Podcasts about New Statesman

Séamas O'Reilly discusses with Ivan six things which should be better known. Séamas O'Reilly is a writer and author who has worked as a columnist for the Observer, the Irish Times and the Irish Examiner. He is Features Editor of London satirical magazine, The Fence and his writing has appeared in The Guardian, the New Statesman and the New York Times. His memoir Did Ye Hear Mammy Died topped the Irish Times Bestseller List for seven weeks, and won Best Biography at the 2021 Irish Book Awards. Séamas currently lives in Walthamstow, London with his family. His new novel is Prestige Drama, which is available at https://www.hachette.co.uk/titles/seamas-oreilly/prestige-drama/9780349727899/. The book "On Bloody Sunday" by Julieann Campbell https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/30/on-bloody-sunday-by-julieann-campbell-review-the-most-powerful-account-of-a-brutal-day The writer Flann O'Brien/Myles na Gopaleen https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v41/n07/clair-wills/anti-writer The Dyatlov Pass Incident https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/has-an-old-soviet-mystery-at-last-been-solved AI Is A Scam https://www.gardenofmemory.net/historian-vs-ai-the-technology-sucks-and-is-basically-a-scam/ Alan Moore's Top Ten comics series https://pagechewing.com/comic-commentary-top-10-by-alan-moore/ John Carpenter's The Thing Is Probably The Best Film Of All Time https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/thing-2-review/ This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

While the podcast team is taking a Radical Sabbatical, Kim is interviewing authors of the books that have had a big impact on her in the past two years.  In this episode, Kim speaks with Gary Gerstle, best-selling author of The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order and ten other books. Kim said that after reading this book, she began to feel that when it comes to economic policy, we really have a one-party system. The architect of the New Deal Order was FDR, a Democrat, but its general contractor was Eisenhower, arguably the most progressive of all American presidents. The architect of the Neoliberal order was Reagan, but its general contractor was Clinton. Kim also said that reading this book made her realize that, time and again throughout her career, she thought she was working towards progressive ends, not understanding how neoliberalism had taken hold of the Democratic Party.  Gerstle explains that “the phrase political order is meant to connote a constellation of ideologies, policies, and constituencies that shape American politics in ways that endure beyond the two-, four-, and six-year election cycles. In the last hundred years, America has had two political orders: the New Deal order that arose in the 1930s and 1940s, crested in the 1950s and 1960s, and fell in the 1970s; and the neoliberal order that arose in the 1970s and 1980s, crested in the 1990s and 2000s, and fell in the 2010s At the heart of each of these two political orders stood a distinctive program of political economy. The New Deal order was founded on the conviction that capitalism left to its own devices spelled economic disaster. It had to be managed by a strong central state able to govern the economic system in the public interest. The neoliberal order, by contrast, was grounded in the belief that market forces had to be liberated from government regulatory controls that were stymying growth, innovation, and freedom. The architects of the neoliberal order set out in the 1980s and 1990s to dismantle everything that the New Deal order had built across its forty-year span. Now it, too, is being dismantled.  Alarmingly, there seems to be no coherent policy around whatever it is replacing the Neoliberal order–just a mad grab for wealth, leading to even greater disparities than those that led to the Gilded Age's excesses and to the Great Depression. Guest Background: Gary Gerstle is Paul Mellon Professor of American History Emeritus and Paul Mellon Director of Research at the University of Cambridge. He is the author and editor of more than ten books, including two prizewinners, American Crucible (2017) and Liberty and Coercion (2015). He is a Guardian columnist and has also written for the Atlantic Monthly, the New Statesman, Dissent, The Nation, and Die Zeit, among others. He frequently appears on BBC Radio 4, BBC World Service, ITV 4, Talking Politics, and NPR. CHAPTERS (00:00) Introduction to Radical Sabbatical and Guest (03:03) Understanding Liberalism and Neoliberalism (06:11) The Evolution of Liberalism in America (09:06) The New Deal and Its Impact (12:10) Violence and Wealth Inequality in Capitalism (14:59) The Great Depression and Its Consequences (18:07) Defining Political Order (21:11) The Rise of the Neoliberal Order (24:05) Clinton's Role in Neoliberalism (26:58) The Gorky Automobile Factory and Communism's Appeal (31:19) The Rise of Soviet Communism as a Challenge to Capitalism (36:18) The Treaty of Detroit: Compromise Between Labor and Capital (41:43) Transition to Neoliberalism: The Powell Memo and Its Impact (49:13) Telecom Act of 1996: Deregulation and Its Consequences (54:16) The 2008 Financial Crisis: A Turning Point for Neoliberalism Connect with the Radical Candor team: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andy Burnham is running in a by-election in Makerfield, which is likely to be held on 18 June, to return to Parliament as an MP. If he wins, he will be the frontrunner in a contest to replace Keir Starmer as Prime Minister.Burnham's personal brand of politics is often referred to as “Manchesterism”. So, what is it?Anoosh Chakelian is joined by The New Statesman's editor-in-chief Tom McTague, who profiled Andy Burnham back in September.LISTEN: https://www.newstatesman.com/podcasts/politics-podcast/2025/09/andy-burnham-has-a-plan-for-britain-2READ: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/09/exclusive-andy-burnhams-plan-for-britainLISTEN AD-FREE:

Wes Streeting has invoked the B-word, and it's not Burnham for once. Plus: We talk to Ben Walker, co-founder of Britain Elects and Senior Data Journalist at The New Statesman, about his predictions for the Makerfield by-election when adjusted for ‘The Burnham Effect', legal chaos continues as reporting restrictions covering the convictions of four Palestine Action activists are lifted, while contempt proceedings brought against one of their barristers are chucked out on appeal.  Finally, Richard Hames took to the streets at this week's rally to investigate what, if anything, unites the Unite The Kingdom movement. With Michael Walker and Stephen Methven.

What happens when a government goes all in on AI? It creates some huge vulnerabilities. Will Dunn joins Paris Marx to dig into how the UK government is using chatbots to write laws without public consultation and why it isn't asking the hard questions about the risks of that growing reliance on US technology. Will Dunn is the business editor at the New Statesman. Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon. The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Kyla Hewson. Also mentioned in this episode: Will wrote about the UK government's adoption of AI and the risks it presents. Rishi Sunak is working with Anthropic. Sunak acknowledges companies reliant on AI technology are hiring less young people. Will shouts out the book Fancy Bear Goes Phishing by Scott J. Shapiro.

What happens when a government goes all in on AI? It creates some huge vulnerabilities. Will Dunn joins Paris Marx to dig into how the UK government is using chatbots to write laws without public consultation and why it isn't asking the hard questions about the risks of that growing reliance on US technology.Will Dunn is the business editor at the New Statesman.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

• It's Podmasters' 10th birthday! Get an extra 10% off a year's Patreon backing. Reform could well land a colossal freak victory and total power over the UK at the next General Election. Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system is struggling to cope with our new five-party system. As voters desert Labour and the Tories in droves, has proportional representation's moment finally come? Should Labour finally embrace fair votes for fear of something worse? Who is relighting the debate and how could it happen? And would a new PM's promise to make every vote count be big enough to convince Britain that Labour is serious about changing Britain for the better? The New Statesman's associate political editor and Oh God, What Now? regular Rachel Cunliffe digs into the new electoral reform debate with Andrew Harrison.   • Read Rachel's piece on proportional representation in the New Statesman here.   • Back us on Patreon – www.patreon.com/bunkercast     Written and presented by Andrew Harrison. Producer: James Liddell. Audio production: Tom Taylor. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Music by Kenny Dickinson. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production. www.podmasters.co.uk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Are young men and women being pushed further apart? Recent polling by Merlin Strategies for the New Statesman suggests a growing divide: Gen Z women are less likely than their male peers to describe themselves as “happy”, “ambitious”, “excited” or “fulfilled, and only 35% of women under 25 say they have a positive view of men. Professor of Media and Communications at Loughborough University, Dr Jilly Kay argues that digital platforms are accelerating a new era of gender polarisation. In this special edition of Radical, guest hosted by historian and academic Dr Eliza Filby, Jilly explains why she coined the term “femosphere” to describe online communities in which women are encouraged to see men as inherently problematic, avoid casual dating, and exploit male attention for financial gain. Jilly and Eliza explore why a generation raised online feels increasingly powerless amid economic insecurity and social fragmentation, and ask what solutions might exist for a culture shaped by pessimism, alienation and division. GET IN TOUCH * WhatsApp: 0330 123 9480 * Email: radical@bbc.co.ukRadical with Amol Rajan is a Today Podcast. It was made by Rufus Gray with Oscar Pearson and Bella Saltiel. Digital production was by Jem Westgate. Technical production was by Jonathan Greer. The Senior News Editor is Sam Bonham.

Declan Ryan is an Irish poet based in London. His first poetry collection, published in 2023, is called “Crisis Actor”. One reviewer said that the poems are preoccupied with, and driven by, the weight and difficulty of expectation — of ourselves and of others. His poems, reviews and essays have appeared in numerous journals including the New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The Paris Review, The Guardian, The Observer, The Irish Times and New Statesman. My featured song is “Like Never Before”, my recent single. Spotify. link —----------------------------------------------------------- The Follow Your Dream Podcast:Top 1% of all podcasts with Listeners in 200 countries! Click here for All Episodes  Click here for Guest List  Click here for Guest Groupings  Click here for Guest Testimonials Click here to Subscribe  Click here to receive our Email Updates Click here to Rate and Review the podcast —---------------------------------------- CONNECT WITH DECLAN:www.declanryan.uk —---------------------------------------- ROBERT'S NEWEST RELEASE:“MI CACHIMBER ALL STARS” is the new, expanded version of Robert's single, “Mi Cachimber”, which he wrote for his father. Featuring Camila Cortina on Rhodes and Xito Lovell on trombone in addition to Benny Benack III and Dave Smith on flugelhorn, and Project Grand Slam's rhythm section. CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL VIDEO CLICK HERE FOR ALL LINKS —-------------------------------------- ROBERT'S RECENT RELEASE: “MA PETITE FLEUR STRING QUARTET” is Robert's latest release. It transforms his jazz ballad into a lush classical string quartet piece. Praised by a host of classical music stars. CLICK HERE FOR YOUTUBE LINK CLICK HERE FOR ALL LINKS —---------------------------------------- Audio production: Jimmy RavenscroftKymera Films   Connect with the Follow Your Dream Podcast: Website - www.followyourdreampodcast.comEmail Robert - robert@followyourdreampodcast.com   Follow Robert's band, Project Grand Slam, and his music: Website - www.projectgrandslam.comYouTubeSpotify MusicApple MusicEmail - pgs@projectgrandslam.com    

On angry young women. Ashley Frawley, sociologist and senior editor at Compact, joins Alex and George to delve more deeply into young people's political polarisation on gender lines. Why is there a lack of mutual understanding or goodwill between young men and women when we have never been more equal? Why do differing political views on anything from Israel/Palestine to Donald Trump cause such interpersonal rancour? Young women are centrally concerned with pain, trauma, and empathy – and see men as lacking. What's behind this? How is the conservative explanation (bad lefty ideas) just as faulty as the lefty one (patriarchy)? What will the political consequences be of gender polarisation? For the full episode, subscribe at patreon.com/bungacast Links: Revealed: the new radicalism among young women, Scarlett Maguire, New Statesman Meet the Angry Young Women, Emily Lawford, New Statesman Why young women are so angry, Pippa Bailey, New Statesman Don't panic about “Angry Young Women”, Jack Davey, The Critic Magazine Why do young women hate men?, New Statesman, YouTube /394/ Girls, Left / Boys, Right ft. Nina Power (see for additional links) Girls and Boys are becoming very different, Alex Hochuli, Substack  

