Podcasts about Great Society

Chris tackles the ‘Nilf' epidemic. 7 million prime-age men (24-54) not in the labor force, neither working nor looking, a tenth of their demographic, blaming decades of Great Society handouts turned narcotic, as he argued in his old Drug Pusher piece citing Cato Institute data. With three Nilfs for every unemployed job-seeker, he scoffs at Trump's factory revival dreams, noting these ‘long-termers, won't budge, fueled by a dysfunctional $7 trillion disability archipelago (SSDI, SSI, VA benefits, and more) that's spiked sevenfold since 1965. Markowski warns cutting benefits is political suicide; the fix starts with eighth-grade prep and grandfathering current Nilfs. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

There's an ongoing debate in Washington over whether the federal government should continue funding public news organizations like National Public Radio. President Donald Trump says he would like to strip federal funding from the outlets, calling it a waste of money.  Joining NY1's Errol Louis to discuss NPR and public broadcasting is journalist and author Steve Oney, the author of a new book: “On Air: The Triumph and Tumult of NPR.”  Together, they looked back on NPR's history, including its origins as part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program. They also touched on the many star reporters who helped bring NPR to the masses and how Ira Glass' “This American Life” transformed audio storytelling.  Join the conversation, weigh in on Twitter using the hashtag #NY1YouDecide or give us a call at 212-379-3440 and leave a message. Or send an email to YourStoryNY1@charter.com.

I have a soft spot for the Dirtbag Left now that I never used to have. Listening to them viciously destroy the Democratic Party scratches that itch. They were ahead of the curve, and the Democrats would have been better off not snuffing out the movement way back when.But snuff it out, we did. Back in 2016, I was in a Facebook group devoted to doing nothing but hating on the “Bernie bros.” I spent too much of my precious time trying to stop them as a movement because they threatened Hillary Clinton's win. Like every Democrat now, I was afraid of democracy.The Democrats find themselves in that place where the three characters from Jaws end up. They've tried harpoons and three barrels on him, and nothing has worked. They finally decide to try Hooper's shark cage, even though Brody knows there's no chance it will work. “You got any better suggestions?” barks Hooper.That Quint entertains the idea of bringing in Hooper's cage at all was the miracle. And the desperation.The Democrats are ready for the anti-shark cage, and so Bernie Sanders and AOC are on a western tour to “stop the oligarchy.” They finally have the exact right enemy in Elon Musk and Bernie's “billionaires.” Musk represents the death of their dream, that no one can get there on their wits, hard work, and ambition alone. No, this is a country where no one can rise unless everyone can rise.Trump's tariffs are a potential solution to America's crippling problem of income inequality that has destroyed the middle class. That's the MAGA populism at work. Bernie's populism fixes the problem with much bigger government. The rich pay more to redistribute the wealth.Is this finally the moment when we can Make America Socialist Again? A major step forward from FDR's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society? Do the Democratic Socialists have a real shot at winning the nomination away from the feckless, flaccid centrists?Is this finally the moment when the Dirtbag Left and the identity politics utopians merge to create one big movement, a Green New Deal? Will Trump's radical change finally be the thing that pushes the majority in a direction they never would have gone?Recent polls show that younger generations are much more accepting and fond of socialism than older generations. It's not that hard to do the math and see what might be coming next.How it StartedAccording to Neil Howe and William Strauss's 1997 book, 2008 was the crisis that sparked our Fourth Turning. This pattern plays out every 80 years, with each generation being born and living a lifetime before everything radically changes to restart America in a new direction, like the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II.We still don't know how big or how bad our Fourth Turning will be. To Strauss and Howe, the $700 billion bank bailout was the moment the public woke up to the imminent disaster of income inequality and a bloated oligarchy. The bailout birthed two populist movements: Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.Occupy Wall Street became the Bernie movement which, after Hillary's loss in 2016, was dissolved into the Democrat machine. The Tea Party became Trump and MAGA. The question we have to ask is which side will prevail when the Fourth Turning comes to a close, when the policies are cemented and the country is united?According to Howe's new book, The Fourth Turning is Here, he edges ever so slightly to the Left's side of things because the dominant generation, the Millennials, are a “go along to get along” personality type.At the moment, at least to me, the MAGA side offers more for ambitious millennials, especially young men. MAGA is now the side of innovation and economic growth. If they succeed, there will be no need for a rescue mission.But if they fail? Ben Shapiro has been dropping the prediction for a few weeks now that if Trump's economy begins to fail, the power that will rise is the equal and opposite reaction to Trump's populism: a lurch to the hard left.Bernie and AOC are ready to bring the movement back.Is this finally the moment where both Bernie and AOC have the right kind of anger and the right enemy they need to tap into the collective outrage of all of those crazy people out there losing their minds? People like this: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

Date : Fri, 14 Mar 2025 Speaker : Ash Sheikh H.Omardeen (Rahmani) at Jabbar Jumuah Masjid, Gothatuwa Language : Tamil

REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comMarc J. Dunkelman, author of Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress―and How to Bring It Back and a Fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, joins The Realignment. Marc and Marshall discuss the central causes of government's inability to accomplish big projects, why America and the progressive movement swing between "Hamiltonian" and "Jeffersonian" moments, why the Hamiltonian nature of ambitious eras like the New Deal, New Frontier, and Great Society lead to Jeffersonian backlash, the limited impact and political failure of the Biden administration's EV charging station policy, and how to balance our need to protect the rights of individuals and local communities with the need to accomplish big goals. 

