Podcast appearances and mentions of Patrick Deneen

I've been in London this week talking to America watchers about the current situation in the United States. First up is Edmund Fawcett, the longtime Economist correspondent in DC and historian of both liberalism and conservatism. Fawcett argues that Trump's MAGA movement represents a kind of third way between liberalism and conservatism - a version of American populism resurrected for our anti-globalist early 21st century. He talks about how economic inequality fuels Trumpism, with middle-class income shares dropping while the wealthy prosper. He critiques both what he calls right-wing intellectual "kitsch" and the left's lack of strategic vision beyond its dogma of identity politics. Lacking an effective counter-narrative to combat Trumpism, Fawcett argues, liberals require not only sharper messaging but also a reinvention of what it means to be modern in our globalized age of resurrected nationalism. 5 Key Takeaways* European reactions to Trump mix shock with recognition that his politics have deep American roots.* Economic inequality (declining middle-class wealth) provides the foundation for Trump's political appeal.* The American left lacks an effective counter-narrative and strategic vision to combat Trumpism.* Both right-wing intellectualism and left-wing identity politics suffer from forms of "kitsch" and American neurosis.* The perception of America losing its position as the embodiment of modernity creates underlying anxiety. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are in London this week, looking westward, looking at the United States, spending some time with some distinguished Englishmen, or half-Englishmen, who have spent a lot of their lives in the United States, and Edmund Fawcett, former Economist correspondent in America, the author of a number of important books, particularly, Histories of Liberalism and Conservatism, is remembering America, Edmund. What's your first memory of America?Edmund Fawcett: My first memory of America is a traffic accident on Park Avenue, looking down as a four-year-old from our apartment. I was there from the age of two to four, then again as a school child in Washington for a few years when my father was working. He was an international lawyer. But then, after that, back in San Francisco, where I was a... I kind of hacked as an editor for Straight Arrow Press, which was the publishing arm of Rolling Stone. This was in the early 70s. These were the, it was the end of the glory days of Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, the anti-war movement in Vietnam. It was exciting. A lot was going on, a lot was changing. And then not long after that, I came back to the U.S. for The Economist as their correspondent in Washington. That was in 1976, and I stayed there until 1983. We've always visited. Our son and grandson are American. My wife is or was American. She gave up her citizenship last year, chiefly for practical reasons. She said I would always feel American. But our regular visits have ended, of course. Being with my background, my mother was American, my grandfather was American. It is deeply part of my outlook, it's part of my world and so I am always very interested. I read quite a bit of the American press, not just the elite liberal press, every day. I keep an eye on through Real Clear Politics, which has got a very good sort of gazetteer. It's part of my weather.Andrew Keen: Edmund, I know you can't speak on behalf of Europe, but I'm going to ask a dumb question. Maybe you'll give me a smarter answer than the question. What's the European, the British take on what's happening in America? What's happened in this first quarter of 2025?Edmund Fawcett: I think a large degree of shock and horror, that's just the first reaction. If you'll allow me a little space, I think then there's a second reaction. The first reaction is shock and terror, with good reason, and nobody likes being talked to in the way that Vance talked to them, ignorantly and provocatively about free speech, which he feels he hasn't really thought hard enough about, and besides, it was I mean... Purely commercial, in largely commercial interest. The Europeans are shocked by the American slide from five, six, seven decades of internationalism. Okay, American-led, but still internationalist, cooperative, they're deeply shocked by that. And anybody who cares, as many Europeans do, about the texture, the caliber of American democracy and liberalism, are truly shocked by Trump's attacks on the courts, his attacks on the universities, his attack on the press.Andrew Keen: You remember, of course, Edmund, that famous moment in Casablanca where the policeman said he was shocked, truly shocked when of course he wasn't. Is your shock for real? Your... A good enough scholar of the United States to understand that a lot of the stuff that Trump is bringing to the table isn't new. We've had an ongoing debate in the show about how authentically American Trump is, whether he is the F word fascist or whether he represents some other indigenous strain in US political culture. What's your take?Edmund Fawcett: No, and that's the response to the shock. It's when you look back and see this Trump is actually deeply American. There's very little new here. There's one thing that is new, which I'll come to in a moment, and that returns the shock, but the shock is, is to some extent absorbed when Europeans who know about this do reflect that Trump is deeply American. I mean, there is a, he likes to cite McKinley, good, okay, the Republicans were the tariff party. He likes to say a lot of stuff that, for example, the populist Tom Watson from the South, deeply racist, but very much speaking for the working man, so long as he was a white working man. Trump goes back to that as well. He goes back in the presidential roster. Look at Robert Taft, competitor for the presidency against Eisenhower. He lost, but he was a very big voice in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s. Robert Taft, Jr. didn't want to join NATO. He pushed through over Truman's veto, the Taft-Hartley bill that as good as locked the unions out, the trade unions out of much of the part of America that became the burgeoning economic America, the South and the West. Trump is, sorry, forgive me, Taft, was in many ways as a hard-right Republican. Nixon told Kissinger, professors are the enemy. Reagan gave the what was it called? I forget the name of the speech that he gave in endorsing Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. This in a way launched the new Republican assault on liberal republicanism. Rockefeller was the loser. Reagan, as it were, handed the palm to Rocket Goldwater. He lost to Johnson, but the sermon they were using, the anti-liberal went into vernacular and Trump is merely in a way echoing that. If you were to do a movie called Trump, he would star, of course, but somebody who was Nixon and Reagan's scriptwright, forgive me, somebody who is Nixon and Reagan's Pressman, Pat Buchanan, he would write the script of the Trump movie. Go back and read, look at some of Pat Buchanan's books, some of his articles. He was... He said virtually everything that Trump says. America used to be great, it is no longer great. America has enemies outside that don't like it, that we have nothing to do with, we don't need allies, what we want is friends, and we have very few friends in the world. We're largely on our, by our own. We're basically a huge success, but we're being betrayed. We're being ignored by our allies, we're being betrayed by friends inside, and they are the liberal elite. It's all there in Pat Buchanan. So Trump in that way is indeed very American. He's very part of the history. Now, two things. One is... That Trump, like many people on the hard right in Europe, is to some extent, a neurotic response to very real complaints. If you would offer a one chart explanation of Trumpism, I don't know whether I can hold it up for the camera. It's here. It is actually two charts, but it is the one at the top where you see two lines cross over. You see at the bottom a more or less straight line. What this does is compare the share of income in 1970 with the share of the income more or less now. And what has happened, as we are not at all surprised to learn, is that the poor, who are not quite a majority but close to the actual people in the United States, things haven't changed for them much at all. Their life is static. However, what has changed is the life for what, at least in British terms, is called the middle classes, the middle group. Their share of income and wealth has dropped hugely, whereas the share of the income and wealth of the top has hugely risen. And in economic terms, that is what Trumpism is feeding off. He's feeding off a bewildered sense of rage, disappointment, possibly envy of people who looked forward, whose parents looked forward to a great better life, who they themselves got a better life. They were looking forward to one for their children and grandchildren. And now they're very worried that they're not those children and grandchildren aren't going to get it. So socially speaking, there is genuine concern, indeed anger that Trump is speaking to. Alas, Trump's answers are, I would say, and I think many Europeans would agree, fantasies.Andrew Keen: Your background is also on the left, your first job was at the New Left Reviews, you're all too familiar with Marxist language, Marxist literature, ways of thinking about what we used to call late-stage capitalism, maybe we should rename it post-late-stage-capitalism. Is it any surprise, given your presentation of the current situation in America, which is essentially class envy or class warfare, but the right. The Bannonites and many of the others on the right fringes of the MAGA movement have picked up on Lenin and Gramsci and the old icons of class warfare.Edmund Fawcett: No, I don't think it is. I think that they are these are I mean, we live in a world in which the people in politics and in the press in business, they've been to universities, they've read an awful lot of books, they spend an awful lot of time studying dusty old books like the ones you mentioned, Gramsci and so. So they're, to some extent, forgive me, they are, they're intellectuals or at least they become, they be intellectualized. Lenin called one of his books, What is to be Done. Patrick Deneen, a Catholic right-wing Catholic philosopher. He's one of the leading right-wing Catholic intellectuals of the day, hard right. He named it What is To Be Done. But this is almost kitsch, as it were, for a conservative Catholic intellectual to name a book after Vladimir Lenin, the first Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution. Forgive me, I lost the turn.Andrew Keen: You talk about kitsch, Edmund, is this kitsch leftism or is it real leftism? I mean if Trump was Bernie Sanders and a lot of what Trump says is not that different from Sanders with the intellectuals or the few intellectuals left in. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles, would they be embracing what's happening? Thanks, I've got the third again.Edmund Fawcett: No, you said Kitsch. The publicists and intellectuals who support Trump, there is a Kitsch element to it. They use a lot of long words, they appeal to a lot of authorities. Augustine of Hippo comes into it. This is really kind of intellectual grandstanding. No, what matters? And this comes to the second thing about shock at Trump. The second thing is that there is real social and economic dysfunction here that the United States isn't really coping with. I don't think the Trumpites, I don't think the rather kitschy intellectuals who are his mature leaders. I don't think they so much matter. What I think matters here is, put it this way, is the silence of the left. And this is one of the deep problems. I mean, always with my friends, progressive friends, liberal friends, it's terribly easy to throw rocks at Trump and scorn his cheerleaders but we always have to ask ourselves why are they there and we're here and the left at the moment doesn't really have an answer to that. The Democrats in the United States they're strangely silent. And it's not just, as many people say, because they haven't dared to speak up. It's not that, it's a question of courage. It's an intellectual question of lacking some strategic sense of where the country is and what kinds of policy would help get it to a better place. This is very bleak, and that's part of, underlies the sense of shock, which we come back to with Trump after we tell ourselves, oh, well, it isn't new, and so on. The sense of shock is, well what is the practical available alternative for the moment? Electorally, Trump is quite weak, he wasn't a landslide, he got fewer percentage than Jimmy Carter did. The balance in the in the congress is quite is quite slight but again you could take false comfort there. The problem with liberals and progressives is they don't really have a counter narrative and one of the reasons they don't have a counter-narrative is I don't sense they have any longer a kind of vision of their own. This is a very bleak state of affairs.Andrew Keen: It's a bleak state of affairs in a very kind of surreal way. They're lacking the language. They don't have the words. Do they need to reread the old New Left classics?Edmund Fawcett: I think you've said a good thing. I mean, words matter tremendously. And this is one of Trump's gifts, is that he's able to spin old tropes of the right, the old theme music of the hard right that goes back to late 19th century America, late 19th century Europe. He's brilliant at it. It's often garbled. It's also incoherent. But the intellectuals, particularly liberals and progressives can mishear this. They can miss the point. They say, ah, it doesn't, it's not grammatical. It's incoherent. It is word salad. That's not the point. A paragraph of Trump doesn't make sense. If you were an editor, you'd want to rewrite it, but editors aren't listening. It's people in the crowd who get his main point, and his main point is always expressed verbally. It's very clever. It's hard to reproduce because he's actually a very good actor. However, the left at the moment has nothing. It has neither a vocabulary nor a set of speech makers. And the reason it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the vocabularies, because it doesn't have the strategic vision.