Silicon Bites Ep336 | 2026-05-11 | The UK is falling – how a two-party system built over a century is cracking apart in real time — and why the architect of the wreckage is now the frontrunner to run it. You're not worried yet? You should be. An alleged grifter and fraud is about to take the UK to a dark place, and the implications for Ukraine and European security are huge. This grifter is Nigel Farage, and huge dark money forces have allegedly helped build his political platform over decades, and he has a history of repeating moronic Kremlin's narratives. His colleague was jailed for being paid to do the same in the EU parliament. The UK's mini-Trump is on the way, brace, brace, brace. ----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.gofundme.com/f/scaling-up-campaign-to-fight-authoritarian-disinformation----------SILICON CURTAIN LIVE EVENTS - FUNDRAISER CAMPAIGN Events in 2025 - Advocacy for a Ukrainian victory with Silicon Curtainhttps://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrasOur events of the first half of the year in Lviv, Kyiv and Odesa were a huge success. Now we need to maintain this momentum, and change the tide towards a Ukrainian victory. The Silicon Curtain Roadshow is an ambitious campaign to run a minimum of 12 events in 2025, and potentially many more. Any support you can provide for the fundraising campaign would be gratefully appreciated. https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrasWe need to scale up our support for Ukraine, and these events are designed to have a major impact. Your support in making it happen is greatly appreciated. All events will be recorded professionally and published for free on the Silicon Curtain channel. Where possible, we will also live-stream events.https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extras----------SOURCES:CNN — "Farage's Reform UK wins big in local elections, splintering two-party system and piling pressure on Starmer" (8 May 2026) Al Jazeera — "UK's Labour set for heavy losses in elections as Reform makes early gains" (8 May 2026)Times of Israel / AP — "UK Labour dealt blow as far-right Reform surges, Greens gain in local elections" (8-9 May 2026) Prism News — "Reform UK leads fragmented English local elections as Labour, Conservatives lose ground" (8 May 2026) Socialist Worker UK — "Elections 2026: Reform UK surges as mainstream politics fractures" (8 May 2026) Brookings Institution — Adam Krugman, "Back to the future? British politics in 2026" (19 February 2026) ITV News Wales — "Former Reform leader in Wales Nathan Gill jailed for 10.5 years for accepting Russian bribes" (21 November 2025) Al Jazeera — "Ex-leader of Reform UK in Wales jailed for 10 years over pro-Russia bribes" (21 November 2025) New Statesman — "Ex-leader of Reform UK in Wales jailed for over 10 years" (21 November 2025) Wikipedia (Nathan Gill) ----------

We've all heard of the manosphere. We've all come across commentators who blame it for the radicalisation of young men. Political leaders express immense concern about manosphere influencers like Andrew Tate, who are blamed for the alienation of their young fans from mainstream society. We hear a lot less about the femosphere. In a recent New Statesman cover story, titled 'Meet the Angry Young Women', journalist Emily Lawford and pollster Scarlett Maguire broke fresh ground in outlining just how radicalised young British women are. This is partly a story about the internet, specifically the femosphere. It's also a story about declining economic prospects for young people, elite over-production, and the increasing hostility directed against men. Emily Lawford is the online editor at the New Statesman. Scarlett Maguire is the founder and director of Merlin Strategy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 2026 Local Elections have been some of the most seismic in British history. Across England the public took their chance to give Labour a kicking, with Reform  winning big and the Greens bringing about their best-ever election night. Add to this Wales, where Labour dropped to the third-largest party for the first time ever, and the SNP's anticipated plurality in Scotland, and May 8th now look sradically different at the local level than the previous day.To dissect what's happened overnight, Compass Director Neal Lawson is joined by two great guests:Ethan Croft is political correspondent at the New Statesman.Jake Dibden is a Research Fellow at MoreinCommon UK. Support the showEnjoyed the podcast and want to be a live audience member at our next episode? Want to have the chance in raising questions to the panelist?Support our work and be a part of the Compass community. Become a member!You can find us on Twitter at @CompassOffice. 

Daniel Dylan Wray on his anticipated first book, Groovy, Laidback & Nasty, the first ever authoritative history of Sheffield music (out today!).Exhaustively researched and spanning almost seven decades, Groovy, Laidback and Nasty features over 150 new interviews with the likes of Richard Hawley, Arctic Monkeys, Pulp, Rebecca Lucy Taylor (Self Esteem), The Human League, ABC and Cabaret Voltaire – along with countless others.The book also delves deep into many of Sheffield's far-reaching cultural roots; from Peter Stringfellow's wild years as a club promoter in the 1960s to Toddla T's teenage breakthrough in the late 2000s, via Warp records, FON and seminal nightclubs such as Jive Turkey, Niche and Gatecrasher, as well as the noughties' so-called ‘New Yorkshire' movement, a controversial rave-meets-religion movement turned cult, and a whole host of stories spanning worldwide pop stardom through to more underground, DIY and leftfield musical excursions.Daniel Dylan Wray is a music and culture writer who lives in Sheffield. Primarily writing for the Guardian, he has also written for outlets including the BBC, Pitchfork, The Independent, The Times, New Statesman, Uncut, The Quietus and countless others. Groovy, Laidback and Nasty is his first book.https://www.instagram.com/ddywray/------22 Grand Pod is on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/22grandpodOff the back of the main pod, we are creating Patreon only bonus content. For £3 a month you will get:The 00's Deep Dive: Taking a look back at the likes of the Stalking Pete Doherty documentary and going through them in painful detail. As well as going through NME Awards from back in the day and discussing what happened.My Favourite 00's Songs: Inviting patrons and other guests to come on the podcast to talk about their favourite songs, albums or moments from back in the day.Legend or Landfill: We go through NME's top 10 albums of each year and see if we think they are indeed Legendary or for the Landfill.Fans Stories: Talking to people about their memories and opinions on all things 00's.Unsigned Stories: Chatting with bands that didn't quite 'make it' in terms of signing that elusive record deal.Patrons will also get early access to any main pod episodesMerch etc: https://www.redbubble.com/people/22grandpod/shop?asc=uAlso check the YouTube channel for extended video versions of the interviews and much more: https://bit.ly/3Ts7Wu1And 22 Grand Pod on Islington Radio: https://www.mixcloud.com/IslingtonRadio/playlists/22-grand-pod/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

