat and Republican Isaiah Berlin: “At the rightward edge of the leftward tendency.” “The capacity for self-critique Matt Yglesias Humble, introspective, and “how did we get so out of touch?” Racism and sexism are not what's driving Trump voters “In my opinion, Donald Trump is wrong answer to the right question.” Mark Noll and America's use of the Bible: un-self-aware and un-self-critical Why is there more capacity for self-critique on the Democratic Jonathan Rauch and “Epistemic Regime”: includes media, universities, scientific research, review process, etc. “There's still a core of people who believe ‘if the evidence says x, you should say y.'” “The greatest victory in the history of the world.” Intellectual Virtues: Courage, Firmness, Flexibility “Reality is constantly going to surprise you.” 1980s Republicanism was more intellectually sophisticated Conservative book publishing *Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change* by Jonah Goldberg How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen by David Brooks “The Stacking Stereotype” “A redistribution of respect” (away from large swaths of America and to elites) “The flow of status and respect in this country has gone to people with elite credentials.” “… almost no Trump supporters.” “If you tell 51% of the country ‘Your voices don't matter,' people are going to get upset.” America changing beneath us High level of spiritual and moral authority and low level of intellectual confidence The moral teaching of the New Testament “People are unitary wholes.” “I became a Christian around 2013.” “Jesus was more a badass revolutionary than an Oxford don.” C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien's Christianity “What it's like to be in the claustrophobic mind of a narcissist.” Aggression: a joyless way to see the faith What is needed? “I was a 50-year-old atheist.” Chris Wiman (My Bright Abyss: Meditations of a Modern Believer): materialistic categories couldn't explain the world “If they made me pope of the evangelicals, which is a job that makes me shudder…” “Be not afraid.” “The world just loves a human being that's trying to act like Jesus.” David Brooks's teaching at Yale The Long Loneliness: The Autobiography of the Legendary Catholic Social Activist by Dorothy Day Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.

hom Hartmann is an American radio personality, author, former psychotherapist, businessman, and progressive political commentator, whose talk show has been rated in the top 10 shows for over a decade by Talkers Magazine. His most recent book is “The Hidden History of the American Dream?” America, primarily thanks to FDR and unionization, was a catapult for the middle class until the early 1980s. The Reagan influence of Neoliberal economics contributed to the decentralization of regulations, race to the bottom, union busting and globalization for cheaper wages. The National Relations Labor Act legalizing unions was some of the most substantive legislation supported by FDR.  Five suggestions to reactivate the American Dream: 1) encourage unionization and National Labor Relations Act; 2: raise top income bracket for the rich; 3) raise top corporate income tax to reduce bogus tax deductions; 4) reestablish inheritance tax; and,  5) guarantee social safety movement with health insurance.

To je možné u nás ukázat na nedávném setkání politiků s názvem Konzervativní kemp, kterého se zúčastnili zástupci SPD, Stačilo!, ANO i ODS – ač s ideály konzervativců jako byli Edmund Burke či Roger Scruton neměli nic společného. O setkání už psal Martin Fendrych, pojmenuji tedy jen změny, které takové setkání umožňují, a poukáži na to, jak komplikují občanům rozhodování a účast ve volbách.

To je možné u nás ukázat na nedávném setkání politiků s názvem Konzervativní kemp, kterého se zúčastnili zástupci SPD, Stačilo!, ANO i ODS – ač s ideály konzervativců jako byli Edmund Burke či Roger Scruton neměli nic společného. O setkání už psal Martin Fendrych, pojmenuji tedy jen změny, které takové setkání umožňují, a poukáži na to, jak komplikují občanům rozhodování a účast ve volbách.Všechny díly podcastu Názory a argumenty můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