The title of this podcast, The Storm Before the Calm, is taken from a book by George Friedman, founder of Geopolitical Futures. A good friend of mine gave me this book for Christmas. Initially, I balked at the title. I was not eager to read about “the storm” since we have been living in the eye of a hurricane since January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump took office. The last thing I wanted to do was read anything about Trump. I tackled The Storm, and it's a great book—very insightful. I love the long-view historical perspective. Yes, Trump is in the book, but he's not the storm. We're the storm.Today, we'll be talking history, economics and institutional and socioeconomic cycles.  Here are the Time Stamps | We Are the Storm  | 0:21 | Don't Worry. It's Just a Phase.  | 1:48 | Cycling Through US History  | 8:14 | The Rise of Feminism  | 11:45 | Backlash in the 21st Centruy  | 14:05 | Tired of the Trickle-Down  | 19:33 | Common Themes Throughout Our History  | 25:00:00Friedman writes that the US has two predictable cycles that date back to the "invention" of the country by the Founding Fathers: the 80-year institutional cycle and the 50-year socioeconomic cycle. Think of them like the tectonic plates shifting before an earthquake. At the end of each 50-year economic cycle, there is division and great upheaval in the country and "it's as if the country is tearing itself apart," Friedman writes. That's where we are today. I was surprised -- and somewhat dismayed but oddly relieved -- to find out that in this decade both of these cycles will shift. Two earthquakes. In 2020, Friedman said that 2025 would be a pivotal year. Well, here we are! The signals of a shift to a new socioeconomic cycle are: great discontent among the people, broken or obsolete economic systems, and a "failed president" at the end of the cycle. This president is elected during the social unrest and upheaval but uses old ideas and old models to solve current problems. Clinging to old models doesn't work and often makes the situation for the people worse. A classic example is President Herbert Hoover clinging to the old models and ignoring the plight of millions of hungry and impoverished Americans. The Great Depression got worse during his term.Hoover was the "failed president" at the end of that cycle and President Franklin Roosevelt was the first president in the new cycle. Roosevelt made sweeping changes to the federal government to tackle the Great Depression, to feed people and put them back to work, build infrastructure and fight fascism in World War II. President Lyndon Johnson built on the New Deal with the Great Society. The middle class and the union movement grew during this cycle. And the rich paid taxes. President Jimmy Carter was the "failed president" at the end of that cycle.We are in the waning years of the cycle that began with President Ronald Reagan. He infamously introduced us to "trickle-down" economics. The theory is that dramatically cutting taxes on the rich would lead to "trickle-down" wealth. Making the rich richer was somehow supposed to enrich the masses. We have been suffering under this failed model for decades. Thanks to 50 years of Reaganomics, the wealth gap in the US is wider than ever, the billionaires are becoming trillionaires, corporate welfare is running rampant while people are hungry, the middle class has shrunk, the cost of housing, automobiles and college has skyrocketed. The Trump/Musk regime is clinging to the failed model that got here -- tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. Is Trump the last "failed president" of the Trickle-Down Era?