My colleague Oliver Traldi recently published an essay called ‘Jane Austen's Virtuous Liberalism'. It's a very nice discussion of the ways in which Austen understand the challenges of character formation.Virtue, as Austen sees it, faces two tough challenges. First, people whose characters are not yet formed must see how to be virtuous rather than vicious. Then, the virtuous must somehow find a way to succeed in their struggles against the vicious without adopting vicious means.In this episode, Oliver and I discussed Austen's ideas of virtue, what that has to do with liberalism, the relationship between philosophy and literature more broadly, as well as poetry and ideas about the Great Books. We also talked about the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice. Yes, we both liked it. Here is why Oliver thinks Jane Austen is so popular among philosophers.TRALDI: And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.And here is an extract about Austen, Smith, and the wonderfully fertile period at the end of the eighteen century.TRALDI: But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—This was my favourite bit.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?Oliver is an analytical, political philosopher. You can find out more about his work here. Here he is on Twitter. His Substack is orting. You can watch the episode on YouTube here.TranscriptHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Oliver Traldi. Oliver is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo in Ohio. He is my colleague on the Emerging Scholars Program at the Mercatus Center, and he's written a book about political beliefs as well as many other articles for magazines, online.He's got a Substack. He's maybe the most prominent political and epistemological young philosopher of his generation. [laughter] But most importantly for us, he is interested in Jane Austen and the idea of virtue. Oliver, welcome.OLIVER TRALDI: Thank you so much for having me.Reading Austen as a PhilosopherOLIVER: Let's just start—before we get to this article you've written, tell me about being a philosopher but reading Jane Austen, because she's often read and commented on by people who are not philosophers or who are only philosophers by acquaintance or whatever.TRALDI: Right.OLIVER: Is it different reading as a philosopher, do you think?TRALDI: I think yes and no. One thing as a philosopher, there are—contemporary philosophy, we have very exacting standards of rigor and clarity. And when we look for a theory, we want something that's been improved by hundreds of people and thousands of journal articles.And so, if you were to simply extract a theory of virtue from a novel and say, “Does this—is this the end-all, be-all of moral thinking?” obviously you're going to be disappointed. So I think as a philosopher, you have to look for other types of things, other types of sensitivities rather than logical sensitivity.You have to say, how sensitive is the author to the different types of situations where people's virtue can be exhibited or challenged? Or how sensitive is the author to the different types of pressures that a character's convictions can be put under, or the different sorts of compromises that they might have to make, or the different sorts of people who might not be virtuous who they might have to interact with and sort of, you know, contract with or avoid? And what are going to be the impacts of different kinds of choices in those situations?So the novelists, I think, tend—if they do it well, a novelist who's interested in morality will understand living morally probably better than a philosopher, while maybe not understanding, say, arguments about whether morality supervenes on reality or vice versa, or what grounds morality, or different theories of meta-ethics or whatever.OLIVER: I mean, there are obviously some novelists who do have a better appreciation of those things than others, we should say.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. And as I wrote in my article, I do think Austen in particular had an appreciation for this issue that you might call moral disarming or unilateral disarming. You know, does the moral person put themselves at a disadvantage relative to the immoral person? And then how do we actually help—how does morality survive?So that's a kind of philosophical question, but I tend to think—I taught last year—I think we've talked about this a bit. I taught in a great books program at Tulsa.OLIVER: This is the Jennifer Frey program.TRALDI: This is the ill-fated Jennifer Frey program. Jennifer—I don't know if you've met her, but she's an incredibly charismatic person. But somehow the program, despite being enormously successful, did not survive. You know, I was there for a year, and they decided that was long enough.OLIVER: [laughs] You don't think your arrival was the—TRALDI: No, no. I hope not. I most certainly hope not.OLIVER: No. General problems of higher education prevailed. Yes.TRALDI: Yes, many, many problems of higher education these days. But yes, so I think—what was I saying?OLIVER: Well, I think we're getting to this question of, you are not just a philosopher; you teach the great books.TRALDI: Right, exactly. The great books. That's where I was. Yes.Philosophy and the Great BooksOLIVER: So, one thing I'm interested in is that, you know, reading as a philosopher, you get a slightly different perspective on Austen. When you read other fiction, poetry, whatever, is there a benefit to you as a philosopher? Does it broaden you in some way?TRALDI: Yes. I think absolutely, it's broadening, but it's also focusing in a different way. You know, contemporary philosophy is often described or captured with the word epicycles. So what we mean when we say epicycles is, you have some major theory, which is supposed to answer some big question. And then your career as a philosopher—you're like three layers deep in the theory, in some sub-debate, and you're making some really fine-grained distinctions.And if you can make those distinctions successfully, you've had a really great career. But I think it's easy to forget, why are we doing—you know, what attracted us to philosophy? Why are we doing this to begin with?And the great novels, great books in general—one example I always use is the Book of Job. It doesn't really—it's not doing clear philosophy on the question of why do bad things happen to good people. But when you read it, you feel the question, why do bad things happen to good people? You get it, you know? You get why this is a question that people have worried about for thousands of years. You get why it calls out for an answer.You know, there's a lot of truth out there. I'm looking at a set of coat hangers, and I could count the coat hangers. But if you were given the decision, would I rather have an answer to how many coat hangers are across the room from me, or why do bad things happen to good people? You'd probably go with the latter one. There's somehow some kind of depth or importance to that question, right?And I think there's—a great novelist can often generate some vividity to these questions. They can show how these questions are part of a good life, asking these questions, trying to have these questions answered—or a not-so-good life.Certainly in Austen there are a lot of characters who learn to be more virtuous. Probably Emma is the clearest example. But you might also think of Marianne Dashwood. Really—OLIVER: Lizzy Bennet.TRALDI: Lizzy Bennet really learns to be a better person. I actually think her character is rather close to Emma in a lot of ways.OLIVER: Yes, I think Emma's sort of a clear rewrite of Lizzy in some—yes, yes.TRALDI: Yes, and in some ways more evocative, actually. Yes. I mean, we can talk about all these books. But yes, I think there's these things, even—obviously qua literature, they have other virtues, right? Which much philosophy doesn't have; very little philosophy has the literary virtues.But the philosophical virtue that a lot of literature does have is you see, okay, these are the—this is what a life is like. This is what making choices is like. These are the big questions when you decide how to live your life and what kinds of choices to make.And I think Austen—these questions are all through Austen, even though nobody has to murder anybody in Austen. Nobody has to make decisions about war and peace or about, you know, civilizational decline or civilizational progress or anything like that. These people making these small choices in a lot of ways. But those are the lives that most of us lead. And when you read Austen, you think, “Oh, okay, there's a virtuous and a vicious way to lead this kind of rather normal life.”The Good LifeOLIVER: The question of what is a good life, or what is a good life in a commercial society, maybe, is the sort of bedrock of what she's doing.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. And that's why I think Austen—you know, Austen wasn't on our syllabus at Tulsa, but she was certainly discussed. And the “what is a good life” question—to me, it's the big question that a great books program for college students should always come back to.If I didn't know what else to talk about, I would just say, “Well, we just read this book.” You know, we read these old biographies of Charlemagne from, like, Einhard—Notker the Stammerer and Einhard, his adopted son or whatever. I don't remember. But this is like 800s. I'm sure you know more about this stuff than I do.And I wasn't quite sure what to do with them because what do I know about Charlemagne? So I just said, “Does it seem like Charlemagne lived a good life?” And you know, you're off to the races. And I think that's important at that age, because that's the age at which—OLIVER: For the undergraduates?TRALDI: Yes. I think that's the age at which you're starting to make your own big decisions about what sort of life to lead. And I think for me, looking back to myself at that age, I think one thing I did wrong—at Tulsa I was in some ways as much a student as a teacher. I was rereading a lot of this stuff for the first time in decades. And some of it I was reading for the first time. As I told you, I was reading a lot of Austen for the first time for this essay.OLIVER: Right, right.TRALDI: And yes, it was stuff that I had thought about at a theoretical level, you know, like what are the ins and outs of this theory or this philosophical move or something like that. But you feel the question a bit differently when you're like, “Okay, I'm an adult. I have to decide whether to live in this way or that way.”The world is open to you. You could convert to Thomism [laughter] like so many have tried to have me do, or you could become a merchant after reading The Wealth of Nations. Or you could become a revolutionary after reading Marx, or you could become a Nietzschean. You know, there are all these choices open to you.OLIVER: Please don't become a Nietzchean.TRALDI: No, no. That is, I'm a—OLIVER: Keep your children out of school if that's going to be the result. [laughs]TRALDI: Yes. I'm a committed moralist, so I cannot, but he is—he made a comeback, that's for sure.Philosophy and PoetryOLIVER: Now, there's this obviously sort of long-running question in philosophy about, what is the relationship between philosophy and poetry? Are they antagonists, or are they in some way, you know, twins, and each provides one half of what is needed for a complete way of understanding the world? Do you have a position on this?TRALDI: Yes, I mean, I think they're what the kids call twinning.OLIVER: Twinning? [laughs]TRALDI: I think they're twinning. No, no, I think that means something different. I think that means when you're wearing the same outfit or something like that.OLIVER: So we're almost twinning with our stripes—yes, I see.TRALDI: We're almost. We actually—we are stripes and blue. Yes, we're closer than I would've expected.I would say closer to twins. There are a lot of claims that philosophy is at odds somehow with this or that. There's also this—certain people will say, “Well, ever since Socrates, philosophy has been at odds with politics.” And a big part of philosophy is, how do you survive? Well, I don't know. Nobody's trying to kill me. I think of myself as a decently committed philosopher.OLIVER: It seems to me this changed fundamentally in the Enlightenment and with the Romantics, and they see it all much more joined up. It's a sort of ancient-and-modern dynamic.TRALDI: Yes, there may be an ancient-and-modern distinction there. But yes, for me I don't see any kind of contradiction. Now, there are—and I think this comes out of what I said before—philosophical attempts to understand poetry. And certain kinds of literary and aesthetic devices do sometimes fall a little flat.The philosophical literature on metaphor, for instance—I think some theories of metaphor really don't get why people use metaphors. [laughter] So one of the most important theories of metaphor is that they're all just false, that it's like everybody who uses a metaphor is lying. This isn't the full theory. There are bells and whistles added.OLIVER: Sure, sure.TRALDI: But yes, so I think there's no contradiction. But at the same time, they are different modes in some ways, and people who do the one are often trying to do something different than the other.I do think that the desire for rigor and precision and clarity that philosophers have can be a little maddening to nonphilosophers, who see the pull of philosophical questions like, “What sort of life I should lead?” and then see, what do philosophers actually do?And we're doing all this modal logic and all these truth tables and all this very technical stuff that looks like math. And they say, “That can't possibly be the right way to think about how to live.” And it's true that there are these studies of—that suggest ethicists aren't actually very good people and things like that, although you have to wonder what is the background ethical theory that went into evaluating them.So yes, I don't think there's really a contradiction between philosophy and anything else. But certainly, there was a point in my life where I always come back to trying to write poetry and do poorly and then stop. But it was always something where I would say, “Okay, if I'm doing philosophy in the afternoon, I better wait till the evening to write poetry.” You have to sort of reboot and get into a different mode.OLIVER: Iris Murdoch used to write philosophy in the morning and novels in the afternoon. That kind of thing.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's very sensible.OLIVER: And she was upstairs for the one and downstairs for the other.TRALDI: Yes. That's even better, you know?Favorite PoetsOLIVER: Which poets do you like?TRALDI: Geez, I guess for an American, I like Wallace Stevens. I wasn't expecting this question. For a Brit, you know, I actually like Philip Larkin a lot.OLIVER: Oh, yes?TRALDI: I know—what is the opinion of Larkin? Is he considered—OLIVER: Very high.TRALDI: Very high? Okay.OLIVER: Some—there are some dissenters, but basically he's the guy.TRALDI: He's the guy, okay. Yes.OLIVER: Twentieth-century English poetry is like Auden, Larkin, Betjeman.TRALDI: Yes, Auden is—actually, my friend Jane Cooper just wrote something about Auden.OLIVER: Yes, Jane is excellent.TRALDI: Yes, Jane is really great.OLIVER: That was in the New Statesman if you want to look it up.TRALDI: That was in the New Statesman. Yes, yes, yes. But Auden, I don't know quite as well.I mean, poetry is—I think it's interesting the way that we receive poetry now. I think you were talking about this a few days ago, about things like poems appearing as inspirational quotes on social media or something like that, and whoever is the most quotable. And you felt like maybe Dostoevsky is very quotable.OLIVER: Dostoevsky has a sort of screenshot quality.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: As does Martin Amis.TRALDI: Yes. So I—OLIVER: Whereas Philip Larkin in a funny way—you know, he has very short poems. You can get the whole poem on Twitter. Like, Robert Frost has that. But something like “The Whitsun Weddings,” it's quite hard to just take three lines out. The whole thing works as a—and that, so that poem gets less—TRALDI: Yes. Which is what you would expect from a good poem, really, that it would form a kind of whole.OLIVER: Exactly. If it's a three-page ode, it should have a continuous quality.TRALDI: Yes, it should have a kind of internal structure. Yes.OLIVER: There are some one-line things and—but I think it's notable that a poet like Wordsworth doesn't seem to get a lot of social media play. And I think probably that's one reason.TRALDI: So yes, I think Larkin is somebody who, I did see some shorter references to him, and I thought I'd better just go and look up a ton of poems by this guy. And Stevens was the same way.Death and Philip LarkinOLIVER: So, which Larkin do you like?TRALDI: You're really putting me on the spot here. [laughter] It has been a little while.OLIVER: I lied to you and said it would be about Jane Austen.TRALDI: Yes, now I'm completely screwed. Well, he has a bunch about death. He has one where death is a ship following you. And he has one where death is, like, a fruit that gets picked or something.OLIVER: Apple?TRALDI: Might be an apple.OLIVER: He decides not to throw the apple.TRALDI: There's one with sweetbreads in it. And now I'm really—OLIVER: The ship one, “Next, Please”—that's excellent.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: He sees the—it's like hearing the music coming, and then the ship.TRALDI: I forgot that that was the title. I forgot that that was the title.OLIVER: And then as the ship goes past, it leaves nothing in its wake. It's very sort of—very gloomy.TRALDI: It's very gloomy, yes. I think I read Larkin in a gloomy phase; it was like Larkin and Radiohead or something.OLIVER: But he's a good example of what you were saying before, that he won't think propositionally. He's logical in the sense that he's sort of orderly, and he goes from one thing to the next. But he's not being a philosopher.TRALDI: No, of course. Yes.OLIVER: But he's very preoccupied with the sorts of questions that philosophers are probing, but has a sort of very meaningful treatment of them.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: And I think in a way, the sharp response that you want from the reader in those questions, Larkin is better at provoking than someone like Bertrand Russell or some other contemporary of his.TRALDI: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Bertrand Russell's a bit earlier, but you know what I mean.TRALDI: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that is why I'm a fan of the great books pedagogically and not—I don't know if Larkin will be called a great, you know, like, who knows? I don't really understand that designation, but tings like poetry and novels.OLIVER: The biggest dissenter was Harold Bloom, who said Philip Larkin's just a period piece. And he doesn't understand why everyone likes him.TRALDI: Oh, yes, well, I'm not on board with everything. Oh, I've also been—OLIVER: No, you're not very Bloomian.TRALDI: I'm not very Bloomian, I don't think.OLIVER: Either Allan or Harold.TRALDI: Yes. Well, I actually—this is very embarrassing, but I've actually never read The Closing of the American Mind, which I know is—OLIVER: But why should you? I'm not sure it's retained its—TRALDI: Well, it's certainly been received into my circle. But it is like a classic of anti-ideological—OLIVER: Sure. Have you read Adler, How to Read a Book, that kind of great books stuff?TRALDI: No. There's so many things that I haven't read. I mean, I'm just learning how to read. I learned how to read in Tulsa last year, [laughter] in Oklahoma, which is not where most people would go to learn how to read.Jane Austen and the Problem of MoralityOLIVER: So let's move to Jane Austen. Your thesis basically is, many moral theories face this problem that if I believe XYZ theory and you don't believe it, you can get the advantage of me. Because I'll always stick to my principles and you can just be a bad guy.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: So is morality screwed? This is what people say about liberalism. This is what you're arguing. And you think Jane Austen's got an answer to that?TRALDI: Yes, I think she has a kind of answer. And again, one decision I had to make while writing the essay was, am I going to go super—this is a completely philosophically rigorous and respectable answer? Or am I just going to kind of sketch it?OLIVER: Slum it in literary criticism? [laughter]TRALDI: Yes, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but—and I think I went for the latter, where I just wanted to kind of evoke the answer. And I think the answer has something to do with living in a large enough society where—and Austen I think is not the only person to give this answer. But you live in a large enough society where, when people see you acting well and somebody else acting poorly, the disadvantage that you have in that one interaction is outweighed by the advantages you have from the society that you gain from being seen to act well by many others.So one thing I didn't mention here, but a connection I made when I was first coming up with this idea, is that it's actually a lot like what Martin Luther King Jr. says about civil disobedience. So he says, you might think, if you're out there and the police are coming at you with bats, or the white supremacists are coming at you with bats or whatever, weapons or whatever, you might think, “I'm on the losing end of this interaction.”But actually what will happen is that this interaction will be seen by many others. And you, by keeping your calm, will be seen to be the virtuous one, and they, by being violent, will be seen to be the vicious ones. And this can only help your political cause. I'm probably abstracting some of the details of King's presentation.OLIVER: In a vulgar sense, this is the sort of “be the change you want to see” approach.TRALDI: Yes, but also, be the change you want other people to see. You know? Because that's how it gets saved from—and again, one of the ways in which this is not quite philosophically rigorous is because the philosopher can say, “Well, what about an example where nobody's going to see it? Or what about an example where the situation is set up that in doing the right thing, you're perceived to have done the wrong thing?” And you get back into tough problems. And that's why we have philosophy. You know, there's always going to be these puzzles.OLIVER: But we don't get the—I think this is what the novelists are helpful for. We don't get to set the conditions in our lives. You know, when you're doing a philosophical problem, you can just say, “Well, these are the conditions. What happens then?” And what Jane Austen is so good at is saying, “I'm going to take her and drop her in this house, and that's life. And she's just going to—she won't even know what the conditions are for a long time.” That's the novelist's preoccupation.TRALDI: Yes. Yes. It's interesting what you said about not even knowing what the conditions are. It's one thing I love, which is there in, I think, a lot of Austen—and it's done by a lot of my favorite novelists. I think Kazuo Ishiguro is really good at this. It's just novels where you see the characters' growing awareness of their circumstances and—OLIVER: Like in Klara and the Sun or something.TRALDI: Yes, or I think certainly in Never Let Me Go and in Remains of the Day, a lot of the action is in a situation where you understand what's going on better than the characters do.Clues and GamesTRALDI: And I think we talked about this the other day. In Austen, Emma, for example, is this sort of, like, halfway detective where she sees a lot of clues that could help her understand the nature of the life she's leading and the circumstances she's in, but she always misinterprets the clues. But on the other hand, it's not like she misses them entirely. She's kind of on the right track, and at least she's trying.OLIVER: And what I think Austen does so well in that book—I think it's her most important book—is that by putting us, without quite realizing it, with Emma's blinkers on, as it were, and only allowing our perspective to be her perspective, she makes us the detective.But whereas in a detective novel, you know, there's a funny little man and he is a detective, and he says, “Oh, there's a clue in this novel,” the read of—on the first read very often goes straight past what they must later realize to be a clue. And that is such a normal condition of life, that, “Oh, actually, that was one of the conditions, but you couldn't have known it. Sorry.” And you can only work it out in retrospect.TRALDI: Yes. In modern love, these are sometimes called red flags. [laughter] I think it's not quite a precise analogy, but yes, I think it's right. And I certainly—I had read Emma years ago and didn't really notice. As you say, on my first read, I didn't really notice, even having watched—I think it was the, what is it, the Kate Beckinsale version maybe, from ITV in like 1996 or something.It was really in reading it for this essay that I noticed that this feature that, starting on page 30 or 40 or so, there's a—and they're often in games. The clues are often in games. So very early on, Elton is playing some sort of poem game with Emma.OLIVER: The riddles, yes.TRALDI: The riddle game. And you know, Emma already misinterprets his riddles as being about Harriet rather than about her. But then there's also—the riddles also have some relation to things that happen much later.OLIVER: Then there's the anagram game at the end.TRALDI: There's the anagram game at the end. Yes, it's the—and I don't think there are many games like that in any of the other Austen.OLIVER: People play games, but we're not taken into them and have them narrated in that way.TRALDI: And they're not word games in general. There's card games and things like that. And you know, in Pride and Prejudice, Wickham has all these gambling debts and things like that.OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: You know, in—I don't know if you know Whit Stillman, but for the same magazine a couple years ago I wrote about Whit Stillman, who's a sort of conservative filmmaker who's a huge Austen fan and brings in Austenian themes to a lot of his movies, but writes them about characters in the 1960s and '70s. And one of them was called The Last Days of Disco, for example, about—and some of the broader social themes he talks about are also there in Austen.So one thing that was just on the edges of my consciousness as I read through the novels for this essay was the question of the noble man versus the working man, which I think is very present in Austen and has something to do with her conception of virtue: that the virtuous person will be engaging in commerce in some way.OLIVER: Those moments of the noble and the virtuous man or whatever often take place in a shop, like the drapier in Emma or the jewelry shop in Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: That's interesting. That's interesting.OLIVER: She's very careful to take us into a commercial situation and contrast.TRALDI: See, that is the sort of detail that I think a philosopher—I think we—the mere—the vibe of, “You're in a shop, and this means something.” I think this is something philosophers are—we can watch for the action; we can judge the characters' actions. But then there are these questions of atmosphere and milieu. And certain things happen in a shop; certain things happen at the seaside. In Persuasion there's an injury by the seaside.OLIVER: Yes. That's one of the most exciting scenes in Austen. Very dramatic.TRALDI: Yes, yes. I think actually Persuasion in some ways is quite different than her other books. It has a sort of—you know, in some ways it feels a little more like Frankenstein or Wuthering Heights at points. There's a little bit of a windblown, dark quality to it at times. It's a little bit bleaker. It's a little hard to explain why, but that's just a feeling that I had reading it that maybe had changed with some of the other literary tastes of the time.Artlessness in Austen's HeroinesOLIVER: Now, the quality that you focus on in the heroines, in this question of virtue defending itself against bad actors who break the rules, is artlessness.TRALDI: Yes. So this is a term Austen uses quite a bit, and almost always, she very much picks and chooses the characters who are going to receive this term. And I thought that this is like—it's not only her artless characters who face this question about how can morality survive, or how can virtue prevail, but I think they're the limit point.Like, if you really are unwilling to use—and I mentioned in the essay, when Darcy describes—I forget what; maybe it's him describing how he found Lydia and Wickham, or it's something to do with Wickham—he said, “I had to resort to arts.” So it must be, the “arts” back then means—one of the meanings of the term is dishonesty or subterfuge or something.OLIVER: Yes, if someone was artful, it could have—TRALDI: Yes, like the Artful Dodger.OLIVER: Exactly. Could have negative connotations for sure.TRALDI: Yes. And so the artless one, you know, they're missing something.So it's the question of, if you view—morality in a way means you're missing something, right? You've taken arts out of your arsenal. You've taken tools that could deal with certain situations, and you've just decided not to use them. So the question is, how can it be an advantage to have less tools?You know, we're here at Mercatus; the economists would tell you it's never advantageous to have fewer choices, right? There's no paradox of choice. It's never advantageous to have fewer choices. And so I think this is the—if morality is a kind of unilateral disarmament, artlessness is the clearest case of that.OLIVER: And you're seeing that in Fanny Price, Elinor—TRALDI: You see that in Fanny Price. You see that in Elinor. Harriet Smith is described as artless over and over again. And then there are these other characters who are described as artful, or other things that are mentioned as arts.I think Harriet, in a lot of ways, is the one who's most often described this way. And it's interesting because you think of Emma changing a lot in Emma, but Knightley actually shifts in his evaluation of Harriet, who he thought of as sort of an unserious