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and coming back to the K-word you brought up, kitsch. If anything, the kitsch is on the left with Kamala Harris and her presentation of herself in this kitschification of American immigration. So the left in America, if that's the right word to describe them, are as vulnerable to kitsch as the right.Edmund Fawcett: Yes, and whether it's kitsch or not, I think this is very difficult to talk to on the progressive left. Identity politics does have a lot to answer for. Okay, I'll go for it. I mean, it's an old saying in politics that things begin as a movement, become a campaign, become a lobby, and then end up as a racket. That's putting it much too strongly, but there is an element in identity politics of which that is true. And I think identity politics is a deep problem for liberals, it's a deep problem for progressives because in the end, what identity politics offers is a fragmentation, which is indeed happened on the left, which then the right can just pick off as it chooses. This is, I think, to get back some kind of strategic vision, the left needs to come out of identity politics, it needs to go back to the vision of commonality, the vision of non-discrimination, the mission of true civic equality, which underlay civil rights, great movement, and try to avoid. The way that identity politics is encouraged, a kind of segmentation. There's an interesting parallel between identity politics and Trumpism. I'm thinking of the national element in Trumpism, Make America Great Again. It's rather a shock to see the Secretary of State sitting beside Trump in the room in the White House with a make America it's not a make America great cap but it says Gulf of America this kind of This nationalism is itself neurotic in a way that identity politics has become neurotic.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a Linguistic.Edmund Fawcett: Neurosis. Both are neurotic responses to genuine problems.Andrew Keen: Edmund, long-time viewers and listeners to the show know that I often quote you in your wonderful two histories of conservatism and liberalism when you, I'm not sure which of the books, I think it may have been in conservatism. I can't remember myself. You noted that this struggle between the left and the right, between liberalism and conservatives have always be smarter they've always made the first move and it's always been up to the liberals and of course liberalism and the left aren't always the same thing but the left or progressives have always been catching up with conservatives so just to ask this question in terms of this metaphorical chess match has anything changed. It's always been the right that makes the first move, that sets the game up. It has recently.Edmund Fawcett: Let's not fuss too much with the metaphor. I think it was, as it were, the Liberals made the first move for decades, and then, more or less in our lifetimes, it has been the right that has made the weather, and the left has been catching up. Let's look at what happened in the 1970s. In effect. 30-40 years of welfare capitalism in which the state played ever more of a role in providing safety nets for people who were cut short by a capitalistic economy. Politics turned its didn't entirely reject that far from it but it is it was said enough already we've reached an end point we're now going to turn away from that and try to limit the welfare state and that has been happening since the 1970s and the left has never really come up with an alternative if you look at Mitterrand in France you look at Tony Blair new Labor in you look at Clinton in the United States, all of them in effect found an acceptably liberal progressive way of repackaging. What the right was doing and the left has got as yet no alternative. They can throw rocks at Trump, they can resist the hard right in Germany, they can go into coalition with the Christian Democrats in order to resist the hard right much as in France but they don't really have a governing strategy of their own. And until they do, it seems to me, and this is the bleak vision, the hard right will make the running. Either they will be in government as they are in the United States, or they'll be kept just out of government by unstable coalitions of liberal conservatives and the liberal left.Andrew Keen: So to quote Patrick Deneen, what is to be done is the alternative, a technocracy, the best-selling book now on the New York Times bestseller list is Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson's Abundance, which is a progressive. Technocratic manifesto for changing America. It's not very ideological. Is that really the only alternative for the left unless it falls into a Bernie Sanders-style anti-capitalism which often is rather vague and problematic?Edmund Fawcett: Well, technocracy is great, but technocrats never really get to do what they say ought to be done, particularly not in large, messy democracies like Europe and the United States. Look, it's a big question. If I had a Leninist answer to Patrick Deneen's question, what is to be done, I'd be very happy to give it. I feel as somebody on the liberal left that the first thing the liberal left needs to do is to is two things. One is to focus in exposing the intellectual kitschiness, the intellectual incoherence on the one hand of the hard right, and two, hitting back in a popular way, in a vulgar way, if you will, at the lies, misrepresentations, and false appeals that the hard-right coasts on. So that's really a kind of public relations. It's not deep strategy or technocracy. It is not a policy list. It's sharpening up the game. Of basically of democratic politics and they need to liberals on the left need to be much tougher much sharper much more vulgar much more ready to use the kinds of weapons the kinds of mockery and imaginative invention that the Trumpites use that's the first thing the second thing is to take a breath and go back and look at the great achievements of democratic liberalism of the 1950s, 60s, 70s if you will. I mean these were these produced in Europe and the United States societies that by any historical standard are not bad. They have terrible problems, terrible inequities, but by any historical standard and indeed by any comparative standard, they're not bad if you ask yourself why immigration has become such a problem in Western Europe and the United States, it's because these are hugely desirable places to live in, not just because they're rich and make a comfortable living, which is the sort of the rights attitude, because basically they're fairly safe places to live. They're fairly good places for your kids to grow up in. All of these are huge achievements, and it seems to me that the progressives, the liberals, should look back and see how much work was needed to create... The kinds of politics that underpinned that society, and see what was good, boast of what was and focus on how much work was needed.Andrew Keen: Maybe rather than talking about making America great again, it should be making America not bad. I think that's too English for the United States. I don't think that should be for a winner outside Massachusetts and Maine. That's back to front hypocritical Englishism. Let's end where we began on a personal note. Do you think one of the reasons why Trump makes so much news, there's so much bemusement about him around the world, is because most people associate America with modernity, they just take it for granted that America is the most advanced, the most modern, is the quintessential modern project. So when you have a character like Trump, who's anti-modernist, who is a reactionary, It's bewildering.Edmund Fawcett: I think it is bewildering, and I think there's a kind of bewilderment underneath, which we haven't really spoken to as it is an entirely other subject, but is lurking there. Yes, you put your absolutely right, you put your finger on it, a lot of us look to America as modernity, maybe not the society of the future, but certainly the the culture of the future, the innovations of the future. And I think one of the worrying things, which maybe feeds the neurosis of Make America Great Again, feeds the neurosis, of current American unilateralism, is a fear But modernity, talk like Hegel, has now shifted and is now to be seen in China, India and other countries of the world. And I think underlying everything, even below the stuff that we showed in the chart about changing shares of wealth. I think under that... That is much more worrisome in the United States than almost anything else. It's the sense that the United States isn't any longer the great modern world historical country. It's very troubling, but let's face it, you get have to get used to it.Andrew Keen: The other thing that's bewildering and chilling is this seeming coexistence of technological innovation, the Mark Andreessen's, the the Musk's, Elon Musk's of the world, the AI revolution, Silicon Valley, who seem mostly in alliance with Trump and Musk of course are headed out. The Doge campaign to destroy government or undermine government. Is it conceivable that modernity is by definition, you mentioned Hegel and of course lots of people imagine that history had ended in 1989 but the reverse was true. Is it possible that modernity is by-definition reactionary politically?Edmund Fawcett: A tough one. I mean on the technocracy, the technocrats of Silicon Valley, I think one of their problems is that they're brilliant, quite brilliant at making machines. I'm the machinery we're using right here. They're fantastic. They're not terribly good at. Messy human beings and messy politics. So I'm not terribly troubled by that, nor your other question about it is whether looming challenges of technology. I mean, maybe I could just end with the violinist, Fritz Kreisler, who said, I was against the telegraph, I was against the telephone, I was against television. I'm a progressive when it comes to technology. I'm always against the latest thing. I mean, I don't, there've always been new machines. I'm not terribly troubled by that. It seems to me, you know, I want you to worry about more immediate problems. If indeed AI is going to take over the world, my sense is, tell us when we get there.Andrew Keen: And finally, you were half-born in the United States or certainly from an American and British parent. You spent a lot of your life there and you still go, you follow it carefully. Is it like losing a lover or a loved one? Is it a kind of divorce in your mind with what's happening in America in terms of your own relations with America? You noted that your wife gave up her citizenship this year.Edmund Fawcett: Well, it is. And if I could talk about Natalia, my wife, she was much more American than me. Her mother was American from Philadelphia. She lived and worked in America more than I did. She did give up her American citizenship last year, partly for a feeling of, we use a long word, alienation, partly for practical reasons, not because we're anything like rich enough to pay American tax, but simply the business of keeping up with the changing tax code is very wary and troublesome. But she said, as she did it, she will always feel deeply American, and I think it's possible to say that. I mean, it's part of both of us, and I don't think...Andrew Keen: It's loseable. Well, I have to ask this question finally, finally. Maybe I always use that word and it's never final. What does it mean to feel American?Edmund Fawcett: Well, everybody's gonna have their own answer to that. I was just... What does it mean for you? I'm just reading. What it is to feel American. Can I dodge the question by saying, what is it to feel Californian? Or even what is to be Los Angelino? Where my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live. A great friend said, what it is feel Los Angeles you go over those mountains and you put down your rucksack. And I think what that means is for Europeans, America has always meant leaving the past behind.Edmund Fawcett was the Economist‘s Washington, Paris and Berlin correspondent and is a regular reviewer. His Liberalism: The Life of an Idea was published by Princeton in 2014. The second in his planned political trilogy – Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition – was published in 2020, also by Princeton University Press. The Economist called it ‘an epic history of conservatism and the Financial Times praised Fawcett for creating a ‘rich and wide-ranging account' that demonstrates how conservatism has repeated managed to renew itself.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, First Things brings you the recording of the Inaugural Neuhaus Lecture presented by Patrick J. Deneen. Please subscribe at www.firstthings.com/subscribe in order to access this and many other great pieces!