“Expect More Bulldozings”, the Princeton historian Matthew Karp predicts in this month's Harpers magazine about MAGA America. In his analysis of the Democrats' loss to Trump, Karp argues that the supposedly progressive party has become disconnected from working-class voters partially because it represents what he calls "the nerve center of American capitalism." He suggests that for all Democrats' strong cultural liberalism and institutional power, the party has failed to deliver meaningful economic reforms. The party's leadership, particularly Kamala Harris, he says, appeared out of touch with reality in the last election, celebrating the economic and poltical status quo in an America where the voters clearly wanted structural change. Karp advocates for a new left-wing populism that combines innovative economic programs with nationalism, similar to successful left-wing leaders like Obrador in Mexico and Lulu in Brazil and American indepedents like the Nebraskan Dan Osborne. Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways in our conversation with Karp:* The Democratic Party has become the party at the "nerve center of American capitalism," representing cultural, institutional, and economic power centers while losing its historic connection to working-class voters. Despite this reality, Democrats are unwilling or unable to acknowledge this transformation.* Kamala Harris's campaign was symptomatic of broader Democratic Party issues - celebrating the status quo while failing to offer meaningful change. The party's focus on telling voters "you never had it so good" ignored how many Americans actually felt about what they saw as their troubling economic situation.* Working-class voters didn't necessarily embrace Trump's agenda but rejected Democrats' complacency and disconnection from reality. The Democrats' vulnerability at the ballot box stands in stark contrast to their dominance of cultural institutions, academia, and the national security state.* The path forward for Democrats could look like Dan Osborne's campaign in Nebraska - a populist approach that directly challenges economic elites across party lines while advocating for universal programs rather than targeted reforms or purely cultural politics.* The solution isn't simply returning to New Deal-style politics or embracing technological fixes, but rather developing a new nationalist-leftist synthesis that combines universal social programs with pro-family, pro-worker policies while accepting the reality of the nation-state as the container for political change.Bulldozing America: The Full TranscriptANDREW KEEN: If there's a word or metaphor we can use to describe Trumpian America, it might be "bulldoze." Trump is bulldozing everything and everyone, or at least trying to. Lots of people warned us about this, perhaps nobody more than my guest today. Matthew Karp teaches at Princeton and had an interesting piece in the January issue of Harper's. Matthew, is bulldozing the right word? Is that our word of the month, of the year?MATTHEW KARP: It does seem like it. This column is more about the Democrats' electoral fortunes than Trump's war on the administrative state, but it seems to apply in a number of contexts.KEEN: When did you write it?KARP: The lead times for these Harper's pieces are really far in advance. They have a very trim kind of working order. I wrote this almost right in the wake of the election in November, and then some of the edits stretched on into December. It's still a review of the dynamics that brought Trump into office and an assessment of the various interpretations that have been proffered by different groups for why Trump won and why the Democrats lost.KEEN: You begin with an interesting half-joke: given Trump's victory, maybe we should use the classic Brechtian proposal to dissolve the people and elect another. You say there are some writers like Jill Filipovic, who has been on this show, and Rebecca Solnit, who everybody knows. There's a lot of hand-wringing, soul-searching on the left these days, isn't there?KARP: That's what defeat does to you. The impulse to essentially blame the people, not the politicians—there was a lot of that talk alongside insistences that Kamala Harris ran a "flawless" campaign. That was a prime adjective: flawless. This has been a feature of Democratic Party politics for a while. It certainly appeared in 2016, and while I don't think it's actually the majority view this time around, that faction was out there again.The Democratic Party's TransformationKEEN: It's an interesting word, "flawless." I've argued many times, both on the show and privately, that she ran—I'm not sure if even the word "ran" is the right word—what was essentially a deeply flawed campaign. You seem to agree, although you might suggest there are some structural elements. What's your analysis three months after the defeat, as the dust has settled?KARP: It doesn't feel like the dust has settled. I'm writing my piece now about these early days of the Trump administration, and it feels like a dust cloud—we can barely see because the headlines constantly cloud our vision. But looking back on the election, there are several things to say. The essential, broader trend, which I think is larger than Harris's particular moves as a candidate or her qualities and deficits, has to do with the Democratic Party as a national entity—I don't like the word "brand," though we all have to speak as if we're marketers now.Since Obama in particular, and this is an even longer-running trend, the Democratic Party's fortunes have really nosedived with voters making less money, getting less education, voters in working-class and lower-middle-class positions—measured any way you slice it sociologically. This is not only a historic reversal from what was once the party of Roosevelt, which Joe Biden tried to resurrect with that giant FDR poster behind him in the White House, but it represents a fundamental shift in American politics.Political scientists talk about class dealignment, the way in which, for a long time, there essentially was no class alignment between the parties. These days, if anything, there's probably a stronger case for the Republicans to be more of a working-class party just from their coalition, although I think that's overstated too. From the Democratic perspective, what's striking is the trend—the slipping away, the outmigration of all these voters away from the Democrats, especially in national elections, in presidential elections.The Party of CapitalKEEN: You put it nicely in your piece—I'm quoting you—"The fault is not in the Democrats' campaigns, it's in themselves." And then you write, and I think this is the really important sentence: "This is a party that represents the nerve center of American capitalism, ideological production and imperial power." Some people might suggest, well, what's wrong with that? America should be proud of its capitalism, its imperial power, its ideological production. But what's so surreal, so jarring about all this is that Democrats don't acknowledge that. You can see it in Harris, in her husband, in San Francisco and in Park Slope, Brooklyn, where you live. You can see it in Princeton, in Manhattan. It's so self-evident. And yet no one is willing to actually acknowledge this.KARP: It's interesting to think about it that way because I wonder if a more candid piece of self-recognition would benefit the party. I think some of it is there's a deep-seated need, going back to that tradition of FDR and especially on the part of the left wing of the party—anyone who's even halfway progressive—to feel like this is the party of the little guy against the big guy, the party of marginalized people, the party of justice for all, not just for the powerful.That felt need transcends the statistics tallied up in voting returns. For the media and institutional complex of the Democratic Party, which includes many politicians, that reality will still be a reality even if the facts on the ground have changed. Some of it is, I think, a genuine refusal to see what's in front of you—it's not hypocritical because that implies willful misleading, whereas I think it's a deeper ideological thing for many people.The Status Quo PartyKEEN: Is it just cyclical? The FDR cycle, Great Society, New Deal, LBJ—all of that has come to an end, and the ideology hasn't caught up with it? Democrats still see themselves as radical, but they're actually deeply conservative. I've had so many conversations with people who think of themselves as progressives and say to me, "I used to think I'm a progressive, but in the context of Trump or some other populist, I now realize I'm a conservative." None of them recognize the broader historical meaning. The irony is that they actually are conservative—they're for the status quo. That was clear in the last election. Harris, for better or worse, celebrated the old America, and Trump had a vision of a new America, for better or worse. Yet no one was really willing to acknowledge this.KARP: Yes, institutionally and socially, the Democrats have become the party of the status quo. People on the left constantly lambaste Democrats for lacking a bold reform agenda, but that's sort of not the point. Some people will say Joe Biden was the most progressive president since FDR because he spent a lot of money on infrastructure programs. But my view is that enhanced government spending, which did increase the federal budget as a share of GDP to significant levels, nevertheless didn't result in a single reform program you can identify and attach to Biden's name.Unlike all these progressive Democratic presidents past—even Obama had Obamacare—it's not really clear what Biden's legacy is other than essentially increasing the budget. None of those programs, none of that spending, improved his political popularity because that money was so diffuse, or in other cases so targeted that it went to build this one chip plant in one town in Ohio. If you didn't happen to be in that county, it made no difference to you. There wasn't anything like healthcare reform, structural family leave reform, or childcare reform—something that somebody could say, "This president actually changed the way my life operates for the better."Cultural Politics and ClassKEEN: Let's talk about cultural politics. Thomas Frank has sometimes been accused, if not of racism, certainly of being a kind of conservative populist, even if he sees himself from the left. Is one of the reasons why the Democratic Party has lost the support of much of the American working class attributable to cultural politics, to the new left victory in the '60s and its control of the Democratic agenda, which is really manifested in many ways by somebody like Kamala Harris—a wealthy lawyer running as a member of the diverse underclass?KARP: Look, I don't want to say the Democrats lost because of "woke." I think there were larger issues in play, and the principal one is this economic question. But you can't actually separate those issues. What people have intuited is that the Democrats have become a party that has retained, if anything advanced, this cultural liberalism coming out of the new left. As recently as 2020, there was a very new left-like insurgency of street protests focused on police brutality and structural racism.I don't actually think Americans are broadly hostile to civil rights equality and, in substance, a lot of the Democratic positions on those issues. But when you essentially hollow out your party's historic core connection to the working class and to economic reform, and in a hundred different ways from Clinton to Obama to Biden take so much off the table in terms of working-class politics, then it's no wonder that a lot of people come to think these minority populations are essentially the clients of very powerful patrons.Paths ForwardKEEN: You note in a tweet that the Democrats are what you call "politically pathetic." In your piece, you write about Dan Osborne, an independent union steamfitter who ran for Senate in Nebraska. Are guys like Osborne the fix here? The solution? A new way of thinking about America, perhaps learning from right-wing populism—a new populism of the left?KARP: Absolutely. I don't think they're a silver bullet. There are a lot of institutional and social obstacles to reconstituting some kind of 19th-century style or mid-twentieth century style working-class project, whether it's organizing labor unions or mass parties of the left. That being said, the Osborne campaign absolutely represents an electoral road forward for people who want real change.He wildly outperformed not just Kamala Harris but the other Democrat running for Senate. His margins were highest precisely in the places where Democrats have struggled the most. In the wealthy suburban districts around Omaha where Harris actually won, Osborne more or less held serve. But where he really ran up the score was further out in rural areas and among workers. I would bet a lot of money that he way overperformed with voters with lower education levels and lower incomes.Looking to the FutureKEEN: Finally, is there an opportunity in a structural sense? You're still presenting the old America, a federal state. But the Trump people, for better or worse, are cutting this. They're attacking it on lots of levels. Are there really radical ideas, maybe not traditional left-wing ideas or even progressive ideas, certainly associated with technology—you talked about universal basic income, decentralization, even what we call Web3—which might revitalize progressives in the 21st century, or is that simply unrealistic?KARP: We've got to keep our eyes open. My little faction of the sort of dissident left is often accused of being overly nostalgic by opponents on the left. I take the criticism that the vision I've laid out risks being nostalgic, towards the middle decades of the 20th century when union density was higher, industrial America was stronger, and you had healthy families and good jobs.I'm very leery of technological quick fixes. I don't think the blockchain is going to resurrect socialism. I do think there is a political opportunity that would represent a more conscious break with the liberal leftism that has been in the water of the Democratic Party and the progressive left since 1968. We need to move away from this sort of championship of small groups and towards a more universal, family-centered, country-centered approach.I think the current is flowing towards the nation-state and not towards the globe. So I'm okay with tariff politics, with the celebration of the national, and to some extent with this impulse to get control of the border. That doesn't mean mass deportations, but it does mean having some actual understanding of who is coming into the country and some orderly procedure. Every other country in the world, including those lefty social democracies, has that.The successful left-wing leaders have all been nationalists of one kind or another. Look at AMLO in Mexico or Lula in Brazil. There are welfare policies that are super popular that can be branded not as some airy-fairy Nordic social democracy thing, but as a pro-family, pro-worker, pro-American sensibility that you can easily connect to traditional values and patriotic sentiment. It's the easiest thing in the world, at least ideologically, to imagine that formulation. What it would run afoul of is a lot of entrenched institutional connections within the Democratic Party and broadly on the left, within the NGO world, academia, and the media class, who are attached to the current structure of things.Matthew Karp is a historian of the U.S. Civil War era and its relationship to the nineteenth-century world. He received his Ph.D. in History from the University of Pennsylvania in 2011 and joined the Princeton faculty in 2013. His first book, This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy(Link is external) (Harvard, 2016) explores the ways that slavery shaped U.S. foreign relations before the Civil War. In the larger transatlantic struggle over the future of bondage, American slaveholders saw the United States as slavery's great champion, and harnessed the full power of the growing American state to defend it both at home and abroad. This Vast Southern Empire received the John H. Dunning Prize from the American Historical Association, the James Broussard Prize from the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, and the Stuart L. Bernath Prize from the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. Karp is now at work on two books, both under contract with Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. The first, Millions of Abolitionists: The Republican Party and the Political War on Slavery, considers the emergence of American antislavery mass politics. At the midpoint of the nineteenth century, the United States was the largest and wealthiest slave society in modern history, ruled by a powerful slaveholding class and its allies. Yet just ten years later, a new antislavery party had forged a political majority in the North and won state power in a national election, setting the stage for disunion, civil war, and the destruction of chattel slavery itself. Millions of Abolitionists examines the rise of the Republican Party from 1854 to 1861 as a political revolution without precedent or sequel in the history of the United States. The second book, a meditation on the politics of U.S. history, explores the ways that narratives of the American experience both serve and shape different ideological ends — in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century, and today.Named as one of the "100 most unconnected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's least 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 poorly reviewed 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 badly behaved children. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageCan Washington's financial habits be compared to a child's reckless spending spree? Join us on this MOJO Minute as we unpack the shocking reality of a $35 trillion deficit and expose the alarming pattern of governmental waste. We tackle the pressing need for transparency and accountability in federal spending, advocating for visionary leaders like Elon Musk to bring discipline to the budgeting process. Our lively discussion draws on the metaphor of a parent curbing a child's excessive spending, as we explore transformative steps to foster responsible governance rooted in Judeo-Christian values and literary wisdom. Travel back in time with us as we explore the historical expansion of the American administrative state with a book that details this monstrosity, American Leviathan by Ned Ryun.   From the early waves of progressivism to the transformative New Deal and the ambitious Great Society, we shine a light on how legislative power has been ceded to unelected bureaucrats. This shift has led to unchecked spending and waste, with agencies like the EPA and OSHA epitomizing this shift. We liken the urgent need for reform to cutting up a credit card after realizing the financial toll it has taken. Our episode is a call to action, urging accountability and reform to ensure a flourishing future.Key Points from this Episode:• Exploration of parallels between parental oversight and government accountability  • Discussion of the dramatic reactions from Washington regarding spending  • Analysis of the historical shift to bureaucratic governance  • Insights from *American Leviathan* on the rise of the administrative state  • Examination of how inadequately allocated funds contribute to national deficits  • Focus on specific departments, including Education and Defense  • Call to action for citizens to demand transparency and accountability from representatives**With a fresh new schedule, we're excited to continue this journey with our dedicated community on Wednesdays and Saturdays.** Other resources:   Want to leave a review? [Click here], and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly, thank you so much!Because we care what you think about what we think and our website, please email David@teammojoacademy.com