person. And Knightley himself comes to recognize her artlessness as a kind of seriousness which makes her a good match, not ultimately for him, but for his dude, Robert.OLIVER: The farmer.TRALDI: The farmer, yes.OLIVER: He doesn't change his view of her social position, though.TRALDI: No, certainly not. But he does change his view of her character, basically. You know, her artlessness is not silliness. It has a sort of depth to it.And yes, certainly Fanny. In the Whit Stillman movie Metropolitan that's part of what set me on this, there's this whole discussion of the book Mansfield Park and this old Lionel Trilling essay about it where he says, how is it—there's this question about how modern people can even like Mansfield Park because we've sort of lost the notion of virtue being exciting or something.One of the most provocative lines to me in Austen was in Sense and Sensibility where it says that Elinor glories in Edward's integrity, which is an odd thing to glory in. You don't glory—nobody is on Instagram showing off their integrity, you know?OLIVER: It's like that René Gerard quote people like to pass around: “Everyone is on diet pills and nobody wants to be a saint.”TRALDI: I like that. That is very Instagrammable.OLIVER: Exactly. Exactly.TRALDI: That's very good, actually. I like that. Yes, so there's something provocative about the notion that virtue can be exciting, and in particular can be romantically exciting.The Importance of IntegrityOLIVER: Or even less than that. One thing I think is difficult for people interpreting Austen today is that virtue, whether it's exciting or romantically exciting, or the notion of integrity is of interest for its own sake.There's a lot of—you know, we have integrity as an organization. It's very important for me to have integrity as a professional. But there's not as much a sense of, just having integrity is the good life. We don't need to be complicated about this. That's just—you should just do that. And Austen's very firm on that all the way through.And criticism wants to pull her towards sometimes feminism, sometimes discussions of slavery, sometimes various other things. And she's just constantly sort of resisting that by saying, “I like integrity. I like good people. I don't think it's that hard.” It's a good line you've picked up on, I think.TRALDI: There's a character in The Wire who says, “A man's gotta have a code.” I think he's Omar, who murders the drug dealers and steals from them.OLIVER: I haven't seen it.TRALDI: So he says, “A man's gotta have a code.” And I think there is a—even in a character who in some ways is bad, we admire the integrity of having a code and sticking to it.There is this debate, I guess in moral philosophy, or at least on the outskirts of moral philosophy, about, “Well, if your code is wrong, maybe it's better not to stick to it.” I don't share that perspective. I think part of the good life is holding yourself to certain standards. And if those standards turn out to be wrong, the holding yourself is still of moral value, right? Not allowing yourself—OLIVER: It doesn't mean they're not adjustable.TRALDI: Yes, no, of course. If you decide the standards are wrong, and in Austen—OLIVER: It's sort of implicit in the idea of having standards that you will be honest and therefore accept when your standards need to be improved or whatever. Right?TRALDI: Yes, I think that's absolutely right. And in Austen we certainly see people shifting their standards. And I think one thing that I—of course, modern readers and watchers of Austen do not quite understand some of these things. But I think in Pride and Prejudice in particular, we're supposed to feel that Lizzy Bennet is quite hard on people and has to learn to improve herself in that way.OLIVER: We're delighted with her when she does that because we think it's sassy.TRALDI: Yes, exactly. If you go on YouTube, you can see all these, like, “Lizzy Bennet owning people's lives for 50 minutes,” these compilations of clips from the various movies or whatever. And she's obviously very, very clever.But she realizes—after coming to understand who Wickham is and feeling that she might not have another chance with Darcy, she comes to realize that she has had certain prejudices, which have made her blind to the realities of the world and blind to what might be her best options.So yes, I was saying I believe in integrity; that's all I was saying. And integrity obviously is adjustable, but I tend to think that it's better—even if the rule is wrong, it's better for the person who has it to hold themselves to it, rather than to adjust to try to get an advantage.And in philosophy, we have all sorts of terminology for these sorts of questions: “Are you an internalist or an externalist about reasons or about rules or whatever?” I think the more literary way to say it would just be that integrity is a virtue. And people should stick to their codes unless they see a good reason to change them.Austen and Adam SmithOLIVER: Now, you have recently been reading Adam Smith.TRALDI: Yes, I did read a lot of Adam Smith for this debate we had last week. Although I did a poor job because I had forgotten that the debate was about whether Smith was a philosopher or an economist. [laughter] I thought it was simply, is he a philosopher or not? So I put myself in the odd position of arguing that Adam Smith is not an economist.But yes, I think it's obvious—without knowing the background, I'm sure there are scholarly questions about, how much Smith did Austen read? And they're both 250th—a lot was happening in 1775 and 1776.OLIVER: Those were great years. Those were the good old days.TRALDI: They were great years. In the great books syllabus, you get to the end of the 1700s and suddenly there's this—you have Smith, you have Kant, you have the American Revolution, you have the French Revolution, you have Burke. Rousseau is right before, Montesquieu is right before. I mean, it was a real—OLIVER: It's a great time.TRALDI: It was a great time. A lot was being done. And obviously, you know, I love the 1800s. I love the Romantics. But you could teach a whole great books course from 1750 to 1800, probably.OLIVER: You've also got all the dictionaries and all that kind of work going on as well. It's a very, very fertile—explorations.TRALDI: Yes, yes. There's all sorts of—yes, it was an amazing time.OLIVER: So did you, having read these two, Austen and Smith, close together—TRALDI: Yes, and I should say that my reading of Austen was much more careful than my reading of Smith.OLIVER: Sure, but you wrote this before you read Smith.TRALDI: Yes, absolutely.OLIVER: Or at least you fully conceived it. Do you see a lot of Smith in Austen?TRALDI: “A lot” might be—OLIVER: Primarily from Theory of Moral Sentiments.TRALDI: So I would say that the notion of sympathy as being fundamentally part of how you recognize a good person seems to me to be there in Austen. The characters are—OLIVER: And this is the thing about awareness of other people and learning from that awareness.TRALDI: Awareness of other people and learning from other people and feeling other people's emotions. One thing that is related to sympathy in an odd way—and I think actually Austen and Smith conceive of it a bit differently, but that is there for both of them, in particular in Sense and Sensibility—is this notion of self-control or self-command.OLIVER: Self command. Yes. Yes.The Importance of Self-CommandTRALDI: Now, Smith gives a really odd argument about self command, which is that if you don't have control over your emotions, you will end up feeling or expressing something that other people can't sympathize with. And this is bad because sympathy is good, or something like that. I actually think it's a rather confused argument.OLIVER: I think what he's saying is that if you display a lack of self-command, then no matter what you are feeling, people find it difficult to deal with that sort of uncontrolled behavior. It's not the particular expression of feeling; it's the fact that you are a little unstable or—TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right.OLIVER: —a bit extra.TRALDI: I think what Smith doesn't do is explain quite how that's bad. But what I think is that actually, in Sense and Sensibility, it's a little bit the reverse, where actually Elinor and their mother, they do sympathize with Marianne. They do feel what she's feeling after—who's the other, the w guy in Sense and Sensibility? They're all w's.OLIVER: Oh, Willoughby.TRALDI: Willoughby, right, right. Not Wickham, Willoughby. When Willoughby—OLIVER: You can just say “the cad.”TRALDI: The cad. There's always a cad. So when the cad leaves, Marianne has all these emotions, and you really feel them. And Marianne also has a lack of self-command when Willoughby is there. There's this whole episode, which I didn't quite make the most of but felt very important, where they go to the house of this woman. They just sort of barge into this house, Willoughby and Marianne.And this is really supposed to show something about the relationship. If you and your partner barge into somebody's house, it can't be a good relationship somehow because it's leading you into bad actions. That's my sense of what that episode is supposed to show from the highest possible remove.OLIVER: I think, yes, and I think there are several other instances of that: when they ride in the carriage together, unaccompanied.TRALDI: Right, right.OLIVER: And there's a sort of general consternation about this. And Marianne sort of says, “Oh, well, how can it be a problem?” And they—part of the consternation is, you're breaking the rules in a very flagrant way, but also that you are assuming that it's okay because you'll get married. And this assumption is a very big one.TRALDI: Yes. And obviously there is this assumption that—she doesn't recognize quite how—she thinks her position is much more secure than it actually is, which is how it turns out in the book. But I think we're supposed to think that even if she were right about Willoughby's affection, which in a sense, she—Willoughby—OLIVER: No. Even if they do get married, she's broken the rules in a way that—TRALDI: She's broken certain rules in a way that is—but I think what's different from Smith is, there is sympathy from her family even though she lacks self-command. But that is precisely—so it's sort of a different theory of why self-command is good. It's precisely because her emotional state is actually draining for her family.And then Elinor says—when she learns that Elinor has actually been going through something—OLIVER: The same.TRALDI: —very similar, and maybe even rougher, in this whole thing with Lucy Steele telling her about this, you know, blah, blah, blah.OLIVER: Which is a beautiful name—to steal. I mean, it's great.TRALDI: It's an amazing—honestly, in some ways Sense and Sensibility may have been my favorite. I think it's just lovely.OLIVER: If I just wanted to just read one for fun, that's what I go to. I do, yes.TRALDI: Yes. And there's a lot—none of these things are quite perfectly in there. But I think honestly, everything that's in the other novels has a little part to play in Sense and Sensibility. You know, I think if I were to recommend just one, if somebody was like, “I have time for just one,” I might recommend Sense and Sensibility.But in the end, Marianne says—again, it's one of these amazingly evocative lines. Elinor says, “You didn't act that badly. Do you compare your conduct with Willoughby's?” And she says, “No, I compare it with—Elinor, I compare it with your conduct. You have this self-command.”And it's precisely the fact—it's not—and I think this is why philosophers do like Austen, because it's not—it's still literary, but there is a precision to her moral evaluations. It's precisely the fact that Elinor knew that her family loved her and didn't want to burden—it's all quite conscious. She didn't want to burden her family with her emotions. But you actually see that Elinor has this family trait of having very strong sentiment, which Marianne does, and simply also has this virtue of self-command.And that is—there are film adaptations and TV adaptations that demonstrate self-command, but it's a very hard thing to film. It's something you feel inside. It's a very hard—the actors have to be very good for you to see—you see pieces of it in some of the adaptations of Persuasion and some of the adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, but self-command is very hard to find.Austen AdaptationsOLIVER: Which adaptations do you like the best?TRALDI: I'm forgetting—I often like the long ones that I think were for the British ITV. So I like the—I think Kate Beckinsale was in the Emma one. Although I think there was one of Persuasion, which was also quite good. I like the one of Northanger Abbey. I don't think it's that good, but it's kind of cute, which I think it's probably the cutest of her long novels.Whit Stillman did a very loose adaptation of Lady Susan, which is hilariously funny at times, and also has Kate Beckinsale and some other great actors in it.OLIVER: Did you see the new Persuasion on Netflix a couple of years ago?TRALDI: No. No.OLIVER: It has that—is it Dakota Johnson, the actress, who's famous for other non-Austenian—Fifty Shades of Grey or whatever.TRALDI: Yes, and isn't she one of the Avengers or something like that?OLIVER: Something like that. But everyone was very upset that it was this terrible adaptation.TRALDI: Oh, yes.OLIVER: Didn't—it sort of killed all of Austen's words. She looks at the camera; she drinks from the bottle. I actually thought it was quite fun. On the basis that all adaptations are bad—TRALDI: I think if you allow some looseness, it can be quite fun. So for example, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, I think if you're just sort of like, “Well, this is just somebody who was inspired by Pride and Prejudice,” you can have a lot of fun with the movie.OLIVER: I think as an interpretation of the book, that film is quite bad.TRALDI: Oh, yes. I think it's absolutely missing the mark.OLIVER: But in terms of like, the countryside and the house and the geese and the food, it's fantastic.TRALDI: Oh, yes. It's lovely to look at.OLIVER: The dresses, right? The clothes are amazing.TRALDI: And a lot of the—and the cast is honestly like—OLIVER: Yes, it's great.TRALDI: The cast is really, really great. And the parts as they are—OLIVER: Rosamund Pike is maybe the best Jane on TV.TRALDI: She's terrific. And who's the one who plays Kitty?OLIVER: Yes.TRALDI: Who is in—and the father is the guy from The Hunger Games. I forget his name, but I think the father is excellent in that. But of course, it's not exactly the father from Austen.OLIVER: No, no, no.TRALDI: But as a movie itself—but yes, I like a lot of these longer TV versions.One odd thing—they make these choices. So there is some scholarly apparatus brought to bear on some of them. So I think maybe it's Persuasion that there were multiple versions of, and some of the adaptations use pieces from the unpublished version, which are interesting. And as I was reading it, I had to Google around a bit and figure out these things.Austen's Moral PrecisionTRALDI: I was going to say about Austen's moral precision, the other place where I think this comes in—and I wrote a bit about this in the essay—is near the end of Mansfield Park, when—the names are what I'm worst at—when Edmund, right, is finally disillusioned with—OLIVER: Mary.TRALDI: With Mary Crawford?OLIVER: Mm-hmm.TRALDI: It's because there was this affair. There's always a sibling or a cousin who makes some horrible mistake, you know? So there was this affair, and Mary Crawford can only criticize it by saying that they weren't very prudent, you know, in prudential terms. They took a big risk. They made a bad decision. You know, they really screwed themselves over.OLIVER: They could have made it work. Yes.TRALDI: Yes. And Edmund realizes that she lacks moral fervor because he thinks the appropriate criticism should be a moral one. And as a psychological matter, it shouldn't even enter your head, I think is the idea. I'm extrapolating a bit, but if you see somebody acting this badly, to then say, “Well, geez, you're doing something that isn't in your interest”—for that to be your first thought indicates that your priorities are highly misplaced in a way that, to him, is quite unattractive.And this also struck me as a moment of—this is something we philosophers talk about. What is the distinction between prudence and morality? They both tell you what you should do, in some sense, but there's different—the shoulds have different forces, right? So Edmund has a certain moral precision and sensitivity which, actually, Fanny is basically the only person he knows—not that everybody in the house is a bad person; his father is a decent guy, and one of the aunts is okay, I think.But yes, there's a real sophistication to this evaluation. And it's funny to me that she actually used this as the—I mean, I suspect that even at the time there were readers who were just like, “Wait, I really don't get what the nature of Edmund's problem is here,” because it's not like Mary—Mary's not like, “Oh, yes, I support infidelity.” You know? She's not like— it's if you blinked, you might miss it, the mistake that Mary has made.And so I do think that even though she's not making arguments, she's not laying out philosophical theories, there is a level of precision in her thinking about virtue, which I do think is something that it took me a little aback.And I think it's part of why—one person who quote-tweeted my article was Daniel Kodsi, who's a friend of our colleague John Maier and his coauthor often. And he runs this magazine called The Philosophers' Magazine, which I had written before. And Daniel quote-tweeted my article with something like, “Add Oliver to the list of all the philosophers who love Austen.”OLIVER: And it's a long list.TRALDI: And I think it's a long list. And I do think this precision is part of it that she does, that it is—again, it's not like a philosophy journal article, but it is an intellectual sophistication that is often not present in novelists that we really appreciate.Every Word MattersOLIVER: I mean, one way people talk about the great books is to say that every word matters. And a lot of novelists will say that about their own. Well, you know, Elizabeth Bowen used to say, “What you're doing is to make everything count.” Austen is one of the examples where it's actually true. Every word is being used carefully.TRALDI: Yes. It's funny, this bears on another Twitter argument I had recently about this phrase logographic necessity. Basically, every word in a great book is there for a reason. I think that's right. Although you have to be careful about—if you were to say, “Well, every word in Plato is there for a reason, so you can't really say he's wrong about every—” you would be kind of abandoning the philosophical mission.OLIVER: I mean it in the sense of what you might call the artistic or structural integrity of the book. Not everything has to tell in the meaning sense. But it all holds as a unit for some—TRALDI: Yes. I think everything is there—there is what we could call an internal reason for everything to be there. Everything is there to hold together—OLIVER: Like the making of a piece of furniture or something.TRALDI: And I think you hear—I think this is one thing that—and not all classical music, but I think it's one thing that distinguishes classical music even from very good contemporary pop music or jazz or rock music, is that you have this sense of, “Yes, every note I hear basically is holding up a larger structure of some sort.”OLIVER: Yes. And Jane Austen is very Mozart in that way.TRALDI: Yes, I think that's right. Yes.Austen's Place in Great Books ProgramsOLIVER: So should Jane Austen have a bigger place on great books programs, based on all these things you've said about her?TRALDI: Yes, this is—so, there was actually a debate—I did not write the piece in response to this debate, but this is—OLIVER: Tanner Greer.TRALDI: Yes, there was—Tanner Greer weighed in on this, and my friend Circe. I think—OLIVER: I think they're just desperately wrong.TRALDI: You think they don't—that she—OLIVER: I think Emma is obviously a book that should be on one of these syllabuses. Maybe Sense and Sensibility.TRALDI: Yes. I think the ones I would consider are Emma, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park. I do think they're actually longer than I realized, which is always—I mean, there are these very practical concerns with putting together a syllabus.OLIVER: Sure, sure. Although I want to ask you about that, because my response to a lot of these debates, which is maybe just because of where I studied, but just make them read more. And if they don't do the reading, that's their, you know—TRALDI: That's true. Well, I don't want to get into this too much. We already make them read a lot compared to—so for example, a year ago, I had my students read two novels in a week, which is more than most courses make college students read.OLIVER: But that's by no means unreasonable.TRALDI: No, no, of course, of course.OLIVER: You know.TRALDI: Well, exigencies of the teenage mind aside—OLIVER: Because I often think this, when people debate how things should be taught and why it's so important to keep these programs, and they'll talk about the importance of writing essays. And then it turns out the students maybe write one essay a semester. And I sort of think, well, who cares? All this rhetoric for one essay.TRALDI: Yes. I don't know if I'm really ever going to assign essays again. It just is—the age of AI is upon us.OLIVER: Sure. But you see what I mean.TRALDI: No, yes, I know exactly what you mean. And I do think reading a lot is the main part of—and certainly, you know, when I read all seven of these in two weeks, that's much more reading than I normally do, as well, to write this essay.OLIVER: But you didn't have to lie on the sofa afterwards with a cold compress. You were fine.TRALDI: In a way it was a really good two weeks. If you get to read—I mean, this is why we have good lives, right? If you get to read Jane Austen and you call that work, it's a nice life.OLIVER: So yes, will you be putting Emma on your program?TRALDI: I would definitely consider Emma. I would definitely consider Sense and Sensibility. I would consider Mansfield Park. I think these are the ones that have—the moral element is very prominent. But it's obviously there in all of her books.OLIVER: You can have a really good moral discussion about Mansfield Park, which is a bigger, broader thing than Pride and Prejudice, for example.TRALDI: Yes, I think so. I would definitely consider—in the 1800s there were—obviously the British novel of the 1800s was a big deal, and there's—OLIVER: [laughs] We did quite well, yes.TRALDI: You all did quite well. So the ones we did at Tulsa—we had Frankenstein and Wuthering Heights and The Picture of Dorian Gray. And then we had one Irish, The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And I don't think anybody—if you replaced one of those with Emma or Mansfield Park, I don't think anybody would say, “Oh, you made a horrible call.”OLIVER: I think Tanner's point was that you simply don't have that many slots for an English novel that deals with these sorts of ideas, and that it should obviously be Middlemarch because that is the bigger novel. It's about bigger questions of society. It's about the whole—it's got more greatness in it, whereas Austen is sort of more about the individual.TRALDI: So I do think that this question of greatness—I think there are some people who read Austen and they think, “Well, this is—obviously it has all these sorts of themes, but it's not great. It has this littleness to it. It has this smallness to it.”OLIVER: It's domestic.TRALDI: That is not my reading of it. I think if that's the question, I don't feel that way. I think it pulls out these great themes about the nature of virtue and the nature of moral learning, becoming a better person, the nature of love. We read Sappho. We read the Symposium.To me, you read Wuthering Heights and you say, “Oh, this is a really big book because it's about society and how trauma gets passed down, and it has these horror elements, and it's very dark.” But actually, it's quite hard to figure out, how do we turn Wuthering Heights in a discussion about how to live? With Austen, it's just completely straightforward.OLIVER: [laughs] How not to live, maybe.TRALDI: Yes. In Austen, it's just completely straightforward. This is the discussion. This is what she had in mind as well, this question of how to live. So to me, Austen is completely—in terms of her successes as an artist, she belongs. In terms of her themes, she belongs. So I would not rule her out. I think she is absolutely a great, and who knows what that means, but I think she would be completely appropriate on any of these syllabi.Reading PlansOLIVER: Very good. And what will you read next?TRALDI: What will I read next? I mean, our—from the beginning, I'm thinking I should read some more poetry. It's been a while. Actually, speaking of—this is funny. Well, I want to get into William Empson. He had an odd life, which I think somebody should do like a movie about him or something.OLIVER: Yes, he'd make a great movie.TRALDI: I think Empson would be a good movie. So that might be—OLIVER: Are you going to read the poems or the criticism?TRALDI: Probably a little of both, but that's for a while from now. I think, you know, at the moment I'm back to reading philosophy. So what novel will I read next? That's a good question. What should I read next?OLIVER: If you like Jane Austen?TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Maybe read one of the people that she admired, like Samuel Richardson or Fanny Burney, someone like that.TRALDI: You know, I do think—you saying Samuel Richardson reminded me, I've read very little Samuel Johnson. I think reading some of the great critics, I think, writing this piece—OLIVER: Oh, Johnson, yes. You would like Johnson.TRALDI: I think I would like Johnson. I think I would like Empson. The history of literary criticism is something I have very, very little idea of.OLIVER: Oh, well, then, Johnson. I mean, he's the best.TRALDI: Yes, I think I should, I should definitely read Johnson.OLIVER: English literary criticism begins and ends with Samuel Johnson.TRALDI: You know what, this is a little different, but—I might have talked about this with you a little bit—I want to read The Fable of the Bees, Mandeville, because reading about Smith—a lot of the ideas that we think of as Smithian are actually Mandevillian, and he kind of moderated them.OLIVER: Well, he hated Mandeville.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Very hard on him.TRALDI: Yes. So a lot—like the invisible hand, it's only a small part of Smith's thinking, but it was like the entirety of Mandeville's thinking, this sort of dynamic.OLIVER: Well, I think it means different things for them. I think Mandeville, in a funny way, is more philosophical in the sense you were saying, and trying to make these propositions. And Smith was saying, “Well, what about feelings? What about all these funny things that we can't account for? Like, look around. It's too messy.”TRALDI: No, that makes sense to me. Yes, I think between Mandeville and Smith, Mandeville is somebody who thought virtue was sort of like a con.OLIVER: A fool's game.TRALDI: Exactly. You're sort of a sucker if you try to be virtuous.OLIVER: I think he also just assumed that if you were commercial, you were obviously on the get.TRALDI: Yes. But this is one of the great—I know we talked about this, but it's one of the great—you see this in Smith, you see this in Austen—commerce has its own virtues, and they are very traditional virtues. You have to be trustworthy. You have to be pleasant. You can't really be wholly self-interested in every moment because people have to be willing to deal with you given your—I mean, think about Yelp reviews or even just word of mouth. “Oh, that person screwed me over.”OLIVER: There's a discussion in one of Hayek's papers, which is—it's a very Smithian point he makes about, the nature of the knowledge problem means that it's not so much that I'm trying to get information about the thing you're trying to sell me, but I'm really trying to get information about you and whether you are someone I should be buying from. Which is exactly the project that the novelists and Smith—there's a sort of period between Smith and the early novelists, running through Austen to George Eliot, when they're all working on that problem together.TRALDI: Yes. I do think in Austen, it's often—the real puzzle is, how do you make out somebody else's character?OLIVER: Exactly.TRALDI: This is a phrase that Lizzy Bennet does use with regard to Darcy. And how do we actually figure out who the trustworthy and untrustworthy people are?OLIVER: And if you're too philosophical about that, in the sort of analytic sense, I think you can end up not paying enough attention to the particulars of that question.TRALDI: Yes.OLIVER: Because when you actually try and do it, it's really, really hard.TRALDI: Yes. And I think this is the sort of—reading Austen, you get a sense of—and there are very few philosophy papers on things like this. Reading Austen, you get a sense of, what sorts of details in a normal life are the ones that I can extract information from to make out somebody else's character?In philosophy, we do ask, what is a good character and what is the good action in this sort of situation? What is the bad action in this sort of situation? But it's not for the philosopher to say, “Okay, in the sorts of situations you're likely to be in, what do you pay—where do you direct your attention to try to figure out these things about?”And it's not—I don't think Austen—it's not super subtle either. In Persuasion—I mentioned in the essay—in Persuasion, it starts out by saying Anne really cared about paying off the family's debts, and the rest of her family didn't give a s**t, you know? And it's sort of like, okay, so we just immediately are like, Anne's the sort of person who you might want to have a business transaction with because if she has a debt to you, she might actually pay it. And I forget if that's the exact detail, but it's something like that, you know?OLIVER: And there's also the novelist—Jane Austen is very good at what you don't see, which aga

