Podcast appearances and mentions of Patrick Deneen

With the release of Christopher Nolan's adaptation of the Odyssey, it seems like everyone's been talking about a 3,000-year-old epic again. But my guest thinks this ancient tale offers a framework for understanding our modern lives that you probably haven't heard before.Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science and the author of American Odyssey. Today on the show, Patrick argues that Odysseus embodies a tension that has defined the human experience, and especially the American experience: we're both home-seeking and exploring, rooted and restless. We long to settle down somewhere, yet we're equally driven to push beyond the horizon in search of something new. Patrick shares how Alexis de Tocqueville made this observation about our country two centuries ago, how Odysseus navigates the temptation to become both more than human and less than human, and the surprising act Patrick thinks is the most heroic thing Odysseus does. We end our conversation with the idea that having a home can give us the confidence to explore, or as David Brooks put it, "All of life is a series of daring explorations from a secure base."Resources Related to the PodcastAoM Article: 3 Lessons From Homer's OdysseyAoM Podcast #337: What Homer's Odyssey Can Teach Us TodayDemocracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville"Ulysses" by Alfred, Lord TennysonConnect With Patrick DeneenPatrick's faculty pagePatrick's websiteAmerican Odyssey's page on Creed and Culture's website0:00 Intro & sponsor plugs0:41 Patrick Deneen's American Odyssey & Nolan's film2:28 Nolan's changes to Odysseus's character4:56 Dante's Odysseus in hell7:33 Why Odyssey keeps drawing Patrick back13:02 The most American text: home-seeking vs exploring17:15 Tocqueville's restless Americans20:03 Restlessness as source of American unhappiness21:03 Odysseus vs the temptation to be more/less than human26:14 That temptation in modern American life31:26 Odysseus's underworld talk with Achilles39:41 What today's Americans can take from that41:24 Does Odysseus stay home? The "sequels" to The Odyssey45:49 Home as the foundation for risk-taking and adventure51:14 Where to find the bookSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode I talked with Dr. Patrick Deneen. Dr. Deneen is a Professor of Political Science at Notre Dame University. He the author of four books, including his most popular, Why Liberalism Failed, that came out in 2018 and his most recent, American Odyssey: What and Ancient Story Reveals about our Divided Souls. In this discussion we talked about the new Odyssey film by Christopher Nolan. Dr. Deneen gave his brief review of the movie -- what it gets right and what it misses. We then discussed his newest book and how the Odyssey story has influenced some of the great American stories including The Wizard of Oz, Field of Dreams, and It's a Wonderful Life. I hope you enjoy! Go subscribe to The Paradox Press now!Follow me on X: https://x.com/andyschmitt99

Today on Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Dcn. Garlick hosts Dr. Patrick Deneen to discuss his NEW BOOK: The American Odyssey: What an Ancient Story Reveals About Our Divided Souls.Pick up the AMERICAN ODYSSEY out today!https://a.co/d/01rpYuwt23 Observations on the new Christopher Nolan Odyssey Moviehttps://www.patreon.com/greatbooks/posts/23-quick-on-164190324In this special episode of Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Dcn. Garlick welcomes back renowned Notre Dame political thinker Dr. Patrick Deneen—author of Why Liberalism Failed and Regime Change—to celebrate the release of his brand-new book, The American Odyssey: What an Ancient Story Reveals About Our Divided Souls.Fresh off a 12-week deep dive into Homer's epic, the conversation reveals why Odysseus is the ultimate “proto-American” hero: a restless seeker torn between the hunger for home and the irresistible call of the frontier. Deneen traces this tension from the ancient text through Dante's damning portrayal of Odysseus as a villain of forbidden knowledge, to the Renaissance reinvention of him as the triumphant explorer who metaphorically discovers America itself.What makes this episode unmissable is how Deneen unlocks Aristotle's radical claim that humans are political animals precisely because we are neither beasts nor gods, the “citylessness” that turns Ithaca into a Cyclopean free-for-all, and the startling parallels between Odysseus' refusal of immortality and Huck Finn's decision to “go to hell.” Pairing iconic American stories like The Wizard of Oz, Field of Dreams, and Huckleberry Finn with Homer's timeless episodes, Deneen shows that the Western tradition isn't locked in dusty classics—it's alive in our movies, novels, and national character, especially as America marks its 250th anniversary. Dive in and discover how an ancient tale of departure and return still maps the divided soul of a nation that can't stop exploring… or longing for home.Chapters:00:00 Introduction to Dr. Patrick Deneen and the Book01:54 Deneen's Return to Homer and the Odyssey03:59 Odysseus as a Proto-American Figure06:59 The Tension Between Flourishing and Discontent12:07 Odysseus and the Pioneering Spirit of America19:02 The Shift in Odysseus' Image from Medieval to Renaissance27:01 Odysseus as a Figure of Forbidden Knowledge34:08 The Connection Between Odysseus and Columbus40:02 The Polis and Citylessness in Homer and Aristotle48:07 The Return of the Polis and the Homecoming56:06 Huckleberry Finn as an Odyssean American Hero59:45 The Western Tradition in Popular CultureKey words: Ascend Great Books Podcast, Deacon Harrison Garlick, Dr Patrick Deneen, The American Odyssey book, Homer Odyssey, Odysseus proto-American hero, Why Liberalism Failed, Regime Change, Western tradition, Aristotle Politics, man political animal, apolis citylessness, Dante Inferno Odysseus villain, Renaissance explorers, Columbus Amerigo Vespucci, American character, pioneering spirit, frontier homecoming, Calypso immortality, Huckleberry Finn, Field of Dreams, Wizard of Oz, 250th anniversary Declaration of Independence, Notre Dame political science, Homeric studies, great books podcast, Platonic dialogues, American soul, divided souls, political theory, classical literature, Americana, Odyssey episodes.

Robert Royal & Fr. Gerald Murray on the latest news regarding the SSPX excommunications and much more. Dr. Patrick Deneen discusses his new book, American Odyssey. Raymond Ibrahim on Europe's Muslim migration crisis and the loss of faith in the West.

Peter Gagnon delivers the Inside Word on EWTN programming. Fact Check Friday heads to Capitol Hill to look at the sin of omission. Dr. Patrick Deneen looks at Homer's "The Odyssey" and how it resonates deeply with Catholic spiritual life. T's Two Sense asks, "where are your local pregnancy resource centers?" Plus, Paul Jonna updates the story of Heartbeat International and the lawsuit they continue to fight.