In this episode, First Things brings you the recording of the Inaugural Neuhaus Lecture presented by Patrick J. Deneen. Please subscribe at www.firstthings.com/subscribe in order to access this and many other great pieces!

Von außen betrachtet wirkt die radikale Rechte wie ein massiver Block – und auf einem unaufhaltsamen Vormarsch. Die AfD liegt in Umfragen fast gleichauf mit der Union, und US-Präsident Donald Trump wirbelt mit seinen Dekreten die bisherige Weltordnung durcheinander. Doch da ist auch die Meldung, dass sein Berater, der Tech-Milliardär Elon Musk vor der Abberufung aus dem Weißen Haus steht. Zwar dementiert die Trump-Administration, aber tatsächlich gibt es bei näherer Betrachtung auch im rechten Lager Risse. Manche sind persönlicher Natur, andere haben einen ideologischen Hintergrund. Die radikale Rechte in Deutschland und den USA lässt sich grob in zwei Lager teilen: Auf der einen Seite die Tech-Enthusiasten um Musk, denen auch die deutsche AfD-Chefin Alice Weidel nacheifert, die auch in ihrer deutschen Partei schon länger einen staatsskeptischen, wirtschaftsliberalen Ansatz verfolgt. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Vordenker wie der ehemalige Trump-Berater Steve Bannon oder in Deutschland Verleger Götz Kubitschek, die eine eher sozial patriotische Ideologie anhängen: Der starke Staat als sozialpolitisch engagierter Kümmerer für die “richtigen” Amerikaner oder die “richtigen Deutschen”. Worin unterscheiden sich die Lager genau, wie beeinflussen sie sich gegenseitig – und warum ist es bisher nicht zum Bruch gekommen? Darüber sprechen Robert Pausch, Paul Middelhoff und Lisa Caspari aus den Politikredaktionen von ZEIT und ZEIT ONLINE in einer neuen Ausgabe des Podcasts “Was Jetzt? - Der Wahlkreis.” Die nächste Ausgabe von Was Jetzt? - Der Wahlkreis erscheint am 25.4 Moderation: Lisa Caspari Produktion: Pool Artists Shownotes: Steve Bannon im Podcast der New York Times Quinn Slobodian über Elon Musk: Carlotta Voß über Patrick Deneen und die Postliberalen Marc Andreessen im Podcast der New York Times JD Vance über den Split im MAGA-Lager Patrick Deneens Substack Peter Thiel im Gespräch mit Bari Weiss [ANZEIGE] Mehr über die Angebote unserer Werbepartnerinnen und -partner finden Sie HIER.   [ANZEIGE] Falls Sie uns nicht nur hören, sondern auch lesen möchten, testen Sie jetzt 4 Wochen kostenlos DIE ZEIT. Hier geht's zum Angebot.

“One thing I would note about the Trumpian populists and their counterparts elsewhere in the West today is that they're a very peculiarly tribal kind of post conservative right. It's almost a kind of reassertion of paganism and tribal boundaries and grievance. That is very different from a more traditional kind of conservatism, where the texture of society and the accumulated wisdom of the past and the cultivation of virtue loomed large – at least as ideals, as aspirations. In contrast to that, this kind of contemporary populism has very little texture or wisdom or virtue – its more like a resentful atomism that is invoking certain tribal markers of membership because it's politically convenient, as it were.” – Adam Kempton Webb, NBN interview March 2025 In this expansive and thought-provoking interview, Adam K. Webb lays out a sweeping vision for a post-liberal, post-national world constitution, challenging the dominance of state sovereignty, corporate capitalism, and procedural liberalism. Drawing on over a quarter-century of scholarship culminating in his latest book The World's Constitution (Routledge, 2025) Webb proposes a system of functional sphere pluralism, where governance is rooted in ethical traditions rather than ideology – where citizenship, law, and economic participation are no longer restricted by territorial nation-states. Coming to terms with Webb's interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective suggests an affinity with thinkers like the late James C. Scott, in his critique of centralized control, coupled with the sensibilities of Roger Scruton and Patrick Deneen, in their defense of ethical and cultural order. Yet Webb diverges from them all in his insistence on a global, meta-constitutional framework, which might place him closer to the likes of Robert D. Kaplan, as seen in his latest work on civilizational cycles and geopolitical evolution. From his critique of elite legal capture (responding to a question on Katharina Pistor's The Code of Capital) to his historical engagement with Confucian, Islamic, and European pluralist traditions, Webb offers a bold alternative to today's stagnating governance models. Whether you are interested in constitutional theory, global governance, or the future of civilization itself, the professor's insights in this interview offers an intellectually rich and thought provoking conversation that is well worth your time. Below are links to Dr. Webb's latest books – Taylor & Francis Open Access publications: Deep Cosmopolis: Rethinking World Politics and Globalization (2015) The World's Constitution: Spheres of Liberty in the Future Global Order (2025) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

“One thing I would note about the Trumpian populists and their counterparts elsewhere in the West today is that they're a very peculiarly tribal kind of post conservative right. It's almost a kind of reassertion of paganism and tribal boundaries and grievance. That is very different from a more traditional kind of conservatism, where the texture of society and the accumulated wisdom of the past and the cultivation of virtue loomed large – at least as ideals, as aspirations. In contrast to that, this kind of contemporary populism has very little texture or wisdom or virtue – its more like a resentful atomism that is invoking certain tribal markers of membership because it's politically convenient, as it were.” – Adam Kempton Webb, NBN interview March 2025 In this expansive and thought-provoking interview, Adam K. Webb lays out a sweeping vision for a post-liberal, post-national world constitution, challenging the dominance of state sovereignty, corporate capitalism, and procedural liberalism. Drawing on over a quarter-century of scholarship culminating in his latest book The World's Constitution (Routledge, 2025) Webb proposes a system of functional sphere pluralism, where governance is rooted in ethical traditions rather than ideology – where citizenship, law, and economic participation are no longer restricted by territorial nation-states. Coming to terms with Webb's interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective suggests an affinity with thinkers like the late James C. Scott, in his critique of centralized control, coupled with the sensibilities of Roger Scruton and Patrick Deneen, in their defense of ethical and cultural order. Yet Webb diverges from them all in his insistence on a global, meta-constitutional framework, which might place him closer to the likes of Robert D. Kaplan, as seen in his latest work on civilizational cycles and geopolitical evolution. From his critique of elite legal capture (responding to a question on Katharina Pistor's The Code of Capital) to his historical engagement with Confucian, Islamic, and European pluralist traditions, Webb offers a bold alternative to today's stagnating governance models. Whether you are interested in constitutional theory, global governance, or the future of civilization itself, the professor's insights in this interview offers an intellectually rich and thought provoking conversation that is well worth your time. Below are links to Dr. Webb's latest books – Taylor & Francis Open Access publications: Deep Cosmopolis: Rethinking World Politics and Globalization (2015) The World's Constitution: Spheres of Liberty in the Future Global Order (2025) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