Crowds of young people chant his name but the Green leader is "nervous", says Ailbhe Rea.--A year ago, Zack Polanksi was relatively unknown. Now, he's leading an "eco-populist" movement that has revitalised the Green Party and looks likely to propel a left-wing surge in the May local elections.Ailbhe Rea profiled the Green leader for the New Statesman, meeting him shortly after he'd been addressing young activists. She found a "sweet, slightly nervous" man who admits he still has much to learn about running a political party. Here Ailbhe speaks to Anoosh Chakelian about Zack Polanski's political position, his unusual background, and the lessons he might learn from Jeremy Corbyn.LISTEN NEXT: Attacks on Jews are an indictment of Keir Starmer's BritainREAD: Zack Polanski is still learningLISTEN AD-FREE:

Ece Temelkuran (fascism expert, political exile, journalist) first began reporting on the global slide into fascism as a journalist witnessing it happen in her home country, Turkey. In 2016, she was forced into exile and went on to write the bestselling book How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps From Democracy to Authoritarianism that warned the rest of the world just how close it was to the same perilous descent. In her new book, Nation of Strangers, Rebuilding Home in the 21st Century, Ece argues we are entering “an age of survival” and that we are all about to become exiles of sorts, “unhomed” from our sense of belonging to the world as authoritarianism rips us from our sense of collective meaning as humans. Pivoting her focus to how we can best move through this moment, she says we need to turn to those who've already been exiled (the immigrants, the refugees, the victims of fascism) to learn how to rebuild our “what comes next”.This is a fascinating thesis and Ece, who lives nomadically between Berlin and Greece, gives us a very raw and vulnerable take on it.About EceEce Temelkuran is an award-winning Turkish novelist, political thinker, and public speaker. Her work has appeared in publications including The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde, El País, New Statesman, and Der Spiegel.Show Notes Get your copy of How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps From Democracy to Authoritarianism and Nation of Strangers, Rebuilding Home in the 21st CenturyYou can connect with Ece on Instagram here and on X here.--Watch on YouTube or SubstackIf you need to know a bit more about me… head to my "about" pageFor more such conversations, subscribe to my Substack newsletter, it's where I interact the most!Let's connect on Instagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Part 2 of this two-part episode "Meet the Angry Young Women" Megan and Dr Phoebe o'Brien @tenshioppai address the article of the same title in The New Statesman in which they and a handful of British women were misrepresented and manufactured into what the journalist branded 'The Femosphere'. Megan and Phoebe continue to address the missing realities and contexts behind the words and look at the raw polling data to draw differing conclusions.Chapters00:00 Recap from Part 102:23 The Intersectionality of Feminism and Activism03:31 Art and Performance: A Feminist Perspective05:35 Chronic Pain and Feminism: A Personal Narrative07:02 The Intersection of Gender and Systemic Issues08:44 Medical Misogyny and Women's Health09:37 Misrepresentation of Women's Experiences10:15 The Impact of War on Activism14:09 Gender Dynamics in Activism14:09 Radicalization Through Global Events16:31 Emotional Responses to Conflict18:07 The Value of Life and Gendered Perspectives22:40 Political Alignment in Relationships26:06 The Role of Data in Understanding Relationships26:59 The Importance of Shared Values in Relationships29:02 Privilege and Political Alignment30:57 Understanding Political Views and Relationships32:42 The Impact of Capitalism on Family Planning34:33 Reproductive Autonomy and Economic Independence37:02 Social Reproductive Labor and Gender Expectations39:15 The Need for Alternative Family Structures41:33 Perceptions of Privilege and Fear in Relationships45:41 The Role of Advocacy and Activism in Women's Lives49:54 The Power of Women in Social JusticeIf you enjoy the conversation, please consider rating the show or leaving a review. Share with anyone else who would appreciate the conversation and see you soon!