HERE ARE 10 REASONS WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD VOTE:Voting publicly recognises that we submit to the authority of the political system in our nation as established by God. (Romans 13:1-7)Voting recognises the equality of all people and their right to speak and be heard. (Deuteronomy 10:17-19)It is one way that we can obey God's command to seek the good of those around us and our nation as a whole. (Jeremiah 29:5-6) It shows that we care deeply about who our leaders are as we are urged to offer prayer and intercession on their behalf. (1 Timothy 2:1,2) It is a simple yet significant way we can do something about politics in our nation. 'All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing', Edmund Burke. (Psalms 34:14)It makes a difference the way a grain of salt makes a difference, and that is how we are to influence our society for good. (Matthew 5:13)It is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracyNot voting is a form of voting, as it will influence the outcome. We need to take responsibility for our actions, as well as our lack of actions. (Luke 10:25-37)Voting has biblical precedence for example Acts 14:23 describes that the early Christians elected elders by voting.Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift.THE HISTORICAL ADAM Adam and Eve,In Genesis two and three. Are they just symbolic?Defending the existence of a founding human pair that lived only a few thousand years ago. population genetics.Theological anthropology Both modern theologians and modern scientists are arguing that a historical Adam and Eve might have been real, not merely figurative, or metaphorical ancestors of the human race.  Modern science in the area of genomics and paleo archeology are fueling debates on the “historical” Adam and Eve and whether such an original human couple truly existed or whether the Adam and Eve we read of in Genesis are only figurative representations of how the human race originated.  modern genetics paleo archeology  are now coming to bear on the biblical narrative of Genesis.  Was there a single, founding couple, or is the human race the result of evolutionary processes where humans evolved from prior hominid lifeforms? Did humanity originate with an original human pair, Adam and Eve, or did humans evolve from a progression of early hominins?  Surprisingly, a vast majority of people of faith do not give much thought or concern into the inquiry of whether the human race began with a literal Adam and Eve. This is changing, however, as the issue has garnered increased attention from scientists and theologians alike as modern science is probing further and deeper to provide greater understanding of human population genetics from clues found in the modern human gene pool. Employing a sort of reverse engineering, paleo archeologists are studying the modern human gene pool to trace back to the origins of the human bloodline, even to an original human pair.For Christians today the issue may be as important as the debate regarding the theory of evolution was in the early twentieth century as several fundamental Christian doctrines are brought to bear from the doctrine of the mankind's fall from grace in Eden to the doctrine of original sin where sin passed down to all men and women on account of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Modern evolutionary theory has long been a constant point of tension with biblical creationism and the question of whether there existed a literal original human pair is a natural extension of the creation-evolution debate.   

In this episode of the Podcast for Cultural Reformation, we continue our series on Christianity & Politics; Dr. Joe Boot is joined by Ezra Fellow for International Law, Comparative Politics, and International Relations, Prof. Dan Ogden, J.D., to discuss national conservatism, its Christian roots, its strengths and weaknesses and whether or not it's biblical. Episode Resources: Collected Works of Edmund Burke: https://www.amazon.ca/Collected-Works-Edmund-Burke-ebook/dp/B00FL2FH82; National Conservatism Overview: https://nationalconservatism.org/about; National Conservatism Statement of Principles: https://nationalconservatism.org/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles; "National Conservatism and Its Discontents": https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/national-conservatism-and-its-discontents; "National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism": https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/national-conservatism-freedom-conservatism-and-americanism; Edmund Burke Foundation: https://burke.foundation.Think Christianly about politics with the help of Dr. Boot's latest book "Ruler of Kings": https://ezrapress.ca/products/ruler-of-kings-toward-a-christian-vision-of-government; CHAPTERS:0:00 Opening0:43 Intro01:04 Welcome02:30 The Importance of Developing a Christian View of Politics07:35 The Difference Between Political Philosophy and Public Policy12:05 Why Do Christians Tend Not to Engage in Public Policy? 14:55 Upcoming Mission of God Conferences & Other Events16:28 Politics: The Art of the Possible - From Theory to Application17:00 The Problem of Statism: Defining the Beast20:29 The Structure and Direction of the State22:36 National Conservatism (NC): What is it?23:23 NC's Basic Idea of Nation28:13 Not All Nations are Equal29:13 Nationhood as Covenant33:15 Covenant & Conservatism34:13 Ruler of Kings AD35:15 What is Conservatism?38:06 Burkian Conservatism41:09 Our Own Radically Rousseauian Revolution44:43 The Political Binary: The Sovereignty of God or the Sovereignty of Man46:15 The Principles of National Conservatism 48:11 National Conservatism: The Movement56:23 Foreign Policy: NC Realism vs. Liberalism01:00:16 The Newest Boogeyman: Project 202501:04:25 Sphere Sovereignty & Political Liberty01:12:25 Dan's Closing Remarks01:14:39 Conclusion01:15:23 Outro UPCOMING CONFERENCES:Join us this October 31- November 2 @ The Presence of Christ Conference at Trinity Bible Chapel in Kitchener/Waterloo: https://mytrinitybiblechapel.churchcenter.com/registrations/events/2343549;The Mission of God Conferences: UK | Sat, 2 Nov 2024 10:00 - 17:30 GMT @ Birmingham City Centre: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/mission-of-god-conference-2024-tickets-932486039847; Canada - Ontario | Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, 9:00 EST @ Harvest Bible Church Windsor: https://brushfire.com/ezrainstitute/missionofgod2024-ontario/587020/details; Alberta | Saturday, Dec. 7, 2024, 9:00 MST@ Fairview Baptist Church: https://brushfire.com/ezrainstitute/missionofgod2024-alberta/587306.The WAIT is OVER!!! Pre-order your copy of the NEW updated and expanded version of Dr. Boot's Mission of God with a brand-new study guide! Get it here: https://ezrapress.ca/products/mission-of-god-10th-anniversary-edition; Got Questions? Would you like to hear Dr. Boot answer your questions? Let us know in the comments or reach out to us at https://www.ezrainstitute.com/connect/contact/; For Ezra's many print resources and to join our newsletter, visit: https://ezrapress.com. Stay up-to-date with all things Ezra Institute: https://www.ezrainstitute.com;Subscribe to Ezra's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPVvQDHHrOOjziyqUaN9VoA?sub_confirmation=1;Fight Laugh Feast Network: https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/tabs/audio/podcasts/8297;Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ezra-institute-podcast-for-cultural-reformation/id1336078503;Spotify Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/0dW1gDarpzdrDMLPjKYZW2?si=bee3e91ed9a54885. Wherever you find our content, please like, subscribe, rate, or review it; it truly does help.