────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:09]EMS Worker Reports "Chronic Cancer" as New Medical Term — Knight: It's Turbo Cancer Being NormalizedA patient with three COVID jabs developed rapidly spreading colon cancer and leukemia within months of his last shot; Knight: the industry is rebranding what it caused.────────────────────────────────────────[00:14:00]Sony Deleting 551 Movies Customers Paid Full Price For — Buy Button Was a LieDeletion begins September 1 with no refunds; Knight: same model as CBDCs — they can delete your money the same way they're deleting your movies.────────────────────────────────────────[00:22:06]GTA 6 Ships as a Download Code in an Empty Box — Physical Discs Eliminated$80 for a cardboard sleeve; the game lives on their cloud and can be revoked at any time; Knight: "you will own nothing" is already the video game business model.────────────────────────────────────────[00:41:18]Trump's Advisors Openly Praise Caesarism — His Harvard Law Appointee Says Liberty Is Not the GoalAdrian Vermule wrote the constitutional order exists to promote "good rule," not protect liberty; Notre Dame advisor Patrick Deneen calls for Platonic aristocracy.────────────────────────────────────────[00:49:03]Trump Signed 143 Executive Orders in First 100 Days — More Than Any President in History21 national emergencies declared; troops sent to cities without local authority; immigrants shipped overseas to prisons in defiance of courts.────────────────────────────────────────[01:03:28]Supreme Court Loosens Campaign Finance Restrictions — Knight: AIPAC Corruption Now Has Fewer GuardrailsKnight reversed his position on Citizens United after watching AIPAC openly buy congressional seats; political money is a magnet for prostitutes, not politicians.────────────────────────────────────────[01:25:25]NY Post Calls Out Trump Crime Family's Biden-Esque CorruptionTrump's net worth tripled to $6.5B; $1.4B in crypto ventures; Salente: the Lutnik-Witkoff-Trump network is a crime syndicate operating in plain sight.────────────────────────────────────────[01:31:10]92% of Israelis Believe Iran Won the War — Trends Journal vs. US Media NarrativeCelente's polling contradicts everything Hegseth and Trump claimed; Knight: they lied about destroying Iran's missiles, wiping out their military, and forcing a surrender.────────────────────────────────────────[01:51:35]Real US Debt Is $176 Trillion When Unfunded Liabilities Are IncludedUnfunded Medicare, Social Security, pensions, and retirement healthcare dwarf the official figure; Salente: the plan is to tokenize public lands and launch a digital currency to paper over the collapse.────────────────────────────────────────[01:54:09]Quantitative Easing Is Roaring Back — Nobody Is Reporting ItMoney supply is expanding rapidly while the Fed fixates on interest rates; Knight: they always pump QE just before the next economic lockdown or crisis. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:09]EMS Worker Reports "Chronic Cancer" as New Medical Term — Knight: It's Turbo Cancer Being NormalizedA patient with three COVID jabs developed rapidly spreading colon cancer and leukemia within months of his last shot; Knight: the industry is rebranding what it caused.────────────────────────────────────────[00:14:00]Sony Deleting 551 Movies Customers Paid Full Price For — Buy Button Was a LieDeletion begins September 1 with no refunds; Knight: same model as CBDCs — they can delete your money the same way they're deleting your movies.────────────────────────────────────────[00:22:06]GTA 6 Ships as a Download Code in an Empty Box — Physical Discs Eliminated$80 for a cardboard sleeve; the game lives on their cloud and can be revoked at any time; Knight: "you will own nothing" is already the video game business model.────────────────────────────────────────[00:41:18]Trump's Advisors Openly Praise Caesarism — His Harvard Law Appointee Says Liberty Is Not the GoalAdrian Vermule wrote the constitutional order exists to promote "good rule," not protect liberty; Notre Dame advisor Patrick Deneen calls for Platonic aristocracy.────────────────────────────────────────[00:49:03]Trump Signed 143 Executive Orders in First 100 Days — More Than Any President in History21 national emergencies declared; troops sent to cities without local authority; immigrants shipped overseas to prisons in defiance of courts.────────────────────────────────────────[01:03:28]Supreme Court Loosens Campaign Finance Restrictions — Knight: AIPAC Corruption Now Has Fewer GuardrailsKnight reversed his position on Citizens United after watching AIPAC openly buy congressional seats; political money is a magnet for prostitutes, not politicians.────────────────────────────────────────[01:25:25]NY Post Calls Out Trump Crime Family's Biden-Esque CorruptionTrump's net worth tripled to $6.5B; $1.4B in crypto ventures; Salente: the Lutnik-Witkoff-Trump network is a crime syndicate operating in plain sight.────────────────────────────────────────[01:31:10]92% of Israelis Believe Iran Won the War — Trends Journal vs. US Media NarrativeCelente's polling contradicts everything Hegseth and Trump claimed; Knight: they lied about destroying Iran's missiles, wiping out their military, and forcing a surrender.────────────────────────────────────────[01:51:35]Real US Debt Is $176 Trillion When Unfunded Liabilities Are IncludedUnfunded Medicare, Social Security, pensions, and retirement healthcare dwarf the official figure; Salente: the plan is to tokenize public lands and launch a digital currency to paper over the collapse.────────────────────────────────────────[01:54:09]Quantitative Easing Is Roaring Back — Nobody Is Reporting ItMoney supply is expanding rapidly while the Fed fixates on interest rates; Knight: they always pump QE just before the next economic lockdown or crisis. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

Today on Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, we are discussing Books 20 & 21 with Mr. Thomas Lackey and Dr. Frank Grabowski. NEW ARTICLE: Why Should Christians Read Homer?Check out our COLLECTION OF WRITTEN GUIDES.In this episode of Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Deacon Harrison Garlick and guests Dr. Frank Grabowski and Thomas Lackey dive into Books 20 and 21 of Homer's Odyssey, where the stage is set for the long-awaited slaughter of the suitors. The portents multiply: Theoclymenus's terrifying vision of the palace drenched in blood and gore, Athena's divine orchestration, and Penelope's masterful test with Odysseus's legendary bow. Amid feasts for Apollo, disloyal servants, and growing frenzy, Odysseus the beggar masters his patience while Telemachus comes fully into his own—echoing the father-son reunion and the maturation arc that began in Book 2.The conversation has rich insights on Homeric anthropology, the thumos (spirited), xenia's sacred bonds, ritual symbolism, and the limits of repentance under divine justice. Listeners will relish the similes, prophecies ignored at peril, subtle Christological resonances, and the masterful dramatic pause Homer builds before the violence erupts in Book 22. Whether you're tracking Odysseus's cunning, Telemachus's growth, or the poem's deeper moral and theological layers, this episode delivers fresh appreciation for why the Odyssey endures. Don't miss it—especially with Dr. Patrick Deneen joining soon to connect the epic to our own age. Subscribe, grab the written guide, and join the journey on Patreon, YouTube, or thegreatbookspodcast.com.Keywords: Odyssey Book 20 summary, Odyssey Book 21 analysis, Homer Odyssey Books 20 and 21, Penelope bow test, Odysseus bow contest, Theoclymenus prophecy vision, slaughter of the suitors setup, Odysseus beggar disguise, Telemachus maturation, xenia guest friendship Odyssey, divine justice in Homer, Homeric thumos anthropology, Apollo feast day Odyssey, Greek classics podcast, Great Books discussion Odyssey, Odysseus revenge portents, Penelope cunning test, Homer similes Book 20, ritual symbolism Odyssey, Christological parallels Odyssey, Ascend Great Books Podcast.

Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:04:45 +0000 https://feed.neuezwanziger.de/link/21941/17370578/74282d10-56b8-4448-b038-8b7139501a2e 540ce250200a10d93e5d5183c823a018 Wolfgang und Stefan besprechen den Juni 2026 Erhalte einen exklusiven Rabatt von 15 % auf die Datentarife von Saily! Verwende beim Bezahlen den Code „zwanziger“. Lade die Saily-App herunter oder besuche https://saily.com/zwanziger Werbung: Incogni Hol dir deine persönlichen Daten zurück mit Incogni! Nutzt den Code ZWANZIGER über den Link unten und erhaltet 60% Rabatt auf das Jahresabo: https://incogni.com/zwanziger Komm' in den Salon. Es gibt ihn via Webplayer & RSS-Feed (zum Hören im Podcatcher deiner Wahl, auch bei Apple Podcasts und Spotify). Alle Infos dazu: neuezwanziger.de 00:00:00 Es war Juni Wolfgang berichtet vom vorigen Abend in der Kölner Philharmonie, wo Grigory Sokolov Beethoven und Schubert spielte und sechs Zugaben gab, sodass er erst um 23 Uhr herauskam. Er erwähnt, dass viele Zuschauer den Saal nach dem Hauptprogramm fluchtartig verließen, um das Fußballspiel zu sehen. 00:00:52 Fussball WM Stefan und Wolfgang sprechen über die Schlagzeile, dass Jürgen Klopp die Rettung für die Nationalmannschaft sein könnte. Wolfgang vergleicht diese Debatte mit der Frage nach dem nächsten Bundespräsidenten und schlägt scherzhaft vor, Hape Kerkeling zum Bundestrainer zu machen; Stefan wirft ein, man brauche vielleicht eine Frau, und nennt Ilse Aigner. 00:03:16 Werbung Werbung für Saily, eine eSIM für Reisen. 00:05:19 Hitze Stefan berichtet von seiner Rückfahrt nach Frankfurt, das als heißeste Stadt Deutschlands gelte. Wolfgang fordert eine Debatte über Klimaanlagen für alle und kritisiert, dass sich diese in Gastronomie und Hotellerie noch nicht durchgesetzt hätten. Stefan plädiert dafür, statt über den Klimawandel über Klimaanpassung zu reden; er nennt die in Frankfurt am Freitag erstmals überschrittenen 40 Grad, zwei Notarzteinsätze in der Klasse seines Sohnes und kritisiert, dass der Journalismus einen Berliner Wasserwerfer feiere, statt über Klimatisierung zu sprechen. 00:11:14 Liberalismusdebatte Stefan und Wolfgang widmen sich einem rund 30-minütigen Deutschlandfunk-Essay von Nils Schniederjann mit dem Titel „Die Machtfrage. Muss die Linke sich von ihrem eigenen Liberalismus befreien?". Im Essay heißt es, ausgehend vom Karlsruher Klima-Urteil vom 24. März 2021, die Linke habe sich an den Liberalismus gekettet und habe wie die Liberalen Angst vor dem Volk; unterschieden wird zwischen Demokratie und liberaler Demokratie, in der Institutionen und Gerichte den politischen Spielraum begrenzen. Der Clip beruft sich auf den französischen Philosophen Jean-Claude Michéa und auf postliberale Denker wie Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule und Sohrab Ahmari. Wolfgang stellt wiederholt die Frage, ob man für Klimaschutz oder Umverteilung überhaupt Karlsruhe und die Verfassung brauche oder ob man der Mehrheit mehr zutrauen solle, und verweist dabei auf Nancy Frasers „progressiven Neoliberalismus", Catherine Lius These zur Professional Managerial Class sowie auf Veith Selk und Julian Nicolai Hofmann. Stefan argumentiert demgegenüber, das Klimathema falle anders als die Schuldenbremse unmittelbar unter die Menschenwürde des Artikels 1. Beide bemängeln, dass die postliberale Debatte zu wenig über Geld und Kapitalismus spreche; Wolfgang führt am Beispiel der Notenbankunabhängigkeit (EZB, Trump und die Fed, mit Verweis auf Adam Tooze und Liz Truss) aus, dass eine konsequente Politisierung einen radikalen Umbau bedeuten würde. Als Beispiele illiberaler Entwicklungen nennt der Essay die annullierte rumänische Präsidentschaftswahl mit dem nicht zugelassenen Călin Georgescu und den ignorierten Berliner Enteignungs-Volksentscheid. Zum Abschluss richtet Wolfgang an die postliberale Linke die Gegenfrage, ob sie nicht selbst Angst vor der Freiheit habe. 01:38:34 Sommersalon Wolfgang und Stefan kündigen den Sommersalon am 22. August im klimatisierten Saalbau Bornheim in Frankfurt an, einen Live-Podcast ohne festgelegtes Thema, zu dem es Tickets auf neue20er.de gibt. 01:39:47 Rentenkommission Stefan und Wolfgang besprechen den Abschlussbericht der Alterssicherungskommission; Stefan kritisiert, dass die mediale Rezeption die Einführung einer verpflichtenden Kapitalrente nicht durchdrungen habe. Er erläutert das Modell: Ab 2031 werde der Beitragssatz paritätisch um zwei Prozentpunkte (rund 30 Milliarden Euro jährlich) erhöht, das Geld in vorausgewählte Fonds investiert, ohne Vererbbarkeit und mit selbst getragenem Risiko, und laut Bericht bevorzugt im Ausland angelegt; so würden über zwanzig Jahre rund 600 Milliarden Euro während des Renteneintritts der Babyboomer dem Umlagesystem entzogen. Wolfgang ordnet das Vorgehen als beschleunigte Deindustrialisierung ein, da das Geld ins Ausland statt in deutsche Unternehmen fließe. In Clips aus Pressekonferenz und Tag der Industrie äußern sich Friedrich Merz, der die Integration der Kapitalrente in die erste Säule als Einlösung der christlichen Soziallehre bezeichnet, Bärbel Bas, die den Bericht trotz eigener Unkenntnis des Textes als „Gesamtkunstwerk" ohne Rosinenpicken einführt, sowie Frank-Jürgen Weise und Annika Klose, die unter anderem auf die Kopplung des Renteneintrittsalters an die Lebenserwartung und ein Mischmodell nach schwedischem Vorbild eingehen. Stefan unterscheidet Alterssicherung und Rentenkasse, beziffert beitragsfremde Leistungen auf 60 bis 100 Milliarden Euro und benennt die eigentliche Deckungslücke mit 1,2 Prozent des BIP beziehungsweise 54 Milliarden Euro. Beide kritisieren die Empfehlung, ausschließlich Löhne und Gehälter zur Beitragsbemessung heranzuziehen und Kapitalerträge, Mieteinnahmen sowie Vermögens-, Erbschafts- und Abgeltungsteuer auszuklammern. Wolfgang verweist auf das Mackenroth-Theorem und kennzeichnet Merz als Blackrock-Kanzler. 03:05:17 Krieg und Aufrüstung Wolfgang leitet das Kapitel mit einer Wirtschaftsmeldung aus dem Handelsblatt Morning Briefing zum Stellenabbau bei VW, Mercedes und Bosch ein, wonach bis zu 100.000 weitere Stellen wegfallen könnten. Anschließend spielen die beiden mehrere Clips aus dem Podcast „Lanz & Precht" ein, in dem der Investigativjournalist Christian Schweppe über die Rüstungsindustrie spricht; Schweppe erklärt die sogenannte Bonner Formel mit einer auf rund sechs Prozent begrenzten Rendite und beschreibt die Preisbildung als Blackbox, in der selbst das Parlament und die Preisprüfer im Beschaffungsamt BAAINBw in Koblenz die Preise kaum nachvollziehen könnten, mit Beispielen wie 65.000 Euro für ein Funkgerät und einem Tag im Haushaltsausschuss, an dem rund 50 Milliarden Euro an Rüstungsvorlagen in vier Stunden bewilligt worden seien. Stefan spricht von Bereicherung und davon, dass dieselben Akteure die Bedrohungsdebatte vorantrieben; Wolfgang verweist auf Abgeordnete aus Rüstungs-Wahlkreisen. Im zweiten Teil spielt Wolfgang Clips von Ursula von der Leyen bei der Ukraine Recovery Conference in Danzig ein, in denen sie die ukrainische Drohnenproduktion, den Ukraine-Support-Loan und eine tiefere Integration der Verteidigungsindustrie lobt; Wolfgang stellt dem die These einer Verbilligung des Krieges gegenüber und kritisiert, dass ukrainische Männer im wehrfähigen Alter durch eine Absprache mit Selenskyj nicht mehr unter die Massenzustromrichtlinie fielen. Wolfgang referiert einen Artikel von Yaroslav Trofimov im Wall Street Journal über russische Drohungen gegen die baltischen Staaten und zitiert Kaja Kallas, Russland müsse eskalieren, um die Mobilmachung zu rechtfertigen. Den Abschluss bilden Clips von John Mearsheimer aus einem Gespräch mit Daniel Davis, in denen Mearsheimer argumentiert, der Westen und die Ukraine führten gemeinsam einen Drohnenkrieg gegen Russland und Putin betrachte den Westen als Kriegspartei. Wolfgang kritisiert, dass keine friedenspolitische Stimme mehr vernehmbar sei und die AfD die Lage instrumentalisiere. 03:54:28 Sozialpolitik Stefan und Wolfgang besprechen mehrere Clips zu außen- und sozialpolitischen Themen. Zunächst zitieren sie einen Deutschlandfunk-Clip mit Außenminister Johann Wadephul, der sagt, die Außenpolitik richte sich nicht nur nach völkerrechtlichen Maßstäben, sondern wäge auch Bündnis-, Wirtschafts- und sicherheitspolitische Interessen ab. Anschließend geht es um die BAföG-Kürzungen anhand eines Gesprächs von Wolfgang Heim mit Helene Bubrowski (künftige Herausgeberin der FAZ), in dem ein Interview mit Forschungsministerin Bär und eine Äußerung des Juso-Vorsitzenden Philipp Türmer zu einem kurzzeitigen, wieder einkassierten Politikskandal werden. Ein längerer Deutschlandfunk-Bericht zur Pflegeversicherung wird eingespielt: ohne Reform stiegen die Defizite bis 2028 auf über 15 Milliarden Euro, geplant seien unter anderem eine fachliche Pflegebegleitung statt Geldleistungen bei Pflegegrad 1, gekürzte Rentenbeiträge für pflegende Angehörige und eine Abkehr von der Tarifbindung; zu Wort kommen Albert Stegemann (CDU), Katja Kipping vom Paritätischen Gesamtverband, DGB-Vorsitzende Yasmin Fahimi, GKV-Sprecher Florian Lanz und der SPD-Gesundheitspolitiker Christos Pantazis. Zum Abschluss greifen sie einen AfD-Redebeitrag von Christina Baum zur Organspende auf, in dem diese vor Organkriminalität warnt und nach psychischen Folgen einer „Wesensveränderung" durch ein fremdes Organ fragt, was Stefan und Wolfgang mit Fragen nach „Deutschsein" und Migrationshintergrund verknüpfen. 04:12:36 Salon-Hinweise Wolfgang kündigt die beiden im Salon besprochenen Bücher an: das neue Buch der Philosophin Eva von Redecker zum „Drang nach Härte" und, zur Frage nach dem Faschismusbegriff, das Buch von Oliver Nachtwey und Carolin Amlinger sowie auszugsweise das neue Buch von Anna-Verena Nosthoff über Kybernetik und Politik (Suhrkamp). Er erläutert die Abo-Möglichkeiten über neue20er.de und Steady (mit Zugang zum Salon-Archiv), Patreon und Apple und verweist auf eine im letzten Live-Salon mit Jan-Philipp Reemtsma geführte Diskussion zum Faschismusbegriff. Zum Schluss weisen sie auf den Sommersalon am 22. August im Saalbau Bornheim in Frankfurt hin. full Wolfgang und Stefan besprechen den Juni 2026 no Stefan Schulz und Wolfgang M. Schmitt 15555