“One thing I would note about the Trumpian populists and their counterparts elsewhere in the West today is that they're a very peculiarly tribal kind of post conservative right. It's almost a kind of reassertion of paganism and tribal boundaries and grievance. That is very different from a more traditional kind of conservatism, where the texture of society and the accumulated wisdom of the past and the cultivation of virtue loomed large – at least as ideals, as aspirations. In contrast to that, this kind of contemporary populism has very little texture or wisdom or virtue – its more like a resentful atomism that is invoking certain tribal markers of membership because it's politically convenient, as it were.” – Adam Kempton Webb, NBN interview March 2025 In this expansive and thought-provoking interview, Adam K. Webb lays out a sweeping vision for a post-liberal, post-national world constitution, challenging the dominance of state sovereignty, corporate capitalism, and procedural liberalism. Drawing on over a quarter-century of scholarship culminating in his latest book The World's Constitution (Routledge, 2025) Webb proposes a system of functional sphere pluralism, where governance is rooted in ethical traditions rather than ideology – where citizenship, law, and economic participation are no longer restricted by territorial nation-states. Coming to terms with Webb's interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective suggests an affinity with thinkers like the late James C. Scott, in his critique of centralized control, coupled with the sensibilities of Roger Scruton and Patrick Deneen, in their defense of ethical and cultural order. Yet Webb diverges from them all in his insistence on a global, meta-constitutional framework, which might place him closer to the likes of Robert D. Kaplan, as seen in his latest work on civilizational cycles and geopolitical evolution. From his critique of elite legal capture (responding to a question on Katharina Pistor's The Code of Capital) to his historical engagement with Confucian, Islamic, and European pluralist traditions, Webb offers a bold alternative to today's stagnating governance models. Whether you are interested in constitutional theory, global governance, or the future of civilization itself, the professor's insights in this interview offers an intellectually rich and thought provoking conversation that is well worth your time. Below are links to Dr. Webb's latest books – Taylor & Francis Open Access publications: Deep Cosmopolis: Rethinking World Politics and Globalization (2015) The World's Constitution: Spheres of Liberty in the Future Global Order (2025) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Runt Trump finns personer från techvärlden och intellektuella konservativa som ser den liberala eliten som den stora fienden. Vad är det nya med USA:s höger och vad är deras syn på demokrati? Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. Donald Trumps första tid vid makten har varit dramatisk. Techmiljardären Elon Musk har snabbt gått fram med nedmontering av myndigheter med massuppsägningar och krav på lojalitet med Trump. USA har satt press på Ukraina och inlett förhandlingar om fred med Ryssland och gjort anspråk på Kanada, Grönland och Panama-kanalen. Vicepresidenten JD Vance har läxat upp Europa och kritiserat dess ledare för brist på yttrandefrihet och att massinvandringen är ett tecken på att demokratin inte fungerar. Vad är det för ideologi som ligger bakom den politik vi ser i USA?Om Donald Trump agerar som en affärsman, så är vicepresidenten JD Vance mer ideologiskt grundad. JD Vance kallar sig postliberal och har tagit intryck av den tongivande statsvetaren Patrick Deneen. Postliberalismen är en katolsk präglad rörelse som anser att liberala eliter har tryckt ner och splittrat folket och som i stället betonar vikten av traditionella värderingar och gemenskaper som familjen och kyrkan. Runt Trump finns också en stor del av USA techelit. Här finns idéer om att nationen ska styras som ett företag, med en minimal stat och en stark autoritär ledare i toppen.Och så finns också de nationalkonservativa som samlas runt filosofen Yoram Hazony.Vad förenar de ideologiska högerrörelserna runt Trump och vad skiljer dem åt. Vad händer med demokratin och vilken roll kommer USA ha i världen? Medverkande: Folke Tersman, professor i praktisk filosofi vid Uppsala universitet och David Östlund, docent i idéhistoria vid Södertörns högskola. Programledare: Cecilia Strömberg WallinProducent: Marie LiljedahlVeckans tips:Böcker:American Nations - Collin WoodardAmerica's New Racial Battle Lines: Protect versus Repair - Roger M. Smith, Desmond King

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveDonald Trump and Elon Musk are moving quickly, so we decided to release this episode a few days early. In a half-week of alarming developments, Trump has announced that the United States might send troops to Gaza to transfer the Palestinian population to Egypt or Jordan, and to aid in reconstructing the country. Elon Musk has become the undertaker of government agencies, the wrecker of the civil service. Through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has effectively shut down USAID, offered payouts to members of other agencies, and more.In an effort to make sense of all this, Shadi Hamid and Damir Marusic are interrogated by WoC executive editor, Santiago Ramos. Is Trump serious about Gaza? What do his statements suggest about the possible endgames for the Gaza war and the future of the Israeli-Palestinian question? Was Shadi wrong to suggest that Trump might be better on this question than Biden was? Is Trump acting according to what he thinks is the national interest? Or is this a random shot in the dark?The second issue — DOGE — prompts a more serious set of questions. Are we in a constitutional crisis? If not now, then will we be one in a few months time, when the judiciary steps in to check DOGE? Why exactly are Trump and Musk interested in hollowing out the administrative state? Are we in a watershed moment in American history? Is there anything that we can do to preserve the rule of law?In our bonus section for paid subscribers, Shadi explains why he believes that ideology is driving Trump and Musk, rather than just the desire for power; Damir argues that he concept of punishment is essential to justice; and Santiago describes the difference between Louis XIV and Napoleon.Required Reading* “Trump Proposes U.S. Takeover of Gaza and Says All Palestinians Should Leave” (New York Times).* Marco Rubio on Trump's Gaza comments (NBC).* Rich Kushner's February 2024 comments on “waterfront property” in Gaza (The Guardian). * Shadi's post about Trump v. Biden on Gaza (X).* Damir Marusic, “Brushfire of the Vanities” (WoC).* Liam Cunningham post (X).* Patrick Deneen (Communia)'s two X posts: first and second.* Patrick Deneen, Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future (Amazon). * Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (Amazon). * John Ganz, “Groyperification” (Unpopular Front). * Gabe Fleisher, “When I Will Call Something a ‘Constitutional Crisis' ” (Wake Up to Politics). * Thomas Edsall, “ ‘Trump's Thomas Cromwell' Is Waiting in the Wings” (New York Times). * Jack Goldsmith Bob Bauer, “The Trump Executive Orders as ‘Radical Constitutionalism' ” (Executive Functions). Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

Today's guest is Patrick Deneen, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame and one of the most debated thinkers of our time. His book Why Liberalism Failed (Yale university press 2018) made waves in intellectual circles—not because it predicted the collapse of liberalism, but because it argued that liberalism has already won. And that's precisely why it has failed.Deneen's analysis transcends the traditional left-right divide. He argues that both camps have actually worked together to realize liberalism's grand project: freeing the individual from all traditional bonds. The right has done it through the market, the left through the state—and together they have dismantled the very communities that once held societies together. Family, local communities, religion—everything has been sacrificed on the altar of individual liberation.In Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future (Sentinel 2023), he deepens his critique. He describes today's elite as a technocratic aristocracy—a class that speaks of equality but ultimately serves only its own interests. Here, he draws inspiration from Christopher Lasch, who described how modern elites have isolated themselves from the people while seeing themselves as humanity's great liberators. According to Deneen, this new aristocracy has created a society where ordinary people have less and less say, even as we continue calling it a democracy.But what is the alternative? Deneen does not argue for a return to the old elite or a new meritocracy—on the contrary, he sees meritocracy itself as a central part of the problem. Instead, he envisions a leadership class deeply rooted in society, one that is not exclusively drawn from universities and metropolitan expert culture but from the very communities that liberalism has sought to dissolve.Is this a conservative dream, a populist revolt, or a realistic path forward? We discuss Deneen's ideas, how his critique challenges both the right and the left—and what might come after the liberal era.Prenumerera eller stötta Rak högerI takt med att fler blir betalande prenumeranter har Rak höger kunnat expandera med fler skribenter och mer innehåll. Vi får inget presstöd, vi tar inte emot pengar från någon intresseorganisation eller lobbygrupp. Det är endast tack vare er prenumeranter vi kan fortsätta vara självständiga röster i en konform samtid. Så stort tack för att ni är med, utan er hade det inget av detta varit möjligt.Den som vill stötta oss på andra sätt än genom en prenumeration får gärna göra det med Swish, Plusgiro, Bankgiro, Paypal eller Donorbox.Swishnummer: 123-027 60 89Plusgiro: 198 08 62-5Bankgiro: 5808-1837Utgivaren ansvarar inte för kommentarsfältet. (Myndigheten för press, radio och tv (MPRT) vill att jag skriver ovanstående för att visa att det inte är jag, utan den som kommenterar, som ansvarar för innehållet i det som skrivs i kommentarsfältet.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.enrakhoger.se/subscribe

Neste episódio discutimos com o António Pedro Barreiro o estado atual da Democracia Liberal, com todas as suas conquistas, mas também desafios. Falámos de nominalismo, política, cultura, individualismo e comunidade com o livro de Patrick Deneen em pano de fundo Por favor, apoiem o nosso projecto com a vossa subscrição: http://bit.ly/SubscreverTrivium Torne-se nosso patrono: https://www.patreon.com/TriviumPod Redes sociais: https://www.facebook.com/TriviumPodcast https://www.instagram.com/triviumpodcast/