Today, after a week of warning's from the government over the financial impact of the war in Iran - is the reality starting to hit home?Adam, Chris and Faisal are joined by Ailbhe Rea Political Editor of the New Statesman to discuss how the financial effects could be felt all over the country? It comes after the Bank of England warns interest rates could rise this year following a “significant energy price shock”. And, with economic uncertainty looking set to continue - could this put off Labour MPs from launching a challenge to Keir Starmer? You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://bbc.in/newscastdiscordGet in touch with Newscast by emailing newscast@bbc.co.uk or send us a WhatsApp on +44 0330 123 9480.New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: https://bbc.in/4guXgXd Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. The presenter was Adam Fleming. It was made by Jack Maclaren with Jem Westgate. The social producer was Gabriel Purcell-Davis . The technical producer was . The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.

"It makes me furious," says New Statesman editor Tom McTague. An attack in Golders Green, London, yet again exposes the rise of antisemitism in Britain. Anoosh Chakelian has been reporting from the borough, where local Jews fear for their safety, volunteer security guards patrol the streets and Jewish children have to pass through heavy security cordons to get to school. She tells editor Tom McTague about what she found.Meanwhile, the rise of anti-Jewish hate is putting more pressure on a government still mired in the Peter Mandelson scandal. The Prime Minister has become deeply unpopular, the Iran War continues, and local elections loom. Westminster has concluded Keir Starmer has two options: fight or flight. The New Statesman's political editor, Ailbhe Rea, says the Prime Minister has made a decision and raised his fists. READ:Terror in Golders Green, by Anoosh Chakelianhttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2026/04/terror-in-suburbiaWe are under attack, by Rachel Cunliffehttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2026/04/we-are-under-attackLISTEN AD-FREE:

Freya is the author of the Substack GIRLS, where she writes about the challenges girls and young women face in the modern world. She's also a staff writer for Jonathan Haidt's newsletter, After Babel. She has contributed to publications including The New Statesman, The Spectator, and The Free Press.  Today, we are going to be discussing her debut book, GIRLS, Generation Z and the commodification of everything, which will be out in the US in May. Her book serves as both an account of her upbringing in the digital age, as well as an inside look for parents and caring adults about what adolescence online is like right now.