On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it's worth asking: What was the American Revolution actually about? We all remember the broad strokes we learned in school: Independence from the British crown. Taxes on tea. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But on a deeper level, the American Revolution was—and is—a revolution in political theory, reimagining what a legitimate government is and what its relationship to its citizens should be. Washington's troops won the ground war 245 years ago at Yorktown, but the ideological battle continues against forces on both the left and the right who are pursuing a ruthless assault on America's core values. The American Revolution isn't over. Inscribed inside the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are the words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson wrote that in an 1800 letter, but that feeling of hostility toward the tyranny of a distant monarch is what drove him and his fellow revolutionaries in 1776. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch summarized the Declaration's core ideas in an interview with Reason: "The Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal. That each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government. And that we have the right to rule ourselves." That's why Jefferson declared that a legitimate government requires the "consent of the governed." Thomas Paine put it more scathingly in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, writing that "government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens." Monarchy was the Devil's most effective and enduring form of "idolatry." We don't fret over tyrannical kings in today's America. Only ceremonial vestiges of hereditary monarchy remain in the modern world. The Revolution achieved a complete victory in that sense. Yet a counterrevolution is underway, one that views the American Revolution and the republic it birthed as a failed liberal regime that has outlived its usefulness. And these counterrevolutionaries sit remarkably close to the levers of power. Self-Rule Under Threat Three years before he became vice president, J.D. Vance told podcaster Jack Murphy that America had reached a point of no return. "We are in the late republican period," he said. "If we're going to push back against it we have to get pretty wild and pretty far out there and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with. Indeed, among some of my circle the phrase 'extra-constitutional' has come up quite a bit." Vance regularly cites and associates with a group of so-called "postliberals." He appeared on a panel with one of this movement's leading intellectuals, Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political science professor and the author of Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, in 2023. Deneen believes there is an unbridgeable divide between the "elite" and "ordinary" people. "What is needed," he writes in the book, "in short, is regime change—the peaceful but vigorous overthrow of a corrupt and corrupting liberal ruling class," which will be replaced by a more virtuous one. He envisions the kind of aristocratic government favored by the ancients like Plato and Aristotle, endorsing "aristopopulism," where an elite class works to further the interests of the masses. "The replacement of the current elites in our society ought to be more closely aligned to the interests of ordinary people," Deneen said at the panel. He invokes a "premodern conception of liberty—expressed in the pages of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible," where institutions like the family, the church, and the state worked together to impose "guardrails" protecting individuals from becoming "slaves" to their own desires. My colleague Stephanie Slade writes about the postliberal right for Reason magazine. "He says people like [himself] should just be in charge of our government. That's what he means by regime change," Slade says. "[That] we should replace the current elites." She notes that postliberals are willing to frame the entire American Founding as a mistake: "They might say, yeah, America did have a liberal founding and that's why it was a mistake. Actually, this whole experiment was a mistake, and it maybe took a couple hundred years for that mistake to play out….We now can see that it doesn't lead to good conservative outcomes." In his book Common Good Constitutionalism, Adrian Vermeule, a postliberal Harvard Law professor and appointee to President Donald Trump's Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, wrote that "the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to 'protect liberty' as an end in itself." That's a rejection of the spirit of 1776. Paine saw the existence of government as a necessary evil because of "the inability of moral virtue to govern the world." A minimal state, in his view, should be restricted to supplying "freedom and security." As Gorsuch put it in the same Reason interview: "If you think of the Declaration as kind of our mission statement, our ideals, and the Constitution is the how-to manual—well, the Constitution is all about dividing power. Madison realized men are not angels and that their aspirations for power need to be checked and checked and checked again." The "regime change" Deneen and Vermeule call for isn't explicitly violent. Deneen describes "Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends." The strategy manifests as a steady expansion of presidential authority, as we've seen under Donald Trump's second term: the 143 executive orders he signed in just his first 100 days, more than any other president in history; his decision to send troops to American cities without permission from local authorities; his declaring of 21 national emergencies while in office; and his decision to send illegal immigrants to overseas prisons in defiance of the judicial branch. Incidentally, one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence was King George III's penchant for shipping the accused "beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Before he became vice president, Vance encouraged Trump to emulate Andrew Jackson and dare the Supreme Court to try enforcing its rulings against him. "If I was giving him one piece of advice," Vance said, "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people, and when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.'" "That's a really dangerous idea to be even casually trotting out there, let alone for somebody who is now the sitting vice president to be on the record," Slade says. "He said it a number of years ago when he was just a candidate for office, but I've never seen anything from him since he's been in office that makes me think that he doesn't ultimately believe in that sort of approach to politics." Some postliberals call for measures far more dramatic than the steady erosion of constitutional restraints currently underway. Michael Anton, who worked in Trump's State Department over two terms, wrote in his book The Stakes about the prospect of a "Red Caesar"—a right-wing dictator who would rise from the ashes of the fallen republic. "Caesar's word replaces constitutionalism and even, in the final analysis, law," he wrote. In a podcast conversation with pro-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin, Anton discussed what that might look like. "Caesarism is a form of monarchy, but that follows a nonfunctioning republic, a republic that doesn't work anymore," Anton said. Yarvin proposed that the path to power would begin with declaring a state of emergency in an inaugural address, "taking direct control over all law enforcement authorities….Basically like Caesar, you're using all of the force available to you."  "There is just clearly much more of a sense that government power is meant to be used to advance our side in the face of our enemies," Slade says. "And the enemies are the left, the political left, and anyone on the right who isn't going to line up with [them]. [They believe] political power should be used to reward our friends and punish our enemies, and that to me is a clear violation of one of the core principles of rule of law, which is equal treatment for everyone under law." In the COVID era, President Joe Biden imposed national mandates by executive fiat, and his administration tried to suppress dissent by pressuring tech companies to censor critics. The Democratic Party has also flirted with the idea of packing the Supreme Court to get its way, which is not a new impulse for the party. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court in 1937, it cost him the support of progressives who had previously backed the New Deal. FDR is revered by progressives and cited by Yarvin as a prototype for an American Caesar. "Was FDR a dictator? What does it mean to be a dictator? What does this pejorative word mean?" Yarvin asks. "A dictator is somebody who rules alone. And that, I think, is a beautiful thing." The Revolution was, first and foremost, about self-rule: We would no longer abide by a diktat from an overseas king. From the very beginning of the republic, power-seeking men have tried to undermine that vision. In its earliest days, there was a plot to install a Prussian prince as king of a new American monarchy. Jefferson accused John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of being monarchists, recounting in horror a dinner conversation in which Hamilton told him "the greatest man…that ever lived was Julius Caesar." But monarchy is seductive because strongmen promise order in chaotic times. In the wake of Shays' Rebellion, a post-Revolution farmer's uprising, Jefferson worried the Constitution's drafters were overreacting by creating a powerful presidency that would devolve into a monarchy. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" he wrote. And then, famously: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Hopefully, patriots won't be shedding blood anytime soon. But Jefferson's point stands: Preserving the promises of the Revolution will always be an ongoing battle. Self-rule was one of those promises. Another was self-ownership, which includes the right to do what you want with your own property. The Rise of 'Right-Wing Progressivism' The Declaration accused the king of "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." The American colonies experienced unprecedented economic growth, a topic of keen interest to the laissez faire economist Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations also turns 250 this year. Smith was fascinated by the American colonies, observing that their "progress has been more rapid than that of the English in North America. Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity." Other imperial powers, such as the Spanish and Portuguese, mandated that their colonists trade only through state-created monopolies. Smith pointed out that because American colonists could export lumber to the wider European market, they were incentivized to clear and improve land. Low taxes enabled them to reinvest their profits. Smith criticized England's Navigation Acts for prohibiting colonists from buying from other countries and for discouraging manufacturing to protect domestic competitors. Although England's "mercantile spirit" hampered the economy, Smith believed that in virtually every other respect the liberty of the English colonists "to manage their own affairs their own way is complete," concluding that both England and the colonies would be better off with an independent America that traded freely with England. Like the American revolutionaries, Smith described economic freedom as not just smart policy, but as a natural right. "To prohibit a great people…from making all that they can of every part of their own produce," he wrote, "is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind." That revolutionary understanding is still under attack today from both the left and the right. Socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani talk about individual profits as if they are the property of the collective. And Trump has the same mercantilist instincts toward trade that Smith argued against 250 years ago. "I love tariffs. Most beautiful word," Trump said in September 2025. "I said my favorite word in the English dictionary is the word tariff."  The postliberal right argues that laissez faire economics has undermined the working class. "Conservatives have outsourced our economic and domestic policy thinking to libertarians," Vance said at a 2019 National Conservatism Conference. "Do we serve pure unfettered commercial freedom, do we serve commerce at the expense of the public good, or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?" "It is really important to recognize that what the postliberal right is pushing in terms of economics is progressivism," Slade says. "It's not conservatism." Tucker Carlson made the point in 2019 when he praised Elizabeth Warren's "economic patriotism" platform, noting it "sounds like Donald Trump at his best." What the so-called "economic patriots" of the left and right are converging on is a rejection of the spirit of 1776 and an embrace of monarchy. In the 18th century, many colonists could trade only through state-licensed monopolies. Warren has proposed remarrying corporations and the state through "stakeholder capitalism," in which political appointees sit on corporate boards to steer them in the right direction. Trump took a major step toward the corporatist approach in 2025 when directing the federal government to take a 10 percent stake in Intel. Before him, President Barack Obama took stakes in GM and Chrysler as part of a bailout package. "I don't think it's really a sustainable political equilibrium to have two parties that are both economically leftist," Slade says. "The American people are not on board with that. That is the horseshoe in action. And it's part of why I think there is an opportunity for old-school Reagan-style free-market conservatism to make a comeback." The slow abandonment of the revolutionary ideas of self-rule and private property that American patriots fought for in the late 18th century is downstream of a third, fundamental aspect of the American Revolution that is also under attack: freedom of conscience. Remarrying Church and State The postliberal right wants to tear down the wall between church and state. "They want to integrate church and state instead of separating them," Slade says. In some cases, it's Catholic integralists like Harvard's Vermeule, who has described a strategy of turning the government Catholic by "strategically locat[ing]" integralists "within liberal institutions…to undo the liberalism of the state from within." Deneen has suggested passing "blue laws" that would ban pornography, online gambling, and operating businesses on Sundays. A Protestant variety of Christian nationalism is embodied by pastor Doug Wilson—a spiritual mentor to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who invited Wilson to lead a prayer at the Pentagon. In a recent interview, Wilson said the "governing authorities should recognize formally that Jesus rose from the dead" and that "the basis of law would have to be Christian, and I would want it to be Protestant." Most of the revolutionaries were Christian Protestants, but they insisted on separating church and state to avoid the horrific religious wars that had ravaged Europe. "Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world" to end religious discord by establishing state churches, wrote James Madison in opposition to taxes that would have funded an official church of Virginia. An even deeper problem for these devout believers in divine providence was that marrying religion to the state removed the very freedom to choose faith that God desires. In his opposition to the Virginia law, Jefferson wrote that "Almighty God hath created the mind free" and that "all attempts" to force religious belief "are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion." Madison argued historically that Christianity reached its "greatest lustre" in the times before it incorporated with the state, and that religious laws would counterproductively discourage nonbelievers from entering a region he hoped would become a beacon of Christianity. "Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man." Slade draws on her own Catholic faith in making the case. "I am a libertarian because I'm a Catholic, because I believe that every person was created in the image of God," she says. "I just think it's morally wrong from a Catholic or Christian perspective to try to use the coercive, violent power of the state to make people live a certain way. Even if the way that these guys would like to make people live—going to church on Sunday, praying, investing in your community and your family, self-sacrifice—all these good Christian values. They're good Christian values, but they can't be coerced or imposed from the top down. It's wrong and morally offensive from a Christian perspective." Slade says she understands the despair postliberals feel about the collapse of faith and virtue in contemporary America and that they have a point about the progressive capture of institutions. "What they're channeling is a really influential belief, which isn't totally wrong, that the left made a very concerted effort to make what is often referred to as a 'long march through the institutions' and to capture so many of our elite institutions—both at the governmental level but also at the cultural level: higher education, Hollywood, the mainstream media." Critics of the progressive agenda—or "wokeness"—often describe it as its own kind of religion. Linguist and social critic John McWhorter has argued that it has "slowly transmogrified into a kind of replacement for Protestant Christianity" among its adherents. Whether religious or not, progressives have imposed their social values on Americans through public school curricula, federal policy, and civil rights law. They have violated the freedom of conscience that Jefferson and Madison wrote about in a way very similar to how mandating religion would. Postliberalism is part of the political backlash. A poll conducted in early 2021 of people who voted for Trump in 2020 didn't find agreement on nationalist economic policies—tariffs, industrial policy, any of that—but found near-universal agreement on a sense of cultural siege. About 90 percent agreed with statements like "the mainstream media has become just an arm of the Democratic Party" or "Christianity is under attack today." "This sense that the culture has been captured by people who are hostile to people like me and who hate me and want to drive me out of the public square has created so much resentment and so much of a backlash that's driving this postliberal right-wing politics," Slade says. "I don't think it's possible to understand what's going on on the right without looking at what's been going on on the left, definitely ramping up during the period referred to as the great awakening." Slade's new book argues that the remedy to this postliberal moment is a rediscovery of "fusionism"—the reintegration of liberty and virtue. "A good society needs to be both free and virtuous. And the Founders certainly believed this," she says. John Adams wrote just 13 days before the signing of the Declaration that "the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People…they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." "What he's saying is, we can have a limited government in a free society, but if the people aren't naturally virtuous, if they don't trust each other, if they aren't good to each other—that [the Republic] is going to end up succumbing to tyranny and to a strongman government," Slade says. His fellow revolutionary and intellectual adversary Jefferson flipped the equation by writing that liberty "is the great parent…of virtue." Balancing liberty and virtue means reconstructing some of the civic "guardrails" that Deneen laments having lost in modernity—but not handing the power to regulate our conscience to the government. "What we're seeing a lot is people who are focused either on liberty but don't spend a lot of time thinking about how do we cultivate virtue, or who say, forget your liberty, we want virtue at the point of a gun," Slade says. "Government's job is to protect our basic rights and liberties. It should be prioritizing the protection of liberty." "That doesn't mean that virtue isn't important. In fact, it's the highest, most important thing in life—to pursue a virtuous life," Slade continues. "But it's not OK to expect government to do that for us. Government protects our freedom and we use that freedom to pursue virtue." The solution, Slade argues, has to be ground-up. She invokes Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed when he came to America in the 1830s that Americans excel at coming together and creating voluntary community solutions to social problems. "We should have some muscle memory here. We should be able to get back to that idea of thinking of ourselves as being on the front lines of solving problems, building new civil society institutions, nongovernmental institutions that can try to solve the problems we see in our society," Slade says. "Good policy can make this easier. And bad policy can crowd it out and make it a lot harder." The Declaration of Independence is 250 years old, but the Revolution it started is as vital as ever. During the final days of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked what kind of government they were in the process of designing. "A Republic," he said, "if you can keep it." Photo Credits: Horst Galuschka/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom/ Dennis Flaherty / Jaynes Gallery / DanitaDelimont.com / Danita Delimont/ Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/ TIA DUFOUR/UPI/Newscom/Antonio Perez/TNS/Newscom/ Aaron Schwartz - Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom/ Ron Adar / SOPA/ Images/Sipa USA/Newscom/ JT Vintage/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/ AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom/ Hugh Rooney / Eye Ubiquitous/Newscom/ Bonnie Cash - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/AdMedia/Newscom/ Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom/ Polaris/Newscom; Eric Lee - Pool via CNP/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Department of Defense The post The American Revolution Isn't Over appeared first on Reason.com.