När Donald Trump tillträder som president 2025 gör han det med en tydligare politisk vision än förra gången. Så sägs det ofta i medierna – men hur ser visionerna bakom Trumps egentligen ut? Vad tycker de intellektuella som stöttar den nya regimen? Patrick Deneen är professor i politisk filosofi vid Notre Dame och en av vicepresident JD Vance intellektuella mentorer. Läsarpodden diskuterar hans bok “Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future”, som beskriver en konservativ vision för framtiden och ger en bild av vilket slags USA en del av dem som står bakom Trump vill skapa.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThe Declaration of Independence affirms that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Yet the Declaration is silent about who this Creator is. Is it the Jewish deity or the Christian God? Or is it the god of the philosophers — the blind watchmaker of the Enlightenment? The Constitution, on the other hand, doesn't mention the divine at all, except for the phrase, “Year of Our Lord.”Mainstream liberals and conservatives, whatever they may think of the silence regarding God in our founding documents, believe in the American experiment. But as Jerome E. Copulsky writes in his new book, American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order, throughout American history there have been those who do not, radical groups who opposed the American project, root and branch, for being liberal, as opposed to Christian. In his book, Copulsky, professor at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, writes about the Loyalist churchmen who opposed the American revolution, the proslavery theologians of the 19th century, the “Theonomist” theocrats of the 20th century, and the “Integralists” of our own time.Jerome joins Shadi Hamid and Damir Marusic to discuss his book, but as often happens in Wisdom of Crowds, the conversation takes an unexpected turn. Early on, Shadi presses Jerome to specify exactly what a secular liberal Founding really means for religious practice in the public sphere. Then Shadi submits his own interpretation of the modern state as an inherently secularizing force.Damir brings the question of the secularity of the American project to bear upon current events. To what extent was the American liberal state ever “neutral”? Or is technocratic liberalism the default, unspoken “religion” of the American state? Or was it, until Donald Trump came along? And is Trump, by filling his cabinet with representatives from various American ideologies, violating liberal neutrality, or simply exposing it for the fiction that it always was?In our bonus content for paid subscribers, Jerome discusses the National Conservative movement, as exemplified by intellectuals like Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule, and its influence on Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. In the second Trump term this movement will have unprecedented access to power and, Jerome argues, pose a serious challenge to — and even a “betrayal” of — the American system.Required Reading* American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order by Jerome E. Copulsky (Amazon)* The Declaration of Independence (National Archives). * The Constitution of the United States (National Archives).* Everson v. Board of Education (FindLaw).* George Washington's Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island (National Archives). * We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition by John Courtney Murray, S.J. (Amazon).* Common Good Constitutionalism by Adrian Vermeule (Amazon).* Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future by Patrick Deneen (Amazon). This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

Colorado's election results are in sharp contrast to the national picture. What's behind the state's move from purple to a very solid blue? And how does the Colorado Republican party differ from the national one? We speak with Seth Masket, a professor and blogger who's been following the GOP over the past four years for an upcoming book. Then, he's influenced JD Vance; now Patrick Deneen, author of "Why Liberalism Failed," is CU's visiting conservative scholar. And, while all eyes have been on the presidential election, Denver had a lot of local issues to consider, from slaughterhouses to school funding. Denverite's Kyle Harris joins us. 

This week, Alex and Greg temporarily replace David with friend of the show Professor Patrick Deneen, who teaches at the University of Notre Dame. The group dive right into Strauss' Three Waves of Modernity, dissecting its arguments and unpacking relevant backstory. Plus, if you can't get enough of Strauss, apply for UATX's upcoming Symposium on Leo Strauss and/or register for a virtual Leo Strauss on Plato's Symposium!

Filosoffen Ulrik Søberg rusker i denne podcast op i vores vante, vestlige forestillinger og giver krop og stemme til en mere opbyggelig borgerlighed, som værdsætter det nære, lokale og nationale som forudsætninger for at kunne møde verden, uden at miste fodfæste eller falde på halen for det fremmede. Det er ikke en systemfejl, at Vestens fineste og dyreste universitetet uddanner kultur- og rodløse mennesker, som fokuserer på nutiden og ignorerer fortidens erfaringer. Det er faktisk meningen, så de unge mennesker kan passe fleksibelt ind, bo og leve alle steder på kloden. Sådan siger den amerikanske universitetsprofessor Patrick Deneen, som advarer mod denne forestilling om det globale mennesker for hvem meningen med tilværelsen er at arbejde, rejse, dyrke digitale netværk, spille poker på nettet og se serier på Netflix. Forestillingen rummer Vestelandets afslutning, tilføjer den svenske etnolog Karl-Olav Arnstberg, som vi også runder i denne podcast. Har de ret? Findes det globale menneske? Og hvordan skaber vi en bedre balance mellem det globale og det nationale? Det taler jeg med vores Modløber Ulrik Søberg om. Ulrik er uddannet filosof og trænet i kinesisk kampsport og på alle måder beredt til en samtale om vestlige illusioner og den sociale, lokale og historiske virkelighed, vi kalder Danmark. Er det på tide at vinke farvel til drømmen om det globale menneske og erstatte denne arketype med en andet, mere empirisk og virkelighedstro persona - det får du svar på her.

To end the sixth season of Givers, Doers, & Thinkers, we are opening the archive to share three particularly relevant episodes. The third episode features Patrick Deneen. Patrick Deneen, author of Why Liberalism Failed, Professor of Political Science and Chair of the David A. Potenziani Memorial College at the University of Notre Dame. Patrick specializes in the history of political thought, American political thought, religion and politics, and literature and politics.Jeremy and Patrick dig into why liberalism struggles to sustain itself, today's threat of a new kind of totalitarianism, and the future of American civil society. Patrick points out that the modern interpretation of liberalism paradoxically leads to societal constraints and the erosion of civil society. We'd love to hear your thoughts, ideas, questions, and recommendations for the podcast! You can shoot Katie Janus, GDT's producer, an email anytime!Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube to make sure you never miss an episode!Center for Civil Society's YouTube Channel

Today, we bring you the latter half of Bishop Barron's conversation with Patrick J. Deneen, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. In this engaging discussion, the two address topics relating to freedom, truth, and the political order. Links:   Part I of this discussion: WOF 448 Word on Fire Institute: https://institute.wordonfire.org/ NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a Word on Fire IGNITE member! Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners . . . like you! So become a part of this mission and join IGNITE today to become a Word on Fire insider and receive some special donor gifts for your generosity.

Dcn. Harrison Garlick and Adam Minihan are joined by Evan Amato of Rewire the West to discuss Book Five of Odyssey: Odysseus escapes Calypso's Island.Check out thegreatbookspodcast.com for a written guide to the Odyssey. A couple questions from the guide: 28. What happens in book five?King Odysseus is trapped on Calypso's island. Zeus, at Athena's pleading, agrees to two proposals: first, Odysseus may leave the captivity of Calypso; and second, Athena may help Telemachus escape the trap set by the suitors (5.24). Hermes, the messenger god, goes and tells Calypso that it is Zeus' will that Odysseus be set free upon a make-shift raft, and Calypso, though upset, acquiesces to the will of Zeus (5.125, 176).[1] She tells Odysseus he may leave, and he has her promise she is not plotting some new harm against him (5.202). After four days of working on the raft, Odysseus sets sail on the fifth with gifts and provisions from Calypso (5.288).Poseidon, who is returning from Ethiopia, sees Odysseus has left the island and, “it made his fury boil even more” (5.313). Poseidon sends a storm to sink Odysseus (5.321). As he's being battered by the waves, a goddess of the sea, Ino, pities Odysseus, and tells him to strip off his clothes, tie her scarf around his waist, and swim for land (5.377). Poseidon smashes the raft to pieces (5.403), and Odysseus, with the help of Athena, makes it to the shore (5.471). The book ends with Odysseus falling asleep beneath two olive trees (5.544).[2] 29. Why does Odysseus refuse Calypso's offer of immortality?Calypso tells Hermes that she has offered immortality to Odysseus (5.151), and again makes the offer after Odysseus knows he's free to leave the island (5.230). How can Odysseus refuse immortality? How can a mortal man refuse an immortal life with a beautiful goddess? A subtle clue is found in the opening of book five. It does not repeat the typical line of Dawn and her rosy fingers but instead invokes Dawn's lover, Tithonus (5.01).[3] It is said that Dawn (Eos) asked Zeus to make her mortal lover, Tithonus, immortal, and Zeus agreed—but Zeus did not grant Tithonus immortal youth. Thus, Tithonus, immortal, continued to age until he “became an old shriveled creature little more than a voice.”[4] Tithonus attempts to graft onto human nature something that is unnatural to it: immortality. As Dr. Patrick Deneen observes: “Tithonus accepts what is unacceptable for mortals to attain, but which is nevertheless clearly tempting to normal mortal desires.”[5]One aspect of the unnaturalness of immortality in man is the necessity for the possibility of death to achieve glory (kleos). It is in facing death that man achieves renown. Without death, what is man? Furthermore, observe how those who are without death, the immortal gods, are presented: imploded personalities, obsessive, petty, and narcissistic. The sinews between man, death, and glory are one to observe, as the story of Odysseus continues to develop.Similarly to Tithonus, we should observe Homer references the goddess Ino who was “a mortal woman once” (5.367). Ino, the sister of Semele, was driven mad by Hera, and she jumped into the sea with her son in her arms. She...

Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ I'm joined by first-time guest Rick Pidcock to discuss JD Vance and his multifaceted role as a religious and political candidate. We explore Vance's connection to the Traditional Latin Mass and figures like Harrison Butker, Patrick Deneen, and Steve Bannon, delving into the implications of their shared emphasis on 'order.' We cover the intersection of masculinity, politics, and religion, including the influence of bodybuilders and the broader conservative evangelical world. Our conversation also touches on the implications of Vance's statements about family and voting, and the support he receives from groups like the Heritage Foundation. Finally, we consider the complexities introduced by his marriage to Usha Vance and how it fits into his public persona. Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, we bring you the first part of Bishop Barron's conversation with Patrick J. Deneen, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. In the discussion, they touch on topics relating to freedom, truth, and the political order.   Link: Word on Fire Institute: https://institute.wordonfire.org/ NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a Word on Fire IGNITE member! Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners . . . like you! So become a part of this mission and join IGNITE today to become a Word on Fire insider and receive some special donor gifts for your generosity.

Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 500-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ In this episode, we react to President Joe Biden's surprising decision not to seek reelection, focusing on Kamala Harris's rapid emergence as the new Democratic frontrunner after raising $60 million in one day. We examine the implications of a Harris candidacy and explore JD Vance's connections with reactionary Catholic intellectuals and Silicon Valley monarchists. Additionally, the show reviews Patrick Deneen's vision of 'common good conservatism' and Curtis Yarvin's radical political ideas, while touching on the influence of conspiracism in American religion and politics. The discussion highlights how certain religious traditions can prime individuals, especially American evangelicals and Christian nationalists, to believe in conspiracy theories. Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dcn. Harrison Garlick welcomes Dr. Patrick Deneen, Dr. Chad Pecknold, and Dr. Richard Meloche to introduce Homer's Odyssey. Dr. Patrick Deneen is a Professor of Political Science at Notre Dame. He is the author of many books and articles including Why Liberalism Failed (2018). His teaching and writing interests focus on the history of political thought, American political thought, liberalism, conservatism, and constitutionalism. Dr. Chad Pecknold, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the Catholic University of America. “In political theology, Pecknold is principally concerned with close readings of Augustine's masterwork, The City of God, as a fundamental and transcendent vision that inspires, and has the power to critique and correct, the dynamics of Western civilization.”Dr. Richard Meloche, President of the Alcuin Institute for Catholic Culture, a ministry of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa and a colleague of Dcn. Garlick's at the Chancery.INTRODUCTION TO THE ODYSSEYThe group discusses the canon of the great books, why we should read Homer and his Odyssey, the role of the great books in theological formation, and key introductory themes in Homer's Odyssey. Against Great Books by Deneen: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/01/against-great-booksThe Odyssey of Political Theory by Deneen: https://www.amazon.com/Odyssey-Political-Theory-Politics-Departure/dp/0847696235?ccs_id=073621fb-e234-4289-9205-bc6fab3f444aCheck us out on Facebook, X (Twitter), Youtube, and Patreon.

This episode is a discussion of Roman Catholic political philosopher Patrick Deneen's book Regime Change.

Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. Professor Deneen rose to prominence with his 2018 book Why Liberalism Failed. It drew a readership from the entire spectrum of American politics; from Cornel West, Jacobin Magazine and President Obama to the likes of Jonah Goldberg and George Will. The book drew praise and criticism alike as well as throwing a wrench in the smooth workings of the left-right divide of American intellectual life. He is a noted student of American democracy and shares many perspectives with one of its most noted observers and commenters, Alexis de Tocqueville. He visits our podcast to talk about his latest book, Regime Change - Towards a Postliberal future.A conservative who rejects both the dogma of Republican Party “freemarket” corporatism as well as libertarian atomism he instead advances the argument for a common good conservatism. Being branded simultaneously dangerous radical and nefarious reactionary Professor Deneen traces the common good doctrine back to the very foundations of America and ties it to a wider European tradition. If our post-liberal future is to have a chance it is time to slaughter sacred cows and do battle against all both the current political regime and the nihilism of those who say that nothing can be done. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, I speak with the political theorist Patrick Deneen about Don DeLillo's award winning novel, White Noise.  We explore the novel's undercurrents of existential angst in a world of distraction, amnesia, and unfulfilled longings. I hope you enjoy our conversation.

In this episode, I speak with the political theorist Patrick Deneen about Don DeLillo's award winning novel, White Noise.  We explore the novel's undercurrents of existential angst in a world of distraction, amnesia, and unfulfilled longings. I hope you enjoy our conversation. www.sacredandprofanelove.com

In this enlightening episode, Patrick Deneen joins John Vervaeke to discuss the innovative approach to teaching philosophy at Chesterton Academy. Deneen delves into the integration of Vervaeke's influential work, particularly "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis," to make philosophical concepts relatable and impactful for students. A significant part of their conversation revolves around students' evolving engagement with philosophy, notably their initial skepticism and eventual appreciation of Socratic and classical teachings. The episode also explores the integration of the school's Catholic ethos with its academic pursuits, underscoring the importance of fostering moral and intellectual virtues. Throughout the discussion, both Deneen and Vervaeke share personal reflections, shedding light on the profound impact of philosophy and wisdom in shaping human experiences and education.   Resources and References   John Vervaeke: Website | Patreon | Facebook | X | YouTube Patrick Deneen: LinkedIn | Chesterton Academy of the Sacred Heart   The Vervaeke Foundation Awakening from the Meaning Crisis Series After Socrates Series   On Bullshit - Harry G. Frankfurt The World As God's Icon: Creator and Creation in the Platonic Thought of Thomas Aquinas - Sebastian Morello Summa Contra Gentiles: Book One,God - Thomas Aquinas What Is Ancient Philosophy? - Pierre Hadot, Michael Chase  The Courage to Be - Paul Tillich Beowulf: A New Verse Translation - Seamus Heaney The Divine Comedy (The Inferno, The Purgatorio, and The Paradiso) - Dante Alighieri Faust: Parts I & II - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Great Expectations - Charles Dickens   Phaedo by Plato Apology by Plato Crito by Plato   Aquinas 101   Timestamped Highlights [00:00:00] Introduction by John Vervaeke [00:01:20] Patrick Deneen's gratitude for 'Awakening from the Meaning Crisis' [00:03:00] Overview of Chesterton Academy's philosophy [00:05:20] Use of 'Awakening from the Meaning Crisis' in classes [00:07:20] Deneen's academic and personal background [00:11:20] Teaching Socratic philosophy in a Catholic context [00:17:20] Integration of Greek philosophy and Catholic theology [00:21:40] Relationship between Platonic wisdom and Catholic faith [00:28:00] Culture as the hidden curriculum [00:32:00] Student enthusiasm for various subjects [00:34:20] Inclusion of Eastern philosophical traditions [00:41:00] Indian philosophy leading Deneen back to Catholic faith [00:46:43] Importance of art in the curriculum [00:51:00] Addressing the meaning crisis with Christian life [00:58:40] Discussion about the rediscovery of Aristotle through Muslim philosophers [01:03:32] The episode concludes with Patrick Deneen emphasizing Chesterton Academy's focus on nurturing a natural inclination towards truth and goodness in students and faculty  

Nick and Brian sit down with Dr. Patrick Deneen and talk about the shortcomings of Liberalism and the Modern University.

Today, the political and social philosophy known as liberalism—which champions democracy, individual rights, and free enterprise—is on the defensive.  Conservatives often charge it with eroding community, while some progressives view it as a justification for economic exploitation. On this episode, Yale political theorist Samuel Moyn, author of the new book Liberalism against Itself, joins features editor Alex Stern to discuss the debates that surrounded liberalism during the Cold War.  Instead of a narrow liberalism that focuses on individual liberties, Moyn argues that a broader, more expansive view of the idea is possible—one that retrieves the original Enlightenment emphasis on egalitarianism and emancipation.  For further reading:  Samuel Moyn on the theology of liberalism Alex Stern on how not to defend liberalism A symposium on Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed 

This second part of the discussion of Patrick Deneen's work explores the difference between two different approaches to liberty, and how this understanding impacts how we view the world as Christians.

Increasingly many people think the world we live in is unsustainable. When that is said in some circles climate change comes to mind. But at a social level, with the continued erosion of social life, healthy families, and a loss of local control at a community level, social conservatives say the same thing. What's happening? Today the Pugcast is joined by political philosopher, Patrick Deneen, author of, Why Liberalism Failed, and his most recent book, Regime Change. Tune in an find out what a post-liberal future might look like. Find Patricks’ work at https://www.postliberalorder.com/ Contact Private Family Banking at banking@privatefamilybanking.com For a free e-book entitled "How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" go to https://protectyourmoneynow.net/ To set up a FREE 30-Minute Consultation, use the link below: https://calendly.com/familybankingnow/30min Check out the Got a Minute? Podcast with Rich Lusk and Larson Hicks: https://open.spotify.com/show/4fswVZmNEfSXA1JLZzgPhj Support the Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8

Increasingly many people think the world we live in is unsustainable. When that is said in some circles climate change comes to mind. But at a social level, with the continued erosion of social life, healthy families, and a loss of local control at a community level, social conservatives say the same thing. What's happening? Today the Pugcast is joined by political philosopher, Patrick Deneen, author of, Why Liberalism Failed, and his most recent book, Regime Change. Tune in an find out what a post-liberal future might look like. Find Patricks' work at https://www.postliberalorder.com/ Contact Private Family Banking at banking@privatefamilybanking.com For a free e-book entitled "How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" go to https://protectyourmoneynow.net/ To set up a FREE 30-Minute Consultation, use the link below: https://calendly.com/familybankingnow/30min Check out the Got a Minute? Podcast with Rich Lusk and Larson Hicks: https://open.spotify.com/show/4fswVZmNEfSXA1JLZzgPhj Support the Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8

This is the first part of a discussion of Patrick Deneen's book Why Liberalism Failed, which addresses some of the assumptions taken for granted in Enlightenment Liberalism.