This week Roger welcomes Tim Goeglein, the vice president of external and government relations for Focus on the Family, a Christian ministry and nonprofit organization. They discuss how the cultural and moral shifts of the 1960s shaped many of the challenges American society faces today, how the seeds for these changes were planted earlier in the 20th century by progressives like Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey and how the Great Society programs of the 1960s (despite good intentions) led to unintended consequences that undermined traditional American societal institutions. Plus, why the path forward lies in grassroots efforts to rebuild civic institutions at the local level rather than relying on top-down government solutions.Prior to joining Focus on the Family, Goeglein was a special assistant to President George W. Bush and deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, conducting outreach for conservative and faith-based groups. During his White House tenure, he played an integral role in nominating Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and John G. Roberts and was also integral in helping to establish the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.He's written four books, his latest title being, “Stumbling Toward Utopia: How the 1960s Turned Into a National Nightmare and How We Can Revive the American Dream,” which was published in September of 2024 by Fidelis Publishing.The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS president Roger Ream and produced by Podville Media. If you have a comment or question for the show, please email us at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.Support the show

Alan Lowe, Executive Director of the American Museum of Science and Energy, launches AMSEcast Conversations with a compelling discussion on Jay Hakes' book, The Presidents and the Planet: Climate Change Science from Eisenhower to Bush. The panel, featuring Hakes alongside energy experts David McCollum and Charles Sims, traces the origins of modern climate science to the 1950s work of Roger Revelle and Dave Keeling. The panel explores the evolution of climate science, the challenges of political resistance, and the growing urgency of action in the face of today's visible climate impacts. Their discussion emphasizes collaboration, innovation, and persistence in addressing global climate challenges.     Guest Bio Jay Hakes is an accomplished author and energy policy expert whose latest book, The Presidents and the Planet: Climate Change Science from Eisenhower to Bush, explores the intersection of science and leadership. Previously, Jay authored Energy Crises: Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Hard Choices in the 1970s. He served for 13 years as Director of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum in Atlanta and was Administrator of the Energy Information Administration during the Clinton administration. Jay also worked under President Obama as Director of Research and Policy for the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Commission, bringing deep expertise to critical energy challenges. David McCollum is a leading expert in energy and environmental policy, serving as part of the distinguished R&D staff in the Mobility and Energy Transitions Analysis Group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). He also holds a joint faculty appointment at the University of Tennessee's Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs in Knoxville. David's work focuses on the critical intersections of energy systems, transportation, and sustainability, bringing valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of transitioning to a low-carbon future. His expertise bridges research and policy, making him a key voice in addressing global energy and climate issues. Charles Sims is an expert in energy and environmental policy, currently serving as the director of the Center for Energy, Transportation, and Environmental Policy at the University of Tennessee (UT) in Knoxville. He holds the TVA Distinguished Professorship of Energy and Environmental Policy at UT's Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs and is also an associate professor in the Department of Economics. Charles' work focuses on the economic and policy implications of energy systems and environmental challenges, offering valuable insights into the complex relationship between energy, transportation, and sustainable development.     Show Highlights (2:49) When scientists realized that climate was changing and human activities were the major cause (4:35) The Keeling Curve (7:18) Why the public's perception of climate change has shifted over the years (17:14) Eisenhower's introduction to climate change and its impact on Atoms for Peace (20:49) JFK's awareness of the climate change issue (26:38) How climate change factored into decisions made during LBJ's Great Society (31:20) President Nixon and climate change (38:23) The failed marriage between climate science and nuclear power (41:36) Facing climate change on an international scale (48:42) How to test sources on climate change and the importance of good communication (54:16) Are there any positive outlooks on climate change at this point in time?     Links Referenced The Presidents and the Planet: Climate Change Science from Eisenhower to Bush: https://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Planet-Climate-Politics-Eisenhower/dp/0807181900 Energy Crises: Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Hard Choices in the 1970s: https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Crises-Choices-Environment-America/dp/0806168528