Today on Ascend: The Great Books Podcast, Dcn. Harrison Garlick is joined by Dr. Pavlos Papadopoulos of Wyoming Catholic College and Dr. Frank Grabowski of Holy Family Classical School to discuss BOOK ONE of the Odyssey--one of the greatest texts in the Western canon.Check out our NEW 12-WEEK STUDY OF THE ODYSSEY.Follow Ascend on X, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, and more!Be sure to use our WRITTEN GUIDE to the Odyssey!They explore why the epic opens with “man” (not rage, not a god), the meaning of polytropos (“man of twists and turns”), Telemachus's urgent coming-of-age amid an absent father and predatory suitors, Athena's masterful mentoring, and Zeus' striking defense of human responsibility. Along the way they illuminate Homer's sophisticated anthropology, the poetic dialectic of Homer the philosopher, the haunting parallels with the House of Atreus, and why this ancient poem still speaks so powerfully to questions of masculinity, homecoming, virtue, and human greatness today. Witty, learned, and full of “blood on the floor” interpretive energy, this conversation will leave you hungry for the next eleven weeks—and convinced that Homer is one of the greatest teachers you'll ever encounter.Chapters00:00 Introduction to the Great Books Podcast03:39 The NEW Odyssey: A 12-Week Study09:29 The Importance of Reading Homer17:01 Exploring the Opening Lines of the Odyssey30:14 The Man of Twists and Turns: Understanding Odysseus35:28 Exploring Odysseus: The Complexity of a Hero39:26 Justice and Fate: The Role of Aegisthus42:28 Divine Intervention: Zeus and Human Responsibility55:30 The Journey Home: Odysseus and Telemachus01:03:12 Coming of Age: Telemachus's Transformation01:05:37 Exploring Penelope's Role01:11:44 Telemachus' Journey to Manhood01:24:56 Reflections on the OdysseyMore ResourcesIntro to the Odyssey with Dr. Patrick Deneen (2024)The Odyssey Book 1 with Dr. Frank Grabowski and Thomas Lackey (2024)Do Christians Owe a Debt to Homer? The Ascent.Understanding Homer as a Philosopher & Theologian. The Ascent.KeywordsOdyssey, Homer, Greek Literature, Great Books, Philosophy, Mythology, Education, Homer's Teachings, Classical Studies, Odyssey Analysis Odyssey, Homer, fate, divine justice, Odysseus, Telemachus, Greek mythology, divine intervention, hero's journey, philosophy