On this edition of Parallax Views, Matt McManus, a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan and the author of The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism, joins the show to discuss his new book The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back the Tide of Egalitarian Modernity. Matt gives a sweeping history of the political right that tries to grapple, from a left social democratic perspective, with conservative thought since the French Revolution. In doing so Matt gets beyond the talking heads on FOX News or flamboyant characters like Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson, instead focusing on the most serious intellectual elements of the political right and how the left should/can respond to those elements. Moreover, Matt discusses the most reactionary segments of the political right in this conversation and their beliefs. Among the topics discussed in this conversation: - Aristotle and the Aristotelian universe in the political right; order and hierarchy in the thinking of the political right; modernity and the radical break from antiquity - Conservatism's relationship with liberals; conservative discomfort with liberalism - English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton's unpacking of liberalism; Roger Scruton and "The Unthinking Man"; agency and critical thinking as an entitlement of the higher orders of society (within the thought of the political right); - Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, the sublime quality of the "Sun King", and monarchy - The thought of uber-reactionary Joseph de Maistre and his response to the events of the French Revolution - F.A. Hegel as conservative? and right-wing Hegelianism - Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky and his turn from Christian socialism to conservatism, his critique of socialism and liberalism in books like Demons, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky Contra Leo Tolstoy - Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment and Dostoyevsky's critique of scientifically-oriented material ontologies and utilitarianism; psychological reactions to ontological materialism - Utopianism vs. Anti-utopianism, hierarchy and social order/organization, and strawman arguments - The political right in the 20th century and particularly after WWII - The far-right and the transition to fascism from its antecedents on the right; anti-democratic thought amongst elements of the political right; blood and soil ideology - Nietzsche and the political right - Edifying myths, charismatic cults of personality, and fascism; brief discussion about Mussolini - Right-wing anti-capitalism; right-wing rejections of economistic worldviews - Noblesse oblige and the political right; an exploration of the emergent postliberal right - The New American Right of the 1950s; the three-legged stool of American conservatism: muscular anti-New Deal free market capitalism, anticommunist foreign policy hawks, and social conservatives (specifically white evangelical Christian social conservatives); American right-wing opposition to Civil Rights; the breaking down of the three-legged stool after the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union - The new formation of the American political right: National Conservatism, Postliberalism, and the Eugenicons or Nietzschean Right - The Peter Thiel/Curtis Yarvin segment of the 21st century American Right and Richard Hanania; Hayek's anti-conservatism, the political right, and neoliberalism; Ayn Rand - Ideological diversity of the 21st century right-wing - Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Michael Lind, and postliberal oppositions to figures like Bronze Age Pervert and white nationalist/eugenicist segments of the right - The possibility of a multiracial political right? - The thought of Russian philosopher/geopolitical thinker Aleksandr Dugin and the far-right

In his new book, Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, renowned political philosopher Patrick Deneen argues that the liberal ideology that has shaped capitalism for centuries has also failed to deliver on its promises of freedom, equality, and prosperity. Is he able to offer a compelling alternative that serves the interests of the common good over those of wealthy elites?Deneen, whose previous book "Why Liberalism Failed" was acclaimed by the likes of former U.S. President Obama, joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss his proposed 'Regime Change' and its implications for capitalism and the market economy. Can his vision of a postliberal future offer a more just and sustainable economic system, one that addresses the pressing challenges of our time? Can we have progress without progressivism?

On this edition of Parallax Views, Samuel Moyn, Chancellor Kent Professor of Law and History at Yale University, joins the show to discuss his new book Liberalism Against Itself: Cold War Intellectuals and the Making of Our Times. Samuel examines and dissects the beliefs of Cold War intellectuals like Karl Popper, Judith Shklar, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Lionel Trilling, Isaiah Berlin, and Hannah Arendt to argue that liberals of the Cold War in many ways ended up undermining the progressive and Enlightenment principles of the liberal tradition in their attempts to combat communism. In doing so, he makes the case, they helped paved the way not only for modern equivalents/heirs of the Cold War liberalism like Anne Applebaum, Timothy Garton Ash, Paul Berman, Michael Ignatieff, Tony Judt, and Leon Wieseltierm, but also the reigning power of the current neoliberal order and the withering of the welfare state. A note that this conversation is talking about liberals and liberalism in a very academic sense rather than it's colloquial usage. Among the topics discussed are Judith Shklar's After Utopia (and why Shklar is a guiding force throughout Liberalism Against Itself), Sigmun Freud and the politics of self-regulations, decolonization and paternalisitic racism in the Cold War era, Jonathan Chait's scathing review of Liberalism Against Itself and Samuel's response to it (excluive, thus far, to this show), Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed and Samuel's critique of the burgeoning postliberal right, thoughts on Sohrab Ahmari's Tyranny Inc., Karl Popper of The Open Society and Its Enemies fame and the problem his critique of historicism, the Mont Pelerin Society and neoliberalism, F.A. Hayek, Gertrude Himmelfarb and the Christian thinker Lord Acton, the Cold War liberals' critique of romanticism and Samuel's response to it, the Soviet Union and the idea of Progress and who lays claim to it, the concept of emancipation and the French Revolution, and much, much more!

Today the Pugs reflect on a short essay by Patrick Deneen published in the Post-Liberal Substack, entitled, In Defense of Order. In the essay Deneen reflects on a book, originally published in 1974 by Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order. The call to order is hardly heard today over the cacophony of voices praising, and demanding liberty. Yet according to classical thinkers, liberty without order ultimately leads to tyranny. And more and more that seems to be the case in our time. Join the Pugs today as they ruminate on the nature of ordered liberty. In Defense of Order - Part 1, by Patrick J. Deneen: https://www.postliberalorder.com/p/in-defense-of-order-part-1?fbclid=IwAR182VsBMRYAgHaTk1PB5_G_FAsUuPo8GeDvoZjnQmdwVD1tc2jIKLQ2gGI Contact Private Family Banking Partners (The Pugcast’s first sponsor!) at www.protectyourmoneynow.net and download a free copy of their latest e-book entitled "Protect Your Money Now! How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" or email them directly at Banking@privatefamilybanking.com To set up a free 30 Minute Consultation, click the link below to make an appointment for a day and time the works best for you: https://calendly.com/familybankingnow/30min Register for The Apostle Paul’s School For Tentmaking Conference on October 17, 2023: https://trinityreformedkirk.com/tentmaking/ Check out the Got a Minute? Podcast with Rich Lusk and Larson Hicks: https://open.spotify.com/show/4fswVZmNEfSXA1JLZzgPhj Support the Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8

Today the Pugs reflect on a short essay by Patrick Deneen published in the Post-Liberal Substack, entitled, In Defense of Order. In the essay Deneen reflects on a book, originally published in 1974 by Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order. The call to order is hardly heard today over the cacophony of voices praising, and demanding liberty. Yet according to classical thinkers, liberty without order ultimately leads to tyranny. And more and more that seems to be the case in our time. Join the Pugs today as they ruminate on the nature of ordered liberty. In Defense of Order - Part 1, by Patrick J. Deneen: https://www.postliberalorder.com/p/in-defense-of-order-part-1?fbclid=IwAR182VsBMRYAgHaTk1PB5_G_FAsUuPo8GeDvoZjnQmdwVD1tc2jIKLQ2gGI Contact Private Family Banking Partners (The Pugcast's first sponsor!) at www.protectyourmoneynow.net and download a free copy of their latest e-book entitled "Protect Your Money Now!  How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" or email them directly at Banking@privatefamilybanking.com To set up a free 30 Minute Consultation, click the link below to make an appointment for a day and time the works best for you: https://calendly.com/familybankingnow/30min Register for The Apostle Paul's School For Tentmaking Conference on October 17, 2023:https://trinityreformedkirk.com/tentmaking/ Check out the Got a Minute? Podcast with Rich Lusk and Larson Hicks: https://open.spotify.com/show/4fswVZmNEfSXA1JLZzgPhj Support the Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8