In this episode of the Podcast for Cultural Reformation, we continue our series on Christianity & Politics; Dr. Joe Boot is joined by Ezra Fellow for International Law, Comparative Politics, and International Relations, Prof. Dan Ogden, J.D., to discuss national conservatism, its Christian roots, its strengths and weaknesses and whether or not it's biblical. Episode Resources: Collected Works of Edmund Burke: https://www.amazon.ca/Collected-Works-Edmund-Burke-ebook/dp/B00FL2FH82; National Conservatism Overview: https://nationalconservatism.org/about; National Conservatism Statement of Principles: https://nationalconservatism.org/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles; "National Conservatism and Its Discontents": https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/national-conservatism-and-its-discontents; "National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism": https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/national-conservatism-freedom-conservatism-and-americanism; Edmund Burke Foundation: https://burke.foundation.Think Christianly about politics with the help of Dr. Boot's latest book "Ruler of Kings": https://ezrapress.ca/products/ruler-of-kings-toward-a-christian-vision-of-government; CHAPTERS:0:00 Opening0:43 Intro01:04 Welcome02:30 The Importance of Developing a Christian View of Politics07:35 The Difference Between Political Philosophy and Public Policy12:05 Why Do Christians Tend Not to Engage in Public Policy? 14:55 Upcoming Mission of God Conferences & Other Events16:28 Politics: The Art of the Possible - From Theory to Application17:00 The Problem of Statism: Defining the Beast20:29 The Structure and Direction of the State22:36 National Conservatism (NC): What is it?23:23 NC's Basic Idea of Nation28:13 Not All Nations are Equal29:13 Nationhood as Covenant33:15 Covenant & Conservatism34:13 Ruler of Kings AD35:15 What is Conservatism?38:06 Burkian Conservatism41:09 Our Own Radically Rousseauian Revolution44:43 The Political Binary: The Sovereignty of God or the Sovereignty of Man46:15 The Principles of National Conservatism 48:11 National Conservatism: The Movement56:23 Foreign Policy: NC Realism vs. Liberalism01:00:16 The Newest Boogeyman: Project 202501:04:25 Sphere Sovereignty & Political Liberty01:12:25 Dan's Closing Remarks01:14:39 Conclusion01:15:23 Outro UPCOMING CONFERENCES:Join us this October 31- November 2 @ The Presence of Christ Conference at Trinity Bible Chapel in Kitchener/Waterloo: https://mytrinitybiblechapel.churchcenter.com/registrations/events/2343549;The Mission of God Conferences: UK | Sat, 2 Nov 2024 10:00 - 17:30 GMT @ Birmingham City Centre: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/mission-of-god-conference-2024-tickets-932486039847; Canada - Ontario | Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, 9:00 EST @ Harvest Bible Church Windsor: https://brushfire.com/ezrainstitute/missionofgod2024-ontario/587020/details; Alberta | Saturday, Dec. 7, 2024, 9:00 MST@ Fairview Baptist Church: https://brushfire.com/ezrainstitute/missionofgod2024-alberta/587306.The WAIT is OVER!!! Pre-order your copy of the NEW updated and expanded version of Dr. Boot's Mission of God with a brand-new study guide! Get it here: https://ezrapress.ca/products/mission-of-god-10th-anniversary-edition; Got Questions? Would you like to hear Dr. Boot answer your questions? Let us know in the comments or reach out to us at https://www.ezrainstitute.com/connect/contact/; For Ezra's many print resources and to join our newsletter, visit: https://ezrapress.com. Stay up-to-date with all things Ezra Institute: https://www.ezrainstitute.com;Subscribe to Ezra's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPVvQDHHrOOjziyqUaN9VoA?sub_confirmation=1;Fight Laugh Feast Network: https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/tabs/audio/podcasts/8297;Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ezra-institute-podcast-for-cultural-reformation/id1336078503;Spotify Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/0dW1gDarpzdrDMLPjKYZW2?si=bee3e91ed9a54885. Wherever you find our content, please like, subscribe, rate, or review it; it truly does help.