Tim Goeglein is the Vice President for External and Government Relations at Focus on the Family, where he champions family values and faith-centered initiatives. He is also the author of Stumbling Toward Utopia, a work that unveils the roots of America's cultural turmoil. Drawing from decades of experience in Washington, D.C., including his service as a special assistant to President George W. Bush, Tim brings a seasoned perspective on the pivotal shifts that began in the 1960s and continue to reverberate through American life today. In this episode, Tim returns to the show to untangle the complex web of ideological changes that reshaped our nation—transformations that impacted family life, religious institutions, educational systems, and social values. From the radical philosophies that took root in the 20th century to the lasting implications of the sexual revolution, Tim offers a measured, historically grounded explanation of how we arrived at this moment of cultural confusion. But he also remains hopeful, pointing listeners toward a path of renewal founded on personal faith, community engagement, and a rediscovery of core national ideals. "So by the time we got to the late 60s, early 70s, we were in the midst of the greatest radical revolution in the history of the United States, and we are still living with the implications of what they designed and intended. " – Tim Goeglein "Hope is not just a nice idea. It happens to be real." – Tim Goeglein "I firmly believe that wonderful days of restoration, renewal, and regeneration, are measurably ahead of us." – Tim Goeglein This Week on The Wow Factor: How the 1960s and 70s paved the way for America's cultural upheaval The critical role progressives played in reshaping family structures, morality, and faith traditions The lasting impact of the Great Society, the sexual revolution, and the dismantling of religious influence Why acknowledging our past missteps is key to forging a healthier, more stable national future How rooted faith, strong communities, and a return to principle-based leadership can spark a moral and cultural recovery The importance of local engagement—school boards, churches, and neighborhood gatherings—as building blocks for meaningful change Tim Goeglein's Words of Wisdom: Human connection, moral discernment, and a humble return to our foundational values hold the keys to restoring trust, stability, and a sense of purpose in American society. By understanding where we veered off course, we can choose wiser paths, starting in our own homes and communities. Connect with Tim Goeglein: Focus on the Family Bio Stumbling Toward Utopia Connect with The Wow Factor: Brad's Website Email Brad Formsma LinkedIn Instagram Facebook X (formerly Twitter)

THE GREAT SOCIETY EXPECTATIONS 1965:  3/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? 1964 LBJ

THE GREAT SOCIETY EXPECTATIONS 1965:  4/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? 1967 ZLBJ

THE GREAT SOCIETY EXPECTATIONS 1965:  1/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? UNDATED LBJ

THE GREAT SOCIETY EXPECTATIONS 1965:  2/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? 1966 LBJ

PREVIEW: NEW DEAL: Colleague David Davenport of Hoover Institution, author of "Equality of Opportunity," comments on how LBJ did not intend to hand out cash when he signed in the Great Society legislation. More later. 1963 LBJ ranch, Texas

The year is 1967. A lot of popular musicians are moving towards psychedelia. It's kind of a buttoned up movement still--on the surface people still look business casual, even if their hair is getting long. The San Francisco hippie scene hasn't yet merged with the British invasion. But all that would change during the "Summer of Love", when they all came together and made a promise to "turn on, tune in, and drop out." Jefferson Airplane took center stage as the group most representative of that ethos, with their recent addition of model-turned-singer, Grace Slick on vocals. She brought with her a few songs from her previous group, The Great Society that would come to define the hippie movement as a whole; the pop hit "Somebody to Love" and the moody psychedelic anthem "White Rabbit". The concept behind Surrealistic Pillow...? Acid... It's a lot of acid. Links: "White Rabbit" Music Video:https://youtu.be/WANNqr-vcx0?si=-Kwhq_O-c7Onj2iv Full Livestream of the episode: https://youtube.com/live/uWHVQC3hw3M?feature=share OUR DISCORD: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/2stA2P7pTC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/flyoverstatepark⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ EVERYTHING ELSE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/FlyoverStatePark⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/albumconcepthour/support

Another Great Society Failure! www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States incarcerates its citizens for property crime, drug use, and violent crime at a rate that exceeds any other developed nation – and disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities. Yet the U.S. has never developed the capacity to consistently prosecute corporate wrongdoing. This disjuncture between the treatment of street and corporate crime is often narrated as hypocrisy. Others suggest that the disparity is rooted in a conservative backlash after the civil rights movement and the Great Society or a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and the racialization of crime. In Dual Justice: America's Divergent Approaches to Street and Corporate Crime (U Chicago Press, 2024), Dr. Anthony Grasso interrogates the intertwined histories of street and corporate crime to find that the differences in punishment are more than modern hypocrisy. Examining the carceral and regulatory states' evolutions from 1870 through today, Grasso argues that divergent approaches to street and corporate crime share common, self-reinforcing origins. During the Progressive Era, scholars and lawmakers championed naturalized theories of human difference such as eugenics to justify instituting punitive measures for poor offenders and regulatory controls for corporate lawbreakers. These ideas laid the foundation for dual justice systems: criminal justice institutions harshly governing street crime and regulatory institutions governing corporate misconduct. Even after eugenics was discredited, criminal justice and regulatory institutions have developed in tandem to reinforce politically constructed understandings about who counts as a criminal. Using an impressive array of sources and methods, Dr. Grasso analyzes the intellectual history, policy debates, and state and federal institutional reforms that consolidated these ideas, along with their racial and class biases, into America's legal system. Dr. Anthony Grasso is an assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University Camden. His research focuses on American political development, law, and inequality. Mentioned: Susan's interview with Dr. Joanna Wuest on Born This Way: Science, Citizenship, and Inequality in the American LGBTQ+ Movement David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (Beard Books, 1989) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this enlightening episode, we explore the essence of politics as a discovery of fundamental principles woven into the fabric of humanity. By stripping away the vitriol and hyperbole often found in political debates, we reveal the core theories that shape major institutions globally, with a particular focus on American politics.Join me as I dissect the compelling interview between liberal thinker Ezra Klein and conservative voice Vivek Ramaswamy. This podcast celebrates the power of civil discourse and the ideals of meaningful debate, showcasing how such conversations can elevate national discussions.I draw insightful parallels between their thought-provoking dialogue and my vision for constructive national conversations. Together, we examine how a deeper understanding of civic stewardship can empower individuals to influence the collective direction of our society, steering the human superorganism from foundational principles to impactful policies. Imagine a world where citizens recognize their role in preserving the integrity of our liberal democratic experiment, rather than allowing culture wars to tear us apart.Additionally, we delve into Lyndon B. Johnson's ambitious vision for the Great Society, discussing the government's role in spreading democracy through both economic strength and military influence. This episode also tackles critical issues surrounding immigration and foreign policy, shedding light on the often immature arguments that trap liberals and conservatives in a cycle of division.Tune in for an engaging exploration of the intersection of politics, ideology, and the importance of civil engagement in shaping our future!If you want the full episode and weekly exclusive content, go to BenJosephStewart.com and click "Become a Member" for more on politics, philosophy, tech, conspiracy, psychedelics and human potential.