What is Liberalism? Dr. Patrick Deneen joins us to talk about the topic of liberalism. What is liberalism? What do we mean by "right-liberal" and "left-liberal"? What would America look like if it became Catholic? Dr. Patrick Deneen's book, "Why Liberalism Failed" Exodus 90 – JOIN US Sign up for The Loop – Are you in the Loop? Get the headlines, the best of blogs, your saint of the day, the daily Scripture readings… sign up today. Support Us on Patreon Become a Patron! Over 40 interviews, a course with Karlo Broussard, a 10 part series on the domestic church, a course on fitness and virtue by Pat Flynn, and free thank you gifts for supporting the show! Click here to join Join Our 2024 Pilgrimage Select International Tours in the best in the business. We are planning on a 2024 pilgrimage. Click here so you won't miss it. Living Beyond Sunday: Making Your Home a Holy Place Our new book is available for pre-order from Ascension Press! “I love this book. It provides wise counsel with beautiful simplicity. So, if you are looking to safeguard your family life from the wiles of the enemy and encourage your spouse and children to become the saints God is calling them to be, this is a book for you.” – Fr Gregory Pine Home life can be difficult and busy, and it's easy to get distracted from the point of it all: raising a family of saints. In Living Beyond Sunday: Making Your Home a Holy Place, two married couples share what has helped them make their homes a place of encounter with God–a place where saints are being made. Want to help The Catholic Man Show? By giving us a rating on iTunes, it helps others find the show. Want to say up with The Catholic Man Show? Sign up for our mailing list: Click Here Looking for a prayer to pray with your wife? Check this blog out. Are you getting our emails? Sign up for our newsletter where we give you all bacon content – never spam.  SIGN UP HERE:

Unable to find a guest who's willing to tolerate his ramblings, an anesthetized Jonah is forced to return to the AMA format on today's distinctly messy Remnant. Temporarily freed from his pit, Guy, Jonah's immigrant manservant, offers a fresh batch of listener questions that cover everything from the latest in Supreme Court controversies, to the prospect of a Dispatch blogging section, to the conservative underpinnings of popular movies and TV shows. But although their conversation contains a few nuggets of genuine substance, most of it proves to be so pointlessly indulgent that you may be better served by simply listening to the week's first episode again. Show Notes: -The Remnant with Bret Devereaux -Advisory Opinions on Alito's preemptive strike -Justice Alito's Wall Street Journal op-ed -Jonah: “Stop Pining for the ‘Good Old Days'” - he Daniel J. Boorstin Reader -Jonah discusses Patrick Deneen on the Acton Institute podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New York City is working on a rule to "lower emissions". This rule will directly impact coal-fired and wood-fired pizza places. Jesse Kelly is outraged and discusses the repercussions with Chef Andrew Gruel. Jesse also speaks with Brandon Straka, who is fighting the culture war in the heart of NYC. Plus, examples of the system taking care of its own and a discussion on liberalism in America going forward with Patrick Deneen.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Patrick Deneen has released a new book, and predictably, Jonah has some pointed opinions on it. To critique Deneen's post-liberal vision for American society and the political right, Jonah is joined by a returning Stephanie Slade, senior editor at Reason and noted liberty-lover. With furious agreement and ornery hand-wringing, they take a deep dive into the strange world of the new right, analyzing how seriously we should take its vision for the conservative movement. They also provide a few thoughts on the state of Catholicism, what the Dobbs decision revealed about voters, and why nobody can agree about immigration. Show Notes: -Stephanie's page at Reason -Jonah: “Patrick Deneen's Otherworldly Regime” - Stephanie: “Liberalism Isn't Rule by Elites” -Stephanie: “The New Right Isn't So New” -Stephanie: “The Rise of Right-Progressivism” -Adrian Vermeule: “Integration From Within” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Patrick Deneen argues liberalism has failed. He also provides a centralized prescription for the problem that sounds a lot like the Southern tradition absent the Southern part and the most important component, federalism. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/brion-mcclanahan/support

Is the New Right Marxist, or Just Confused? Our Otherworldly Postliberal “Future” The Postliberals Are Trapped in Their Own Head This week, Jonah Goldberg joins Eric, Dan, and Dylan to discuss his newly released review of Patrick Deneen's book, “Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future.” Following on the success, or at least the popularity, of […]

Despite the desperate pleas of his wife, his RA, and his psychiatrist, Jonah insists on continuing to record the Ruminant, and his sanity may be steadily slipping away with each mumbled syllable. Today, he largely resists the temptation to discuss the Trump indictment, instead digging into Johns Hopkins' baffling new classification of lesbians, California's push to punish “non-affirming parents”, and the sheer lack of decorum we all must now endure. Things conclude on familiar ground with an ol'-fashioned, extra-curmudgeonly rant about the new right's bizarre nostalgia for the Dark Ages. Show Notes: - The McCarthy Report on Trump's indictment - Advisory Opinions, also on Trump's indictment - The “non-men” of Johns Hopkins - Michael Knowles and the 1220s - Politico's Patrick Deneen profile - Alcohol is woke Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From the esoteric and the imperian to the specfic and the political. And then on to aliens! James, Rob and Steve Hayward chat with Patrick Deneen, author of Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future. They discuss the deliterious effects of liberty without restraints, the bipartisan quest for progress and consider a reassessment of some of our cherished philosophical forebears. Next fan favorite Andy McCarthy stops by to give his first take on the indictment of Donald Trump. San Francisco and UFOs are on the docket as well.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5817275/advertisement

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comDeneen is a writer and academic. Based at the University of Notre Dame, he is Professor of Political Science and holds the David Potenziani Memorial College Chair of Constitutional Studies. His books include The Odyssey of Political Theory and Why Liberalism Failed, and his new one is Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future.For two clips of our convo — on his book using Marxist analysis in defense of conservatism, and whether the government should give you money to stay home with kids — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: Patrick's Irish-Catholic upbringing in the oldest town in CT — “an idyllic New England town” that became a “shell of itself”; his unexpected route to academia; working-class Rutgers vs elite Princeton; how society needs meritocracy — but it's irrelevant when it comes to morality; Disraeli and noblesse oblige in the UK; migration and Brexit; “woke capitalism's patina of social commitment”; the tribal wars of the Reformation; the Hobbes/Lockean settlement; how Locke shifted property from inheritance to a set of skills; the cruelty of the growth economy; usury; the absence of any common good in Succession; the donor class of both major parties; the geographic and class sorting of Americans into separate bubbles; Michael Sandel and “thickness”; Uganda's anti-gay laws; and whether we should bring back Sabbath laws.Browse the Dishcast archive for another conversation you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Tabia Lee on her firing as a DEI director, David Grann on an 18th-century mutiny that's a “parable for our own turbulent time,” and Matt Lewis on ruling-class elites. Please send your guest recs and pod dissent to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Patrick Deneen, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, joins Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss the rise of the elite ruling class, explain the shortcomings of populist attempts to combat it, and share the solutions he believes will usher in a post-liberal age.You can find Deneen's new book "Regime Change: Toward A Postliberal Future" here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/618154/regime-change-by-patrick-j-deneen/This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5457726/advertisement

Even if you don't recognize the advice columnist Dan Savage by name, it's possible that his ideas have influenced how you think about sex and relationships. For decades now, Savage has been arguing that our expectations for long-term partnerships are way too high; that healthy relationships are about acknowledging our vast spectrum of desires, not repressing them; and that monogamy is not the ideal setup for every partnership. Through over 30 years of writing “Savage Love,” one of the most widely read sex advice columns in the country, and more than 17 years of hosting the podcast “Savage Lovecast,” he has been one of America's most subtly influential public intellectuals on the topic of how humans conduct our most intimate — and important — relationships.In the past half-century or so, America's culture around sex, dating and relationships has undergone a profound transformation. Women are no longer confined to roles as wives and mothers, same-sex marriage is legal, hookup culture has changed the way young people enter the dating world, and there has been a growing interest in less traditional approaches to relationships, like polyamory and ethical nonmonogamy. These transformations have ushered in a lot of new freedoms but also a lot of new anxieties and frustrations. So I wanted to bring Savage on the show to talk through how we navigate this complicated, messy moment in our relational and sexual lives.We discuss how America's relationship culture has changed in the past 30 years, why the myth of finding “the one” can be so damaging, what dating apps are (and aren't) good for, how to give more grace to our partners when they do not meet our expectations, why so many feminist writers are re-evaluating the legacy of the sexual revolution, how gay sexual cultures have influenced straight dating life, why we've had a “sexual revolution” but not a concomitant “relationship revolution,” what Savage makes of the statistic that 18 percent of people have had sexual experiences outside their primary relationships without their partners' consent, the advantages and risks of experimenting with nonmonogamy, what better sex education for young people should look like, why marriages between two men seem to end less frequently than heterosexual marriages do and more.This episode contains strong language.Mentioned:YouGov poll on Monogamy and Polyamory“Can We Change Our Sexual Desires? Should We?” with Amia Srinivasan on The Ezra Klein Show“Let's Talk About the Anxiety Freedom Can Cause” with Maggie Nelson on The Ezra Klein Show“Sex, Abortion and Feminism, as Seen From the Right” with Erika Bachiochi on The Ezra Klein ShowDan Savage and Esther Perel on “Love, Marriage & Monogamy”Screaming on the Inside by Jessica Grose“What Does the ‘Post-Liberal Right' Actually Want?” with Patrick Deneen on The Ezra Klein ShowBook Recommendations:The Ethical Slut by Janet W. Hardy and Dossie EastonBerlin Diary by William L. ShirerA Royal Affair by Stella TillyardThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Emefa Agawu, Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld, Rogé Karma and Kristin Lin. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Jeff Geld and Sonia Herrero. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Pat McCusker.