For the first time since 2023, Ascend is reposting an episode--our introduction to the Odyssey with Dr. Patrick Deneen (6.25.2024) in anticipation of our NEW 12-WEEK STUDY of the Odyssey starting next week!We start BOOK ONE OF THE ODYSSEY next week!Check us out on X, Facebook, Instagram, and more!In this special introduction to Homer's Odyssey, Deacon Harrison Garlick is joined by three distinguished guests: Dr. Patrick Deneen (Professor of Political Science at Notre Dame and author of Why Liberalism Failed), Dr. Chad Pecknold (Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at The Catholic University of America), and Dr. Richard Meloche (then President of the Alcuin Institute for Catholic Culture).The conversation explores why the Great Books matter, why Homer's Odyssey remains foundational to Western thought and theological formation, and key introductory themes in the epic (with a few light spoilers). Topics include the dynamic nature of the canon, Odysseus's journey home as a meditation on human nature (neither beast nor god), the tension between fate and choice, temptations of forgetfulness or false immortality, and how a Catholic lens reveals anticipations of Christian truths like restlessness for our true home. The guests share personal stories of how they encountered the Great Books and reflect on the role of narrative in education and spiritual formation.It's a rich, accessible discussion that sets the stage for deeper dives into the Odyssey while connecting ancient pagan wisdom to Christian theology.In this episode the panel discusses: • The importance of the Great Books canon and why it remains vital • Personal journeys into the classics (and how providence often leads us there) • Key themes in the Odyssey: homecoming, beast-like forgetfulness vs. god-like immortality, fate and free choice, father-son relationships, and Odysseus's very human flaws • Reading pagan texts through a Catholic lens—seeing anticipations of Christian truth (restlessness for the City of God, the need for virtue and community) • The role of great stories in theological and liberal educationTimestamps: 00:00 – Welcome and guest introductions 08:15 – How each guest discovered the Great Books 22:40 – Why read Homer? The foundational role of the Odyssey 40:00 – Major themes and introductory overview of the Odyssey (light spoilers) 1:05:00 – Odysseus as neither beast nor god – the need for the city 1:25:30 – Theological reading of pagan literature 1:45:00 – The dynamic canon and reading with Christian eyes 2:05:00 – Final thoughts and what's next for AscendJoin us as we read the Odyssey over the next 12 weeks!