For years, we have wrung our hands about the manosphere: the misogynist influencers like Andrew Tate exploiting a generation of disillusioned and impressionable lost boys.But what about radicalised young women?New, exclusive polling for the New Statesman has uncovered a huge difference in the political, economic and social outlook of women and men under 30 in Britain, created largely by women turning to the left. Should we be worried about the “femmosphere”?Joining me to discuss is Scarlett Maguire, founder and director of polling and research company Merlin Strategy, and our online editor Emily Lawford, whose brilliant report about this phenomenon will be out in this week's issue of the New Statesman.Meet the Angry Young Womenhttps://www.newstatesman.com/cover-story/2026/04/meet-the-angry-young-women-why-young-women-dont-want-to-date-me Revealed: the new radicalism among young women https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/polling/2026/04/revealed-the-new-radicalism-among-young-women LISTEN AD-FREE:

The concept of domicide and its profound impact on Homs, Syria, is explored through the work and personal experiences of architect Ammar Azzouz. A research fellow at the University of Oxford, Dr. Azzouz discusses the deliberate destruction of homes, the trauma of exile, and his eventual return to his homeland. He examines how international attention frequently prioritizes the loss of ancient heritage sites, such as Palmyra, while often overlooking the intimate grief associated with the destruction of residential areas where people lived their daily lives. The discussion also delves into the slow violence of pre-war urban projects, like the "Homs Dream", which proposed demolishing parts of the historic old city for modern development, and how these top-down models continue to threaten the city's identity during current reconstruction efforts.   01:04 Introduction 01:35 Personal Memories of Home 05:00 The Architectural Identity of Homs 06:11 Exile and Return 10:51 Domicide vs. Urbicide 13:16 Slow Violence and the Homs Dream 17:18 The Politics of Reconstruction and Dubaization 21:04 Alternative Visions for Healing 33:00 Empowering the Next Generation 34:32 The Limitations of International Heritage Organizations 41:06 Highlighting Favorite Historical Sites   Dr. Ammar Azzouz is a British Academy Research Fellow at the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford. Originally from Homs, Syria, he studied architecture before moving to the UK to complete his PhD. Since leaving Syria in 2011, he has not been able to return. Dr. Azzouz is the author of Domicide: Architecture, War and the Destruction of Home in Syria (2023, Bloomsbury), with a foreword by Lyse Doucet, the BBC's Chief International Correspondent. He is the Principal Investigator of the Slow Violence and the City research project, which explores the connection between violence and the built environment in both wartime and peacetime. His current research focuses on art and culture in exile, particularly within the Syrian diaspora. Dr. Azzouz has contributed to platforms such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and The New Statesman, and has been invited to speak at over 130 events worldwide, from Mexico and the US to Germany, the Netherlands, and Qatar.   Connect with Dr. Ammar Azzouz

Is Ed Miliband actually the most powerful man in the UK government?

Is Ed Miliband actually the most powerful man in the UK government?

Fatima Bhutto is an acclaimed journalist and novelist. She is the author of the novels The Runaways and The Shadow of the Crescent Moon. Her nonfiction works include New Kings of the World and Songs of Blood and Sword. Fatima Bhutto's new book is The Hour of the Wolf: A Memoir. Her essays and other work have been featured in New Statesman, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, and The Nation. Fatima's life has been shaped by political violence. She is the granddaughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Pakistani prime minister arrested and executed in the 1970s. She is the niece of Benazir Bhutto, twice prime minister of Pakistan before being assassinated in 2007. Her father, Murtaza Bhutto, was killed when Fatima was just 14 years old. Fatima counsels that yes, this dystopic world is profoundly broken — but we need to find solace, community and strength from one another to make it a better place. She warns that ignoring injustice and evil only provides the illusion of temporary safety and that we must confront such dark forces even if it is terrifying and comes at a great cost. Fatima reflects on the ethics of bringing new life into such a broken world and the importance of healthy relationships, love, and community. Chauncey does some public thinking about why everything feels so much harder right now. The Age of Trump. The war and destruction in the Middle East. The Orwellian assault on reality and truth. And why we have no choice but to endure and soldier on. He ponders whether we are lost and spinning in the Twilight Zone and draws on Rod Serling's wisdom to find his way out. And he shares Fintan O'Toole's essential new essay on Donald Trump as the Mad King and his war against Iran. WHERE CAN YOU FIND ME? On Twitter: https://twitter.com/chaunceydevega On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/chauncey.devega My email: chaunceydevega@gmail.com HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THE CHAUNCEY DEVEGA SHOW? Via Paypal at ChaunceyDeVega.com: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thechaunceydevegashow https://www.patreon.com/TheTruthReportPodcast  

In this special edition of Coffee House Shots, our political editor Tim Shipman is joined by historian, biographer and foreign policy adviser to four different prime ministers, John Bew. In his 7,000-word essay published in the New Statesman last week, John sets out the historical context which has contributed to the malaise and decline of the British state – and hypothesises that we are currently living in the ‘fourth great disruption' to the political and economic order. He takes Tim through the previous three disruptions and the lessons that government needs to learn from them in order to stop the rot. Does the secret to forging a new place in the world order lie in fixing the machinery of government? Which figures from the past should we take inspiration from?Produced by Megan McElroy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this special edition of Coffee House Shots, our political editor Tim Shipman is joined by historian, biographer and foreign policy adviser to four different prime ministers, John Bew. In his 7,000-word essay published in the New Statesman last week, John sets out the historical context which has contributed to the malaise and decline of the British state – and hypothesises that we are currently living in the ‘fourth great disruption' to the political and economic order. He takes Tim through the previous three disruptions and the lessons that government needs to learn from them in order to stop the rot. Does the secret to forging a new place in the world order lie in fixing the machinery of government? Which figures from the past should we take inspiration from?Produced by Megan McElroy.Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After a massive 17 years reporting on politics for the New Statesman, George Eaton joins Anoosh Chakelian the podcast for a farewell episode.Anoosh and George discuss his highlights from covering the past 17 years in British politics, from the post-crash austerity years, through Labour civil war and ultimately Keir Starmer's Labour election victory in 2024. They reflect on the lessons learned, what's changed... and what's stayed the same. LISTEN AD-FREE:

For this episode of My Martin Amis, we're plugging into the London recording studio of the New Statesman magazine.From the intro: "Founded by economists and social reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb and the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw in 1913, the New Statesman has enjoyed a long history of finding and fostering journalistic and literary talent. In the early Seventies, the paper went through a succession of editors, during which time its circulation hit a low ebb. Among its staff then were two bright talents who became close friends through their employer. They sported flared trousers, yellowed fingertips and hair of thickness and length relatively similar to my guests. Their names were Christopher Hitchens and Martin Amis. Half a century later, minus the flares and barely disguised homoerotic tension (although who knows what we'll learn on this episode), a new duo stalks the newsroom."Jack's guests on this episode are George Monaghan, the New Statesman's junior commissioning editor, and Nick Harris, its ideas editor. At 27, they are both in the prime of their youth, yet have chosen to speak about what Amis taught them in Experience on the eternally fertile subjects of love, life, and literature.FOLLOW US ON X: @mymartinamisYOUTUBE: @mymartinamispod Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Pippa Crerar of The Guardian assesses the latest developments at Westminster.To discuss the unfolding conflict in the Middle East, and Britain's response, Pippa is joined by Labour peer, Lord West, a former First Sea Lord and Security Minister, and former Conservative MP, Tobias Ellwood, who also served as a minister in the Foreign Office and MoD.Following the vote on the government's controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill which would restrict jury trials, Pippa speaks to Dame Vera Baird KC, a former Labour minister and Victims' Commissioner who now chairs the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Cassia Rowland, senior researcher at The Institute for Government who specialises in criminal justice.Sunder Katwala, Director of the think tank British Future, which focuses on immigration and integration, and crossbench peer Kishwer Falkner, the former chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, debate the government's new strategy on social cohesion.And, following the release of government documents relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, Pippa speaks to Keir Starmer's former Director of Strategy, Paul Ovenden, and the political editor of the New Statesman, Ailbhe Rea.

Keir Starmer apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. Is it enough?After a vote by MPs forced its hand, the government has released the first batch of files relating to Mandelson's appointment. They revealed that the Prime Minister was told the Labour peer posed a “reputational risk” because of his relationship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and that his national security adviser raised concerns about the appointment.The so-called “Mandelson files” also exposed a number of facts about the vetting process that were already reported by the New Statesman in February and have angered Labour MPs all over again, and prompted further calls for Keir Starmer's resignation.Will the Prime Minister go?Anoosh Chakelian is joined by Rachel Cunliffe - who has read through every word of the files - do discuss what they contain, what they reveal, and what Keir Starmer must do now.

Labour is losing the voters it used to count on, a new study reveals.In the aftermath of the Green Party's triumph in the Gorton and Denton by-election, and with local elections in London councils and other major cities coming up, Labour is losing the left progressive voters it could once rely on having “nowhere else to go”.Now, the biggest study ever of these voters – shared exclusively with the New Statesman – reveals the true risk to Labour's future of leaving them behind.This work, done by surveying 10,000 voters and a randomised control trial style approach, has found out who the so-called progressive defectors are, why they're deserting Labour, and what impact this could have on Labour's electoral prospects.Anoosh Chakelian is joined by Steve Akehurst of Persuasion UK who co-authored this report with 38 Degrees.LISTEN AD-FREE:

Events in Iran have led news bulletins, alongside ongoing wars in Ukraine and Sudan. As crises compete for attention, questions are being raised about whether reporting captures a wider shift in global power or centres on immediate developments. Christina Lamb, Chief International Correspondent at The Sunday Times, Aaron Bastani, co-founder of Novara Media, and Sir John Tusa, former Managing Director of the BBC World Service, discuss the media's role in uncertain times. The Green Party's victory in the Gorton and Denton by-election in the north of England, overturning a previously safe Labour seat, has prompted debate about political reporting in the UK. Rachel Cunliffe, Associate Editor at The New Statesman, explains her approach. At the age of 90, Sir John Tusa has launched a new interview podcast, The Best is Yet to Come, featuring conversations with public figures in their nineties. The series enters a crowded podcast market and raises questions about how older voices are represented in the media. Production credits Presenters: Katie Razzall Producer: Lisa Jenkinson Content Producer: Lucy Wai Researcher: Ruth Waites Technical Coordinator: Margot Campanaro Sound: Pat Sissons

Thi Nguyen draws on the philosophy of games to explain how scores and metrics impact our lives—and what we can do to use them more meaningfully. — YOU'LL LEARN — 1) How metrics can coopt our values and behavior2) The hidden costs of the desire to quantify everything3) Why the wrong people often seem to get aheadSubscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1133 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT THI — C. Thi Nguyen is associate professor of philosophy at the University of Utah, and a specialist in the philosophy of games, the philosophy of technology, and the theory of value. A former food writer for the Los Angeles Times, Nguyen is active in public philosophy, writing for The New York Times, The Washington Post, New Statesman, and elsewhere.• Book: The Score: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else's Game• Website: Objectionable.net• Bluesky: @add-hawk— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Study: The Cultural Evolution of Bad Science by Paul Smaldino and Richard McElrath• Book: Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (The Institution for Social and Policy St) by James Scott• Book: Trust and Antitrust: A Philosophical Exploration of Ethics by Annette Baier• Book: The Grasshopper - Third Edition: Games, Life and Utopia by Bernard Suits— THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Monarch.com. Get 50% off your first year on with the code AWESOME.• Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO• Shopify. Sign up for your $1/month trial at Shopify.com/betterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Does the Greens' decisive victory in Gorton & Denton spell the end of Keir Starmer's Labour?After the worst possible outcome for Labour in the Gorton & Denton by-election, Ailbhe Rea joins Tom McTague on Daily Politics from the New Statesman.They discuss what this means for Keir Starmer, for the Labour party - and for the future of politics in Britain.READ: Inside the Greens' seismic Gorton and Denton winSAVE £££ THIS CHRISTMAS:⭐️ Gift big ideas, bold politics, and proper journalism from just £2LISTEN AD-FREE:

Should some children be given drugs to stop them going through puberty?That's the question the NHS, the government and an independent research and ethics committee have been trying to answer.The “Pathways” trial, backed by the NHS and led by a team from King's College London, aims to test the effectiveness and safety of puberty blockers for children experiencing gender dysphoria.At the end of 2025, the trial was approved to go ahead. Health Secretary Wes Streeting reassured parliamentary colleagues it “could not have received more oversight and scrutiny”. But now the agency in charge of medicine regulation has U-turned. The study is now paused because of ethical and safety concerns. All of which, Hannah Barnes reports today on the New Statesman website, they knew about when they first approved it.So how did the study get approved in the first place? And what does this tell us about the systems we trust to ensure medical research is safe and ethical?Also: Baroness Amos has released the interim findings from her review into England's maternity care, and says the system is "not working". Oli Dugmore is joined by Hannah Barnes to discuss.READ MOREInside the decision to pause the puberty blockers trialEngland's maternity system "not working" for anyone, report saysSAVE £££ THIS CHRISTMAS:⭐️ Gift big ideas, bold politics, and proper journalism from just £2LISTEN AD-FREE:

Last October, the war in Sudan took a new turn with the capture of El Fasher by the Rapid Support Forces. The city in western Sudan had been under siege by the RSF for more than two years before the Sudanese armed forces suddenly withdrew. After taking control of El Fasher, the RSF began to carry out a massacre of civilians. A UN fact-finding mission recently found that the crimes in El Fasher bore “hallmarks of genocide.” The Sudanese catastrophe is all the more depressing because it comes after a brief moment of greater political openness and optimism after the ousting of a dictator in 2019. Joshua Craze joins Long Reads to discuss the evolution of the conflict in Sudan and its likely future. Joshua has written many articles about the politics of Sudan and South Sudan for publications such as the New Statesman, the New York Review of Books, and Jacobin. Read Joshua's 2023 essay for Jacobin, “Only You Can Save Darfur”: https://jacobin.com/2023/07/only-you-can-save-darfur And find other work on his personal website: https://www.joshuacraze.com/essays Long Reads is a Jacobin podcast looking in-depth at political topics and thinkers, both contemporary and historical, with the magazine's longform writers. Hosted by features editor Daniel Finn. Produced by Conor Gillies with music by Knxwledge.

Why has Keir Starmer ordered an investigation into Labour Together? What the hell is going on with our local elections? And what are we meant to make of Reform UK's new “shadow cabinet”?You asked, we'll answer. Anoosh Chakelian is joined by Rachel Cunliffe for the listener questions episode of Daily Politics from the New Statesman.

This week we launched another, that's right ANOTHER, podcast. The Exchange is the New Statesman's long-form interviews show, featuring some big names you know, and some big names you'll be glad to learn of.Listen on: Spotify and AppleSAVE £££ THIS CHRISTMAS:⭐️ Gift big ideas, bold politics, and proper journalism from just £2LISTEN AD-FREE:

Joining Iain Dale on Cross Question are the New Statesman's senior associate editor Rachel Cunliffe, London Assembly members Keith Prince from Reform UK and Caroline Russell from the Green Party, plus the political commentator Nathaniel Ogunniyi.

From “Nazi” to “Marxist” Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has faced intense criticism from all sides.But how exactly is she trying to reform the British education system? For the cover of this week's New Statesman magazine, our executive editor Pippa Bailey has written an extended profile of Phillipson - exploring what motivates the education secretary, and how consequential the next few months could be for her - and the Labour Party.She joins Oli Dugmore in the studio.

Ralph Leonard, freelance writer for Sublation Magazine and the New Statesman among other publications, joins Doug to discuss the career and reputation of Noam Chomsky and discuss his recent article on Chomsky that appeared in the New Statesman:Ralph Leonard on Chomsky in the New Statesmanhttps://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2026/02/noam-chomskys-reputation-will-never-recover-from-the-epstein-filesSupport Sublation Media https://patreon.com/dietsoap

A listener paying 67% in tax asks if Labour are destroying UK productivity. From the new and improved New Statesman podcast studio, Anoosh and Rachel answer listener questions on tax, student loans and Nigel Farage MP's second (and third, and fourth) jobs.In the mailbag this week:A listener earning over £100,000 writes in to ask why the government is failing to address the "tax trap" that means high-earning parents are "penalised".Would the British public back student loan forgiveness?And why can Nigel Farage and other parliamentarians present TV shows, run consultancies, and earn money on the side of their MP job?SAVE £££ THIS CHRISTMAS:⭐️ Gift big ideas, bold politics, and proper journalism from just £2LISTEN AD-FREE:

55 babies died at the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust between 2019 and 2023 that may have survived with better care. The New Statesman's investigations editor Hannah Barnes joins Anoosh Chakelian to explore the findings of her investigation.SAVE £££ THIS CHRISTMAS:⭐️ Gift big ideas, bold politics, and proper journalism from just £2LISTEN AD-FREE:

Today, the Prime Minister has apologised to victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador and “believing his lies”.Adam is joined by Henry in Westminster with Ailbhe Rea from the New Statesman and Luke Sullivan, Keir Starmer's former political director to break down where the Mandelson affair leaves the Prime Minister. You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://bbc.in/newscastdiscordGet in touch with Newscast by emailing newscast@bbc.co.uk or send us a WhatsApp on +44 0330 123 9480.New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: https://bbc.in/4guXgXd Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. The presenter was Adam Fleming. It was made by Anna Harris with Shiler Mahmoudi. The social producer was Beth Pritchard. The technical producer was Mike Regaard. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.

Trump Moves on Greenland, Cuba and Venezuela, Victor Davis Hanson: How Democrats Justify Fraud Trump Is Doing Something HUGE with CUBA!!! Victor Davis Hanson: How Democrats Justify Fraud When Truth Becomes 'Right-Wing' | Melanie Phillips   Trump Is Doing Something HUGE with CUBA!!! Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/3DxkAue0Tu0?si=xHitFJgsJOElWSP2 Dr. Steve Turley 1.5M subscribers Jan 8, 2026 ►Go to http://TurleyGold.com or text TURLEY to 35052 to get instant access to this free report and learn how to take full control of your financial future. The content presented by sponsors may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission. ———————————————————————- ► Step inside the movement! Experience first-hand what it's like to be part of the Courageous Patriot Club and watch a FREE episode of Turley Walks! Head to http://turley.pub/turleywalks ——————————————————————— ► Subscribe to stay updated on breaking news, cultural trends, and conservative commentary:     / drsteveturleytv   ——————————————————————— ► Check out our OFFICIAL Clips channel here:     / @turleyclips   ——————————————————————— ► You Won't BELIEVE Just Happened with GREENLAND!!!     • You Won't BELIEVE Just Happened with GREEN...   ———————————————————————   Victor Davis Hanson: How Democrats Justify Fraud https://youtu.be/IqHc_UM7kcY?si=SCikd7M5hDlgsWxv The Daily Signal  and Victor Davis Hanson 153,549 views Dec 14, 2025 #DailySignal The recent $1 billion fraud allegations coming out of the Somali community in Minnesota are a perfect example of how the “Democratic mind” views fraud: “[The Democrats create a federal program. They put people in it to run it. Those people have friends and contractor companies that do business with it. No one's salary is dependent on whether they do a good or bad job. They're there for life. “When you look at the Democratic reaction to this, they're not angry,” argues Victor Davis Hanson on today's episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words:”     • Victor Davis Hanson: We've Had Enough of t...   The Daily Signal cannot continue to tell stories, like this one, without the support of our viewers: https://secured.dailysignal.com/ #DailySignal   When Truth Becomes 'Right-Wing' | Melanie Phillips https://youtu.be/g7Hf21j3yBA?si=0S-c--HlvWTcxZuZ John Anderson Media 776K subscribers 772,854 views Jul 9, 2025 In this historic clip, British journalist Melanie Phillips argues that we have slipped into an age of "cultural totalitarianism". She bases this off a widespread societal refusal to listen to evidence, accept reason and consider dissenting views, which has the effect of reducing common freedoms for citizens across the Western world. Melanie Phillips is a British public commentator with a distinguished career in journalism. She began her professional journey writing for The Guardian and New Statesman and currently contributes to The Times, The Jerusalem Post, and The Jewish Chronicle, focusing on political and social issues. Phillips has also appeared as a panelist on BBC Radio 4's The Moral Maze and BBC One's Question Time. In recognition of her journalistic contributions, she was awarded the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 1996 while writing for The Observer. Her other published works include the memoir Guardian Angel: My Story, My Britain. You can watch the full interview here:     • Fighting Anti-Semitism and Cultural Decay ...   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues. John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate." If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here:     / @johnandersonmedia   And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: https://johnanderson.net.au/contact/ Follow John on Twitter:    / johnandersonac   Follow John on Facebook:    / johnandersonac   Follow John on Instagram:    / johnandersonac   Support the channel: https://johnanderson.net.au/support/ Website: https://johnanderson.net.au/ Podcast: https://johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/ 2QH0QLLWRVNX5LFA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://x.com/MelanieLatest    / melanielatest   https://www.thetimes.com/profile/mela...

Today marks the thirteenth consecutive day of widespread anti-government protests in Iran.Iran's top security body has warned that the Iranian judiciary and security forces will show "no leniency towards saboteurs", amid internet blackouts.Adam is joined in the Newscast studio by BBC chief international correspondent, Lyse Doucet, to discuss the context and history of the unrest in Iran, plus President Trump's warnings to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his response. Also in the studio is New Statesman political editor Ailbhe Rea and The House Mag deputy editor Sienna Rodgers, to wrap up the first calendar week of UK Politics.You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://bbc.in/newscastdiscordGet in touch with Newscast by emailing newscast@bbc.co.uk or send us a WhatsApp on +44 0330 123 9480.New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: https://bbc.in/4guXgXd Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. The presenter was Adam Fleming. It was made by Anna Harris with Chloe Scannapieco and Jem Westgate. The social producer was Beth Pritchard. The technical producer was Mike Regaard. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.

Open inquiry depends on the ability to ask uncomfortable questions and follow evidence wherever it leads. Eric Kaufmann argues that this norm is now under strain. Drawing on history, survey data, and political theory, Kaufmann outlines how certain identity categories came to be treated as morally sacred—and how that shift has reshaped debates about equality, free speech, and academic inquiry. The conversation examines the long roots of today's culture conflicts, the move from equal opportunity to equal outcomes, and why disagreement is increasingly interpreted as moral transgression rather than intellectual difference. At stake is what happens to liberal societies when some questions can no longer be asked, nd whether open inquiry can still be defended without abandoning concern for fairness and dignity Eric Kaufmann is a professor of politics and Director of the Centre for Heterodox Social Science at the University of Buckingham. He has written for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Times of London, Newsweek, National Review, New Statesman, Financial Times, and other outlets. His new book is The Third Awokening.

Being the smartest person in the room is usually where the trouble starts. In today's episode, Ryan sits down with journalist and author Helen Lewis to talk about genius, ego, and why so many “brilliant” people eventually spin out. They discuss the myth of the lone genius, why smart people overthink themselves into bad ideas, and how ego quietly wrecks careers, reputations, and entire movements. ​​Helen Lewis is a staff writer at The Atlantic who writes about politics and culture. Her first book, Difficult Women: A History of Feminism in 11 Fights, was a Guardian, Telegraph and Financial Times book of the year. She has written for The New York Times, the Guardian, The New Statesman, and Vogue. She is the host of the BBC podcast series The New Gurus and Helen Lewis Has Left the Chat, and co-host of Radio 4's Kafka vs Orwell and Strong Message Here. She won the 2024 Kukula Award for excellence in nonfiction book reviewing.Check out Helen Lewis' book The Genius Myth: A Curious History of a Dangerous IdeaFollow Helen on Instagram @HelenLewisPosts Read Helen Lewis' article: How Joe Rogan Remade Austin