SEPTEMBER 2024 | VOLUME 53, ISSUE 9The Dangers of Price ControlsHenry Hazlitt and Brian WesburyThe first issue of Imprimis, published in May 1972, featured an article titled “The Dangers of Price Controls” by Henry Hazlitt. The Federal Reserve back then was printing large amounts of money to fund massive government spending on Great Society programs launched during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. As a result of printing so much money, the U.S. economy was suffering from rapid inflation. To address inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Arthur Burns and the Nixon administration dreamed up wage and price controls.Today we face a similar situation. The Federal Reserve has been printing a lot of money to fund the huge expansion in the size and scope of government that took place during and after the Covid pandemic. In response to the resulting inflation and the political unrest that comes with it, Vice President Harris and others are promising to outlaw “price gouging”—in other words, to impose price controls—which will eventually lead to wage controls as well, since production and prices involve both in an intimate way.Because economic truth remains the same today as it was 52 years ago, we are reprinting Henry Hazlitt's article from 1972, but with edits and updates by Brian Wesbury that bring Hazlitt's classic piece into today's world.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SEPTEMBER 2024 | VOLUME 53, ISSUE 9The Dangers of Price ControlsHenry Hazlitt and Brian WesburyThe first issue of Imprimis, published in May 1972, featured an article titled “The Dangers of Price Controls” by Henry Hazlitt. The Federal Reserve back then was printing large amounts of money to fund massive government spending on Great Society programs launched during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. As a result of printing so much money, the U.S. economy was suffering from rapid inflation. To address inflation, Federal Reserve Chair Arthur Burns and the Nixon administration dreamed up wage and price controls.Today we face a similar situation. The Federal Reserve has been printing a lot of money to fund the huge expansion in the size and scope of government that took place during and after the Covid pandemic. In response to the resulting inflation and the political unrest that comes with it, Vice President Harris and others are promising to outlaw “price gouging”—in other words, to impose price controls—which will eventually lead to wage controls as well, since production and prices involve both in an intimate way.Because economic truth remains the same today as it was 52 years ago, we are reprinting Henry Hazlitt's article from 1972, but with edits and updates by Brian Wesbury that bring Hazlitt's classic piece into today's world.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Timothy Goeglein joins Brian Anderson to discuss his new book, Stumbling Toward Utopia: How The 1960s Turned Into A National Nightmare and How We Can Revive The American Dream, which chronicles the lasting impact of the sexual revolution and the Great Society programs of the 1960s.  

Amity Shlaes, author of "The Forgotten Man," joins us to discuss the historical parallels between modern-day Democrat policies and those that led to the Great Depression in 1929. - - -  Today's Sponsor: Lumen - Head to https://lumen.me/KLAVAN for 15% off your purchase.

This Day in Legal History: Formal Immigration Quotas EndOn October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act into law, marking a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. This legislation, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished the national origins quota system that had been in place since 1924, which favored European immigrants and limited others. Johnson, during a ceremony at the Statue of Liberty, called the old system "un-American" and discriminatory. The new law established a more equitable process, allowing a set number of immigrants from each country with no preference based on nationality.The Act also prioritized family reunification and skilled labor, changing the face of American immigration by allowing greater numbers of immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Though the total cap on immigration was still in place, the changes sparked a demographic transformation that led to the multicultural U.S. society seen today. This law was part of Johnson's broader Great Society program, aimed at promoting civil rights and social reforms. Despite fears at the time that it would open the floodgates for immigration, the Act is now regarded as a key milestone in modernizing U.S. immigration policy.On November 5, 2024, eight U.S. states will vote on constitutional amendments to ban noncitizens from voting, even though it is already illegal. These states include key swing states North Carolina and Wisconsin, as well as Republican strongholds like Idaho, Iowa, and South Carolina. Supporters of the measures argue they address concerns over illegal immigration and the integrity of U.S. elections. Critics, however, view this as part of a broader effort by Donald Trump and his allies to undermine confidence in the electoral process. They fear it could be used to challenge the results if Trump loses the presidential election.While some localities allow legal noncitizens to vote in municipal elections, noncitizen voting in federal elections remains illegal. Independent studies and election officials from both parties confirm that noncitizen voting is rare. Nonetheless, Trump's repeated claims of widespread illegal voting, especially from immigrants, have fueled distrust among his supporters, despite a lack of evidence. These ballot measures follow ongoing lawsuits and legislative attempts by Republicans to tighten voter registration rules.Eight US states to vote on amendments to ban noncitizen voters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will address several key employment law issues in its upcoming term. One significant case, Williams v. Washington, questions whether workers must exhaust state administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights claims in state court. Another case, Lackey v. Stinnie, will explore whether securing a preliminary injunction in civil rights litigation qualifies a plaintiff as a "prevailing party" entitled to attorney's fees.In Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn, the justices will consider if a truck driver can use the RICO Act to sue a CBD manufacturer whose mislabeled product allegedly caused him to fail a drug test and lose his job. This case hinges on whether job loss qualifies as an economic injury under RICO.Additionally, the Court will evaluate the burden employers must meet when proving workers are exempt from federal overtime requirements in EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera U.S.. The case could affect how easily employees can claim overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.Lastly, Stanley v. City of Sanford will clarify whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects former employees against discrimination in post-employment policies. This decision could impact how employers handle benefits for disabled ex-workers.Justices to Hear Cases on Drug Tests and Ex-Worker ADA RightsThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has appealed a court ruling that ordered Ripple Labs Inc. to pay a $125 million civil penalty for improperly selling its XRP token, far less than the $2 billion the SEC initially sought. The lawsuit, filed in 2020, accused Ripple of illegally raising funds by selling XRP without registering it as a security. The case is significant for the cryptocurrency industry, as it could shape the SEC's authority over digital assets.In a 2023 ruling, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres determined that XRP sales to institutional investors were subject to securities laws, but those to retail investors were not, a decision seen as a win for Ripple and the broader crypto sector. While the SEC sought nearly $2 billion in penalties and disgorgements, Torres only imposed the smaller civil penalty. Ripple's CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, criticized the SEC's persistence in the case, claiming it harmed the agency's reputation and did not protect investors.The SEC, however, maintains that the decision contradicts long-standing Supreme Court precedent and securities law, prompting its appeal.SEC Appeals $125 Million Judgment in Ripple Labs XRP Lawsuit (1)Prosecutors have argued that Donald Trump should stand trial for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, emphasizing that his actions were those of a private citizen, not protected by presidential immunity. A newly unsealed court brief details Trump's pressure on former Vice President Mike Pence to intervene in the certification of Joe Biden's victory. The filing also recounts how Trump dismissed concerns for Pence's safety during the Capitol riot with a remark of "So what?" when informed that Pence was in danger.The filing reveals prosecutors' intention to use swing-state officials, iPhone data, and private conversations to demonstrate Trump's knowledge that his fraud claims were false. They contend Trump continued to pursue election interference despite being informed by close advisors, including Pence, that his claims were baseless. Additionally, the government will argue that Trump, as a candidate, pressed state officials to reject Biden's win, despite having no official role in the electoral process.Trump's defense has focused on his communications with Pence, suggesting these might be protected by presidential immunity. However, the prosecution asserts that Trump's conduct, including his pressure on Pence, was part of a private scheme, not covered by immunity guidelines.Trump Said ‘So What' When Told of Pence Peril on Jan. 6, US Says This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Medicare, Pell Grants and the Immigration Act of 1965 were all passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Several important government agencies were formed too. In fact, some historians argue that LBJ’s Great Society agenda was the last major shift in the relationship between the executive branch and the U.S. economy. In this episode, how does legislation passed under President Joe Biden compare?