Back by popular demand, the great jurist-philosopher and godfather of American conservatism Robby George has returned to The Remnant to set Jonah Goldberg straight about truth, natural law, and the common good. Jonah and Robby talk about the Western tradition, the age of feelings, different kinds of rights, the death penalty, new paganism, and Robby's desire to fight for the soul of conservatism. Shownotes:—Seeking Truth and Speaking Truth: Law and Morality in Our Cultural Moment—George Varouxakis' The West: The History of an Idea—Martin Luther King Jr.'s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”—What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense—Jonah's first book—Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed—“The Flight 93 Election”—Populism and Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of Jonah's G-File newsletters—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Post-liberalism is all the rage on the American right, finding a common cause between legal theorists like Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen and rising political stars like J.D. Vance, the serving vice president. In the UK, on the other hand, the movement has been pioneered by left-wing thinkers seeking to return lost working-class voters to the Labour Party and return the party itself to its non-urban, communitarian and patriotic roots. In Against Post-Liberalism: Why ‘Family, Faith and Flag' is a Dead End for the Left (Polity, 2025), Paul Kelly explores this post-liberal strain and concludes that it offers "capitalism without social mobility". "Liberalism is not everything but it's not supposed to be," he writes. "It doesn't give an account of the meaning of life or the point of the universe. What it does offer is a way of negotiating social change and, hopefully, of ensuring that the burdens of that change fall reasonably equitably on everyone across generations. It looks to the future. It does not lock us into some nostalgia for a world gone by or frustrate our engagement with a future of necessary change". Paul Kelly is Professor of Political Theory at the London School of Economics. Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. 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

Post-liberalism is all the rage on the American right, finding a common cause between legal theorists like Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen and rising political stars like J.D. Vance, the serving vice president. In the UK, on the other hand, the movement has been pioneered by left-wing thinkers seeking to return lost working-class voters to the Labour Party and return the party itself to its non-urban, communitarian and patriotic roots. In Against Post-Liberalism: Why ‘Family, Faith and Flag' is a Dead End for the Left (Polity, 2025), Paul Kelly explores this post-liberal strain and concludes that it offers "capitalism without social mobility". "Liberalism is not everything but it's not supposed to be," he writes. "It doesn't give an account of the meaning of life or the point of the universe. What it does offer is a way of negotiating social change and, hopefully, of ensuring that the burdens of that change fall reasonably equitably on everyone across generations. It looks to the future. It does not lock us into some nostalgia for a world gone by or frustrate our engagement with a future of necessary change". Paul Kelly is Professor of Political Theory at the London School of Economics. Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Post-liberalism is all the rage on the American right, finding a common cause between legal theorists like Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen and rising political stars like J.D. Vance, the serving vice president. In the UK, on the other hand, the movement has been pioneered by left-wing thinkers seeking to return lost working-class voters to the Labour Party and return the party itself to its non-urban, communitarian and patriotic roots. In Against Post-Liberalism: Why ‘Family, Faith and Flag' is a Dead End for the Left (Polity, 2025), Paul Kelly explores this post-liberal strain and concludes that it offers "capitalism without social mobility". "Liberalism is not everything but it's not supposed to be," he writes. "It doesn't give an account of the meaning of life or the point of the universe. What it does offer is a way of negotiating social change and, hopefully, of ensuring that the burdens of that change fall reasonably equitably on everyone across generations. It looks to the future. It does not lock us into some nostalgia for a world gone by or frustrate our engagement with a future of necessary change". Paul Kelly is Professor of Political Theory at the London School of Economics. Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Liberalism may feel as though it has been around forever - as the "dominant ideology of the modern west" - but not even its advocates and detractors can agree what it is. Political sophisticates ask whether it is classical-, social-, ordo- or neo-liberal while American main street associates it with socialism. Yet a new generation of "post-liberal" thinkers know liberalism well enough to want to give it upi or, in most cases, go back to a time - real or imagined - before it took hold.In the US, these political philosophers are mostly Catholic conservatives. In the UK, with one prominent exception, they are largely left-wing Anglicans. In both countries, they tend to be religious and yearn for pre-globalisation communitarian, familial and patriotic certainties.  "Where liberals believe political authority is derived from individuals consenting to be ruled, for post-liberals it comes from serving the common good," writes Matt Sleat in Post-Liberalism (Polity, 2025). His book explores the ideas of the likes of Chad Pecknold, Gladden Pappin, Sohrab Ahmari and post-liberalism's two standout thinkers: Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen.Matt Sleat is Reader in Political Theory at the University of Sheffield.*The author's book recommendations were Power and Powerlessness: The Liberalism of Fear in the Twenty First Century by Edward Hall (OUP Oxford, 2025) and Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order by Paul Tucker (Princeton University Press, 2022). Click here to see the full reading list.Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. 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

Liberalism may feel as though it has been around forever - as the "dominant ideology of the modern west" - but not even its advocates and detractors can agree what it is. Political sophisticates ask whether it is classical-, social-, ordo- or neo-liberal while American main street associates it with socialism. Yet a new generation of "post-liberal" thinkers know liberalism well enough to want to give it upi or, in most cases, go back to a time - real or imagined - before it took hold.In the US, these political philosophers are mostly Catholic conservatives. In the UK, with one prominent exception, they are largely left-wing Anglicans. In both countries, they tend to be religious and yearn for pre-globalisation communitarian, familial and patriotic certainties.  "Where liberals believe political authority is derived from individuals consenting to be ruled, for post-liberals it comes from serving the common good," writes Matt Sleat in Post-Liberalism (Polity, 2025). His book explores the ideas of the likes of Chad Pecknold, Gladden Pappin, Sohrab Ahmari and post-liberalism's two standout thinkers: Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen.Matt Sleat is Reader in Political Theory at the University of Sheffield.*The author's book recommendations were Power and Powerlessness: The Liberalism of Fear in the Twenty First Century by Edward Hall (OUP Oxford, 2025) and Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order by Paul Tucker (Princeton University Press, 2022). Click here to see the full reading list.Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. 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