In this episode of the Podcast for Cultural Reformation, we continue our series on Christianity & Politics; Dr. Joe Boot is joined by Ezra Fellow for International Law, Comparative Politics, and International Relations, Prof. Dan Ogden, J.D., to discuss national conservatism, its Christian roots, its strengths and weaknesses and whether or not it's biblical. Episode Resources: Collected Works of Edmund Burke: https://www.amazon.ca/Collected-Works-Edmund-Burke-ebook/dp/B00FL2FH82; National Conservatism Overview: https://nationalconservatism.org/about; National Conservatism Statement of Principles: https://nationalconservatism.org/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles; "National Conservatism and Its Discontents": https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/national-conservatism-and-its-discontents; "National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism": https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/national-conservatism-freedom-conservatism-and-americanism; Edmund Burke Foundation: https://burke.foundation.Think Christianly about politics with the help of Dr. Boot's latest book "Ruler of Kings": https://ezrapress.ca/products/ruler-of-kings-toward-a-christian-vision-of-government; CHAPTERS:0:00 Opening0:43 Intro01:04 Welcome02:30 The Importance of Developing a Christian View of Politics07:35 The Difference Between Political Philosophy and Public Policy12:05 Why Do Christians Tend Not to Engage in Public Policy? 14:55 Upcoming Mission of God Conferences & Other Events16:28 Politics: The Art of the Possible - From Theory to Application17:00 The Problem of Statism: Defining the Beast20:29 The Structure and Direction of the State22:36 National Conservatism (NC): What is it?23:23 NC's Basic Idea of Nation28:13 Not All Nations are Equal29:13 Nationhood as Covenant33:15 Covenant & Conservatism34:13 Ruler of Kings AD35:15 What is Conservatism?38:06 Burkian Conservatism41:09 Our Own Radically Rousseauian Revolution44:43 The Political Binary: The Sovereignty of God or the Sovereignty of Man46:15 The Principles of National Conservatism 48:11 National Conservatism: The Movement56:23 Foreign Policy: NC Realism vs. Liberalism01:00:16 The Newest Boogeyman: Project 202501:04:25 Sphere Sovereignty & Political Liberty01:12:25 Dan's Closing Remarks01:14:39 Conclusion01:15:23 Outro UPCOMING CONFERENCES:Join us this October 31- November 2 @ The Presence of Christ Conference at Trinity Bible Chapel in Kitchener/Waterloo: https://mytrinitybiblechapel.churchcenter.com/registrations/events/2343549;The Mission of God Conferences: UK | Sat, 2 Nov 2024 10:00 - 17:30 GMT @ Birmingham City Centre: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/mission-of-god-conference-2024-tickets-932486039847; Canada - Ontario | Saturday, Nov. 30, 2024, 9:00 EST @ Harvest Bible Church Windsor: https://brushfire.com/ezrainstitute/missionofgod2024-ontario/587020/details; Alberta | Saturday, Dec. 7, 2024, 9:00 MST@ Fairview Baptist Church: https://brushfire.com/ezrainstitute/missionofgod2024-alberta/587306.The WAIT is OVER!!! Pre-order your copy of the NEW updated and expanded version of Dr. Boot's Mission of God with a brand-new study guide! Get it here: https://ezrapress.ca/products/mission-of-god-10th-anniversary-edition; Got Questions? Would you like to hear Dr. Boot answer your questions? Let us know in the comments or reach out to us at https://www.ezrainstitute.com/connect/contact/; For Ezra's many print resources and to join our newsletter, visit: https://ezrapress.com. Stay up-to-date with all things Ezra Institute: https://www.ezrainstitute.com;Subscribe to Ezra's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPVvQDHHrOOjziyqUaN9VoA?sub_confirmation=1;Fight Laugh Feast Network: https://pubtv.flfnetwork.com/tabs/audio/podcasts/8297;Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ezra-institute-podcast-for-cultural-reformation/id1336078503;Spotify Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/0dW1gDarpzdrDMLPjKYZW2?si=bee3e91ed9a54885. Wherever you find our content, please like, subscribe, rate, or review it; it truly does help.