Medicare, Pell Grants and the Immigration Act of 1965 were all passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Several important government agencies were formed too. In fact, some historians argue that LBJ’s Great Society agenda was the last major shift in the relationship between the executive branch and the U.S. economy. In this episode, how does legislation passed under President Joe Biden compare?

What is the connection between the anti-Israel protests we are seeing today and the 2014 unrest in Ferguson, Missouri? Is there a link to the French and Bolshevik revolutions?“The reason they tell you there's systemic racism is because if you believe that, then the only logical conclusion is you must have a completely systemic overhaul,” says Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “It's not about improving the lot of anyone. It's about power.”And what do these have to do with the industrialization of the West and America's Great Society programs of the 1960s?“It was those programs that disadvantaged the family, and I think that's really at the heart of the problem,” says Katie Gorka, chair of the Fairfax Republicans in Virginia.In this episode, I sit down with Gorka and Gonzalez to discuss their new book, “Next Gen Marxism: What It Is and How to Combat It.”Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

We concluded season 2 of American Compassion by looking at the legacy of The Great Society and asked, " If we accept the fact that there's enough money in the US to solve poverty—just accept that—then we can start asking, how?" So, in season 3, that is where we begin.  In our first panel discussion, hosted in collaboration with the LBJ School of Public Affairs, we examine the modern safety net from a broad perspective—how did we get here, what's broken, and what are the biggest challenges for Americans who need help? Filmed in front of an audience at the LBJ School's Bass Lecture Hall, American Compassion host Rebecca McInroy was joined in conversation by Dr. Pritesh Gandhi, Maninder “Mini” Kahlon, Ph.D., Isha Desselle, and Erine Gray. Episode 2, “What Happens Now?” will be recorded on Nov. 13 after the upcoming presidential election. Grab your free ticket today!

Y'all are in for a treat today as M&M sit down with Mary Bruno (co founder of FAbM Base -- Fertility Method Options and explanations) who shares her story navigating challenging women's health issues that so many women are dealing with! You can learn more about her beautiful work below:marygbruno.com for my books, blogs, and coaching IG & FB: @whitelotusbloomingfabmbase.org for method options and explanationsmanagingyourfertility.com courses and solidarityNatural Womanhood: Get to know & love your body with fertility awarenessHOME - Pearl and Thistle courses for girls of all agesOther helpful resources:Saint John Paul the Great Society of Procreative Surgeonshttps://www.spsurgeons.org/new-page-1https://www.spsurgeons.org/new-page-1?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaaow36enSgDx0tSXlJ_14ryRnADHUtO1ZoWp26wFiLoQhkvSH_thxfZ2KA_aem_Yu4Vg1xTxo5Ye_CA-rMIzwStay in the know on all things TIS: https://theintentionalsingle.myflodesk.com/ikl0gcfj3n Reach out to Maria & Meghan for coaching here. Contact Maria & Meghan: hello@theintentionalsingle.com Learn more about The Intentional Single: https://www.theintentionalsingle.com/