Welcome to the Paint The Medical Picture Podcast, created and hosted by Sonal Patel, CPMA, CPC, CMC, ICD-10-CM. Thanks to all of you for making this a Top 15 Podcast for 3 Years: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blog.feedspot.com/medical_billing_and_coding_podcasts/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Sonal's 13th Season starts up and Episode 3 features a Newsworthy update on the new 2025 CPT® code set. Sonal's Trusty Tip and compliance recommendations on the Supplemental Medical Review Contractor (SMRC). Spark inspires us all to reflect on insight and wisdom based on the inspirational words of Edmund Burke. Thanks to HCPro®: Website:⁠ https://hcpro.com/ ⁠⁠Harvest September savings and your professional success with educational Boot Camps at: ⁠https://hcmarketplace.com/product-type/boot-camps ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Paint The Medical Picture Podcast now on: Spotify: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/6hcJAHHrqNLo9UmKtqRP3X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Apple Podcasts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/paint-the-medical-picture-podcast/id153044217⁠7⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Amazon Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bc6146d7-3d30-4b73-ae7f-d77d6046fe6a/paint-the-medical-picture-podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find Paint The Medical Picture Podcast on YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzNUxmYdIU_U8I5hP91Kk7A⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find Sonal on LinkedIn:⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonapate/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ And checkout the website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://paintthemedicalpicturepodcast.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you'd like to be a sponsor of the Paint The Medical Picture Podcast series, please contact Sonal directly for pricing: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PaintTheMedicalPicturePodcast@gmail.com --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/sonal-patel5/support

Send us a textEven though I hope you've been avoiding the election news like I have (as you would the plague), admittedly, it's hard to do. It's like someone is blasting it outside your window at 5 AM. Or like a billboard outside your front door that you can't help but see every time you step outside. Bummer.  Fortunately, AEI's wonderful Yuval Levin joins us today to talk about the remedy to the plight of election season and America's recent malaise (not to echo Jimmy Carter…): the American constitution. Now, I know, you might be rolling your eyes and thinking “Those classical liberals are at it again, always talking about the founding…” But seriously. Remembering and embracing the spirit upon which America was founded—one of intellectual and political dynamism—is key to striking the balance between life, politics, and disagreement that has felt so off-kilter recently. Levin is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at AEI, as well as the founder and editor of National Affairs. He recently released the book American Covenant, which we are talking about today. Join us today for a livelier, timelier version of what you learned in your 7th-grade civics class. Want to explore more?How the Constitution Can Bring us Together, an EconTalk podcast with Yuval Levin.Yuval Levin on a Time to Build, an EconTalk podcast.Darren Staloff on the American Founding, a Great Antidote podcast.Christy Lynn Horpedahl, A Skeptic's Guide to the Perfect Commonwealth, at Speaking of Smith.Understanding Jefferson: Slavery, Race, and the Declaration of Independence, a Liberty Matters Forum at the Online Library of Liberty.Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

"...The first and the simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind is curiosity..."This week, I'm reading a quote from On the Sublime and Beautiful by Edmund Burke, published in 1756.Reflection questions:What is your personality like:  do you prefer the new and novel or the familiar and dependable?What do you think your donor base needs right now?  And, based on what you know about your personality, are you willing to step outside your comfort zone to adapt to your donors' needs? Reflection on Quote:In my work reviewing materials from fund development professionals, I often see two ends of the spectrum.  Either the work is completely new - every story, every word, every way to invite the donor to join in the mission is new.  On the other end the work is recycled year after year - the same story, the same words, the same call to action.  Honestly, there are times where either one of those is appropriate - the new and the novel or the recycled and the dependable. We are, our donors are, naturally curious.  We want to know the new, novel information, novel stories about the work we are supporting.  For this reason, we start with blank screens to write fundraising letters, we brainstorm new events, and we gather new stories from our constituents. Yet, as Burke states, curiosity and novelty doesn't bind us or our donors to a mission.  For that reason, we also need to remind ourselves and our donors of the familiar stories.  This is why the same fundraising event can be hosted for decades and still be raising more funds each year.  It's why the same fundraising letter can continue to be successful.  And, it's why we can tell and retell our origin stories so effectively. It's a balance between the novel and the dependable.  As professionals, we have to be adaptable to our donors between those two ends of the spectrum - blending curiosity with the familiar.This work has entered the public domain.What do you think?To explore fundraising coaching deeper and to schedule an exploratory session, visit ServingNonprofits.com.Music credit: Woeisuhmebop

President Biden has stepped aside as a candidate, and as promised, we look at what's next from a variety of points of view.  Some Republicans, notably the Speaker, are claiming that the President should actually resign or step back under the 25th amendment. What would this mean? Meanwhile, we have a lot more in this early episode, including a reader's question on Barack Obama; another on Edmund Burke; a preview of an amazing EverScholar program; a preview of Biden's Supreme Court proposed reform; and more.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Regular readers of my blog know I took a course, Conservatism 101, from the Leadership Institute, which led me to read conservative literature I hadn't before: Edmund Burke, Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, Russell Kirk, and more. This reading came after I started reading and watching Milton Friedman, Julian Simon, Ayn Rand, and current followers of their work like Marian Tupy, Gale Pooley, and Alex Epstein. I had blogged about them after reading their works too. I began seeing relevance of their work to sustainability that I don't think even their fans appreciate.At a social event, I met a woman who works at the Cato Institute. I told her of what I was learning and invited her to talk about it. She said sustainability and the environment weren't her focus, but she could put me in touch with colleagues. She knew Jack Spencer from the Heritage Foundation.I share some of my background, generally left politics, but opening up to learning more from (podcast guest) Jonathan Haidt's work, then attending an event at the Trump Bedminster Golf Course, which led to learning about the Leadership Institute. There I took Conservatism 101, which led the above.Jack shares some of his background, also not starting on the political right, and how he applies the above to politics today, especially energy, regulation, subsidy, and the motivations of government employees and what he sees happen as they gain power.We don't reach the point of talking policy. I started to bring up the Spodek Method, but became so engrossed in Jack's sharing about nature, I followed up with it, especially wondering if he experienced environmentalists saying he didn't care. He clearly cares plenty about the environment.This conversation is different than nearly any I've heard on sustainability. I think you'll like it. My main flaw was my inexperience in talking about some topics so was tongue-tied at times.Jack's profile at Heritage Foundation Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Regular readers of my blog know I took a course, Conservatism 101, from the Leadership Institute, which led me to read conservative literature I hadn't before: Edmund Burke, Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek, Russell Kirk, and more. This reading came after I started reading and watching Milton Friedman, Julian Simon, Ayn Rand, and current followers of their work like Marian Tupy, Gale Pooley, and Alex Epstein. I had blogged about them after reading their works too. I began seeing relevance of their work to sustainability that I don't think even their fans appreciate.At a social event, I met a woman who works at the Cato Institute. I told her of what I was learning and invited her to talk about it. She said sustainability and the environment weren't her focus, but she could put me in touch with colleagues. She knew Nick Loris from when he worked at the Heritage Foundation. Now he works at C3 Solutions---the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions.I invited him to talk about our approaches to the environment, both our historical journeys and our philosophical views. We talked about first-principles approaches from a limited government, free market view.I haven't heard conversations like this one on sustainability. You'll hear genuine curiosity and learning.Nick's profile at C3 Solutions Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