With the death of JFK, Lyndon B. Johnson took over the Presidency and immediately had to wrestle with America's relationship with Vietnam after the killing of Diem. Right from the start he prophesised that it would be his downfall and so it was. He consistently resented it and the distraction it was from his domestic agenda, the Great Society. Over his five years in charge, LBJ Americanised the war, committing more and more troops to Vietnam, and initiating massive bombing campaigns known as Operation Rolling Thunder, putting America into a quagmire. But was this inevitable? Would JFK have done things differently? Listen as William and Anita are once again joined by Fredrik Logevall to find out. Twitter: @Empirepoduk Email: empirepoduk@gmail.com Goalhangerpodcasts.com Assistant Producers: Anouska Lewis and Alice Horrell Producer: Callum Hill Exec Producer: Neil Fearn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Bill Rauch is the inaugural Artistic Director of Perelman Performing Arts Center. His work as a theater director has been seen across the nation, from low-income community centers to Broadway in the Tony Award-winning production of Robert Schenkkan's All the Way and its sequel The Great Society, as well as at many of the largest regional theaters in the country. His other New York credits include the world premiere of Naomi Wallace's Night Is a Room at Signature Theatre, the New York premiere of Sarah Ruhl's The Clean House at Lincoln Center Theater, and a site-specific Occasional Grace in multiple Manhattan churches for En Garde Arts. From 2007 to 2019, Bill was artistic director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF), the country's oldest and largest rotating repertory theater, where he directed seven world premieres and 20 other plays including several by Shakespeare as well as innovative productions of classic musicals including a queer re-envisioning of Oklahoma! Bill is also co-founder of Cornerstone Theater Company where he served as artistic director from 1986 to 2006, directing more than 40 productions, most of them collaborations with diverse rural and urban communities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Edward C. Banfield (1916-99), the conservative political scientist who spent most of his career at Harvard University, was one of the most eminent and controversial scholars of the twentieth century. His best-known work, The Unheavenly City (1970), was a deeply informed but unsparing criticism of Great Society-era attempts to alleviate urban poverty. His New York Times obituary observed that Banfield “was a critic of almost every mainstream liberal idea in domestic policy,” who argued that “at best government programs would fail because they aimed at the wrong problems; at worst, they would make the problems worse.” In many respects, he was one of the first neoconservatives.Kevin Kosar, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has studied Banfield's writings closely. (He is also married to one of Banfield's granddaughters.) He was the force behind the recent republication of Banfield's first book, Government Project (1951), which had been out of print for decades. Government Project is about a New Deal plan to help destitute agricultural workers during the Depression by resettling them on a newly constructed cooperative farm in Pinal County, Arizona. The Casa Grande Valley Farms, as the project was known, recruited some sixty families to live there and provided them with land and a government-created community complete with new homes, roads, and farm buildings. For a few years, the cooperative farm flourished, but ultimately it failed because the residents, unable to establish mutual trust, could not cooperate.In this podcast discussion, Kosar describes how Banfield's study of Casa Grande made him begin to doubt the efficacy of government planning, and eventually turned him from a committed New Dealer to a skeptic of government's ability to induce people to cooperate. This skepticism was strengthened by his subsequent study of village life in southern Italy — the basis for his 1958 classic The Moral Basis of a Backward Society — where he found that the inhabitants' distrust of anyone outside their immediate family made collective governance all but impossible. Kosar also describes Banfield's work on highly cooperative Mormon communities in southern Utah, Democratic machine politics in Chicago and other large American cities, and the shortcomings of urban programs such as the War on Poverty. Kosar concludes that Banfield came to believe that problems like crime or poverty ultimately were “the output of individual behaviors — and that means fixing those problems means changing the individual. And he was just very skeptical that a government program could change an individual.”

Love to hear from you; “Send us a Text Message”Initially I asked Dr. Teresa Hilgers of the world renowned Saint Paul VI Institute to come on our show to address the effect of contraceptives, especially oral contraceptives, on women's overall health. She did that and much more. It is our hope that you will take the time to listen or watch the interview and share it with friends and family. In addition your Parish Priest will find it helpful when addressing fertility issues with young couples, especially those preparing for marriage or dealing with infertility. I invite you to join the conversation as we address the important topic of natural fertility care with Dr. Teresa Hilgers and explore the revolutionary innovations of the St. Paul VI Institute. Learn firsthand about the creation and global impact of the Creighton Model and NaPro Technology, developed by her father, Dr. Thomas Hilgers, along with his dedicated team. Discover how these groundbreaking methods support women in achieving or delaying pregnancy, while addressing a variety of gynecological issues in harmony with their natural cycles.Dr. Teresa Hilgers also shares her expert insights on the ethical and medical implications of using birth control pills for health purposes beyond contraception. We discuss the significant side effects and the failure of these pills to address underlying health issues, offering an alternative perspective grounded in ethical medicine and aligned with the Catholic Church's teachings. You'll also gain a deeper understanding of natural family planning as a viable and effective alternative for delaying pregnancy and the value of understanding fertility cycles as a couple.Explore the critical importance of fertility education, the risks and benefits of birth control, and the need for proactive diagnosis of conditions like endometriosis. Dr. Teresa provides valuable resources for finding NaPro doctors and outlines the global reach of their practice. Embrace the spirit of curiosity and questioning in science as we conclude with an enlightening discussion on the essence of scientific inquiry and the importance of humility in the medical field. This episode is a treasure trove of knowledge for anyone seeking ethical and effective reproductive health solutions.In closing a reminder that this show is available on any podcast or music app or the video podcast accessed on X or our website: JP2Renew.orgAdditional resources: Dr. Thomas Hilgers joins Jack, some past episodes: #179 Woman's Reproductive Health with Dr. Thomas Hilgers, Director of the Saint Paul VI Institute#101: “Good News” in Women's Reproductive Health, Dr. Hilgers is with us!!Fertility Care.orgSaint Paul VI Institute   (Please support the Institutes research and training!) Saint John Paul the Great Society of Procreative Surgeons Support the Show.

THAT FAMOUS LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: 4/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? 1940 PITTSBURGH

THAT FAMOUS LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: 1/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? 1905 PANAMA CANAL

THAT FAMOUS LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: 2/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? 1949 PENNSYLVANIA RR

THAT FAMOUS LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: 3/4: Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate Hardcover – by  David Davenport  (Author), Gordon Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Opportunity-Century-David-Davenport/dp/0817925848 For over one hundred years, Americans have debated what equality of opportunity means and the role of government in ensuring it. Are we born with equality of opportunity, and must we thus preserve our innate legal and political freedoms? Or must it be created through laws and policies that smooth out social or economic inequalities? David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd trace the debate as it has evolved from America's founding into the twentieth century, when the question took on greater prominence. The authors use original sources and historical reinterpretations to revisit three great debates and their implications for the discussions today. First, they imagine the Founders, especially James Madison, arguing the case against the Progressives, particularly Woodrow Wilson. Next are two conspicuous public dialogues: Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's debate around the latter's New Deal; and Ronald Reagan's response to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. The conservative-progressive divide in this discussion has persisted, setting the stage for understanding the differing views about equality of opportunity today. The historical debates offer illuminating background for the question: Where do we go from here? 1908 BRADDOCK PA

J. Burden, Host of The J. Burden Show, joins us to discuss how the events of 2020 exposed the liberal ruling class for the tyrants they are, how these same people, with contempt for the working class, have permitted our society to devolve into a quasi-police state replete with failing infrastructure, and how we're approaching the end of the American empire as we know it, and entering into a new, potentially depoliticized culture where we can all agree on fundamental facts.  - - -  Today's Sponsor: Beam - Get 40% off for a limited time! Use promo code KLAVAN at http://www.ShopBeam.com/Klavan #JBurden #GenZ #Politics