One of the most prominent political philosophy scholars in America, Dr. Harvey C. Mansfield is the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he studies and teaches political philosophy. He has written on Edmund Burke and the nature of political parties, on Machiavelli and the invention of indirect government, in defense of a defensible liberalism and in favor of a Constitutional American political science. He has also written on the discovery and development of the theory of executive power, and has translated three books of Machiavelli's and (with Delba Winthrop) Tocqueville's Democracy in America. He has also published a book on manliness, as well as an introduction to Tocqueville. This lecture engages with the ideals of democracy and meritocracy through the lens of great political theorists. Highlighting democracy as both a form of government and an endpoint aiming for equality and freedom, the speaker delves into the intricacies of how aristocratic institutions can paradoxically serve as a means to achieve democratic ends. Visit the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government: https://constudies.nd.edu/ *** The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the University of Notre Dame, the College of Arts and Letters, or the Center for Citizenship and Constitutional Government. Recorded April 26, 2023 at the University of Notre Dame

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

The ocean and space and "Ode to Joy" are sublime, of course... but what about an excellent lentil soup?In a confusing twist of etymology, where one would expect "sub" to mean "below," in the word "sublime" it indicates something above or even beyond. We use it as a superlative, but a superlative of what?Edmund Burke argues that the experience of sublimity is related to fear in the extreme, even terror-- and  Immanuel Kant's not far from this understanding-- so when someone says the lentil soup they're eating is "sublime," are they just making a category mistake? This week, the HBS hosts dig into the concept of the sublime, and test the limits of not only our imagination and understanding, but also language itself.Full episode notes available at this link:https://hotelbarpodcast.com/podcast/episode-144-the-sublime-------------------If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Better yet, you can support this podcast by signing up to be one of our Patrons at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions!Follow us on Twitter/X @hotelbarpodcast, on Facebook, on TikTok, and subscribe to our YouTube channel!  

After a stint of episodes taking deep dives into obscure topics, Josh returns to some conservative first-principles by inviting long-time friend of the podcast Cal Davenport on for a wide-ranging discussion on whether or not the fusionist consensus is truly dead, why all the energy in the Right seems to be going towards the NatCons, what's leading to the rise of populism, how to repackage conservative ideas into digestible slogans, who belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of conservative thought, and how Edmund Burke factors into all of this.  Trigger warning for the Straussian listener: this episode gets a bit Burke-y.   About Cal Davenport Cal Davenport is a veteran podcaster and writer.  He has written for The Wasington Examiner, RedState, The Resurgent and more.  He has worked in Congress, for political campaigns, for think tanks, and in political consulting.  Cal received his M.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from Witten/Herdecke University.  You can follow Cal on Twitter @jcaldavenport  

In this episode, we are joined by Matt McManus to discuss his research into the history and philosophy of right-wing politics in his book The Political Right and Equality. We discuss the nature of conservatism as an irrationalist reaction to modernist ideas about human egalitarianism, the rhetorical strategies of the right, and the historical conditions under which moderate conservatism turns over into extremist fascist reaction. We pay special attention to Edmund Burke's aestheticization of politics and Joseph De Maistre's formula for presenting conservative ideology as punk-rock counterculture rather than the argumentatively weak status-quo apologia it really is. It pays to know your enemy, comrades.leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphil References:Matt McManus, The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back the Tide of Egalitarian Modernity (New York: Routledge, 2023).Matt McManus, “Liberal Socialism Now,” Aeon (2024). https://aeon.co/essays/the-case-for-liberal-socialism-in-the-21st-centuryMusic: “Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN

Cory Rosenke is an author, theologian, pastor, teacher, and coach who spent most of his childhood in the debilitating grip of poverty, isolation, and even homelessness. He found his reprieve by exploring the majestic but lonely mountain slopes of the Rocky Mountains, along with a walking stick, a book, and his faithful and beloved dog.  Cory's consistently curious mind was always asking the question “why,” especially in regard to human nature, and many of the books which captivated his attention were not the typical choices for young readers.   At the ages of eleven and twelve, Cory was eagerly exploring Laws and Republic by Plato, Ethics by Aristotle, and Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. He especially loved “Where I Lived, and What I Lived for,” by Henry David Thoreau, because Cory felt that it seemed to meet him where he was at. His early teen years found him exploring a new province (Alberta) and embarking on new literary adventures, including the diverse works of Sigmund Freud, Edmund Burke, Plutarch, and C. S. Lewis, just to name a few. Cory's recently published book is titled “The Magnetic Heart of God: Understanding the Five Cravings of Your Soul.” Today, Cory remains as inquisitive as ever, spending his days as he always has, reading, writing, exploring, shepherding, and forever watching and wondering. Cory shares much of his learned wisdom and insights and addresses many important questions regarding the heart and soul of humanity and human nature, including the proof that mankind has souls, how we can discover meaning and purpose in our lives, why people do what they do, why the world is falling apart, and what it means to be made in the image of God, and how we can reconnect with our soul.     Download this beautiful and uplifting episode which answers so many unanswered questions and gently unlocks the mystery of heart, soul, and human nature. You do NOT want to miss this! QUOTE: “Every being on Earth needs to know that their hearts are safe in the hands that hold them.” QUOTE: “You are a soul of intrinsic value.”  https://www.facebook.com/coryrosenkeministries/ https://twitter.com/CRosenke https://www.linkedin.com/in/cory-rosenke-824618b6/ https://www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Heart-God-Understanding-Cravings/dp/1636981828/  

Observing the French Revolution, British Member of Parliament, Edmund Burke, noted, “But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.” Over the past few weeks, our Wyoming Catholic College juniors have been considering the French Revolution with their professor Dr. Pavlos Papadopoulos.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Exploring the gap between law and its enforcement, we delve into cases like Robert Hur's handling of Joe Biden's documents, and the Supreme Court of Hawaii's constitutional interpretations. We question if our passive acceptance makes us complicit in these issues, echoing Edmund Burke's belief that evil triumphs when good people fail to act. It's a call to uphold justice.

Dennis and Julie have reached 100 episodes.  Dennis reflects on one's nature… are you a fighter… do you help the fighters?  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” …is a quote routinely attributed to Edmund Burke, falsely so.  The quote can be traced back to the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, who delivered an 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews and stated: “Let not anyone pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”  Thank God we all have different natures.  Other topics include: God's role in one's existence; outliers have a hard time finding a partner; know thyself; platitudes… the world is better with you in it; Julie shares an experience she had talking about God on a date; thinking about the big issues; how do doctor's not get grossed out; socialized medicine reduces respect for doctors; bad apples ruin it for the whole bunch; Dennis and Julie review Dennis' appearance on Piers Morgan with Cenk Uygur. Music: Straight to the Point c 2022Richard Friedman Music Publishing 100%Richard Friedman Writers 100%ASCAP (PRO)IPI128741568RichardFriedmanMusic.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses Monday, we got to wondering just who or what lives up to the description of "Iowa Stubborn" in Meredith Wilson's "Music Man": And we're so by God stubbornWe can stand touching nosesFor a week at a timeAnd never see eye to eye!Is it Trump, DeSantis, Haley—or the legions of lawyers waging endless lawfare against Trump? It's a trick question. Lucretia—the host for this week's episode—actually hails originally from Mason City, Iowa, which is the inspiration for "River City" in the Broadway play, which explains a lot about our Lucretia when you think about it.Anyway, John and Steve declare their picks if they were caucusgoers, but then the episode turns quickly to the latest frontiers of the lawfare against Trump, from which we have an inside perch of sorts: John is busy spending the weekend workng up an amicus brief for the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the case involving Colorado's attempt to ban Trump from the ballot on grounds he is an "insurrectionist." (Trump, not John.) And since the brief have to be turned in next Thursday for this fast-track case, it's very fresh in mind.We also consider the latest developments in other Trump cases, too. Did Trump's lawyers really claim that in fact he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue if he was back in the White House. (Short answer: No.) And what accounts for Hunter Biden's reversal of his refusal to submit to a House subpoena for a deposition? Has Texas first the first shot of a new rebellion by taking over part of the souther border? Has the Supreme Court signaled that enough is enough with rampant urban homelessness by granting cert in an appeal of lower court rulings that the homeless have 8th Amendment (that's right, 8th Amendment) rights to sleep on the streets wherever they want? (The Court had previously declined to hear this issue.)All that and our usual good cheer and raspberries, including the fact that we recorded on Edmund Burke's birthday. To paraphrase the great lyric from our title tune, "Oh, there's nothin' halfway/About the Whisky way we treat you/If we treat you/Which we may not do at all."