Liberalism may feel as though it has been around forever - as the "dominant ideology of the modern west" - but not even its advocates and detractors can agree what it is. Political sophisticates ask whether it is classical-, social-, ordo- or neo-liberal while American main street associates it with socialism. Yet a new generation of "post-liberal" thinkers know liberalism well enough to want to give it upi or, in most cases, go back to a time - real or imagined - before it took hold.In the US, these political philosophers are mostly Catholic conservatives. In the UK, with one prominent exception, they are largely left-wing Anglicans. In both countries, they tend to be religious and yearn for pre-globalisation communitarian, familial and patriotic certainties.  "Where liberals believe political authority is derived from individuals consenting to be ruled, for post-liberals it comes from serving the common good," writes Matt Sleat in Post-Liberalism (Polity, 2025). His book explores the ideas of the likes of Chad Pecknold, Gladden Pappin, Sohrab Ahmari and post-liberalism's two standout thinkers: Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen.Matt Sleat is Reader in Political Theory at the University of Sheffield.*The author's book recommendations were Power and Powerlessness: The Liberalism of Fear in the Twenty First Century by Edward Hall (OUP Oxford, 2025) and Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order by Paul Tucker (Princeton University Press, 2022). Click here to see the full reading list.Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Liberalism may feel as though it has been around forever - as the "dominant ideology of the modern west" - but not even its advocates and detractors can agree what it is. Political sophisticates ask whether it is classical-, social-, ordo- or neo-liberal while American main street associates it with socialism. Yet a new generation of "post-liberal" thinkers know liberalism well enough to want to give it upi or, in most cases, go back to a time - real or imagined - before it took hold.In the US, these political philosophers are mostly Catholic conservatives. In the UK, with one prominent exception, they are largely left-wing Anglicans. In both countries, they tend to be religious and yearn for pre-globalisation communitarian, familial and patriotic certainties.  "Where liberals believe political authority is derived from individuals consenting to be ruled, for post-liberals it comes from serving the common good," writes Matt Sleat in Post-Liberalism (Polity, 2025). His book explores the ideas of the likes of Chad Pecknold, Gladden Pappin, Sohrab Ahmari and post-liberalism's two standout thinkers: Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen.Matt Sleat is Reader in Political Theory at the University of Sheffield.*The author's book recommendations were Power and Powerlessness: The Liberalism of Fear in the Twenty First Century by Edward Hall (OUP Oxford, 2025) and Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order by Paul Tucker (Princeton University Press, 2022). Click here to see the full reading list.Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Liberalism may feel as though it has been around forever - as the "dominant ideology of the modern west" - but not even its advocates and detractors can agree what it is. Political sophisticates ask whether it is classical-, social-, ordo- or neo-liberal while American main street associates it with socialism. Yet a new generation of "post-liberal" thinkers know liberalism well enough to want to give it upi or, in most cases, go back to a time - real or imagined - before it took hold.In the US, these political philosophers are mostly Catholic conservatives. In the UK, with one prominent exception, they are largely left-wing Anglicans. In both countries, they tend to be religious and yearn for pre-globalisation communitarian, familial and patriotic certainties.  "Where liberals believe political authority is derived from individuals consenting to be ruled, for post-liberals it comes from serving the common good," writes Matt Sleat in Post-Liberalism (Polity, 2025). His book explores the ideas of the likes of Chad Pecknold, Gladden Pappin, Sohrab Ahmari and post-liberalism's two standout thinkers: Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen.Matt Sleat is Reader in Political Theory at the University of Sheffield.*The author's book recommendations were Power and Powerlessness: The Liberalism of Fear in the Twenty First Century by Edward Hall (OUP Oxford, 2025) and Global Discord: Values and Power in a Fractured World Order by Paul Tucker (Princeton University Press, 2022). Click here to see the full reading list.Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors, who writes and podcasts at 242.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

01:00 Why Is Everyone Talking About Post-Liberalism? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=165282 04:10 What Comes After Post-Liberalism with Patrick Deneen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vAO_pkkizk 11:00 Stefan Molyneux, Part 2, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/stefan-molyneux-part-2-back-in-the-moly-hole 51:00 Christopher Caldwell: An Independent Fed Is an Unaccountable Fed, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/opinion/fed-rate-cut-trump.html 1:01:00 FT: Nick Fuentes and Richard Hanania's Paganism, https://firstthings.com/nick-fuentes-and-richard-hananias-paganism/ 1:23:00 The Porous Appeal: Why Institutions Misread Mike Benz, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=165255 1:24:00 Mike Benz on the January 6 pipe bomber 1:59:30 Victor Davis Hanson: The Left's ‘Assassination Chic' and the Inevitability of Another Attack, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au7YE_3_vGI 2:11:00 KISSINGER: Part Two | Full Documentary | American Experience, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHb3-MfKeKA 2:18:00 Video argues women are losing status in the AI era, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U15TaIgVotQ 2:26:30 Video: Life Advice That Sounds Good But Will Destroy You, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiz2XSNUPec 2:31:00 Video: Everyone is Losing Their Jobs (It's Not Just Because of AI), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnIOTN1_ux0

Laura K. Field's Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right, published earlier this month, is a book we simply had to discuss. Listeners to this podcast will recognize its cast of characters—conservative intellectuals like Patrick Deneen, Michael Anton, John Eastman, Adrian Vermeule, and Harry Jaffa, among others—whose ideas and influence Field carefully categorizes and evaluates, bringing order to an unruly decade of intellectual history. Topics include: Leo Strauss and the problem of great teachers; the use and abuse of grand narratives by the right; how the Claremonters went all in on Trump; the permission given by postliberals to some of the nastiest impulses on the right; and more!Sources:Laura K. Field, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right (2025)— "Revisiting Why Liberalism Failed: A Five-Part Series," Niskanen Center, Dec 21, 2020Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018)— Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future (2023)Matthew Sitman, "Liberalism and the Catholic Left," Commonweal, Dec 3, 2018Publius Decius Mus/Michael Anton, "The Flight 93 Election," Claremont Review of Books, Sept 5, 2016Adrian Vermeule, "Integration from Within," American Affairs, Spring 2018The Editors, "The Fight is Now," The American Mind, Nov 5, 2020Anemona Hartocollis, "On Campus, Trump Fans Say They Need 'Safe Spaces,'" New York Times, Dec 8, 2016Further Listening: KYE: "Rise of the Illiberal Right," July 12, 2019. KYE: "Midnight in the Garden of American Heroes (On West Coast Straussians)," Feb 11, 2021. KYE: "Unraveling Allan Bloom and Saul Bellow," June 21, 2021. KYE: "The Afterlife of January 6," July 19, 2021....and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

The pillars of order are crumbling around us and the crazies are wielding the sledgehammers; enter our heroes, George Weigel and Jonah Goldberg, to introduce a healthy dose of sanity to the public square. Jonah and George cover the state of Catholicism in the U.S., the slippery slope of postliberalism, the folly of integralism, and the strange, noxious rise of the antisemites. We're running a listener survey, which you can find at thedispatch.typeform.com/podcast. Shownotes:—Jonah's G-File on postliberalism—Patrick Deneen's book: Why Liberalism Failed—Vatican II's declaration on religious freedom—George's book of commencement speeches—Jonah in the NYT on Tucker Carlson—To Sanctify the World: The Vital Legacy of Vatican II—Taylor Marshall's book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within—George on antisemitism in Public Discourse The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠click here⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this video I talk about how and why leftist Afrikaner Elites have turned on their own people. I discuss the main assumptions that underpin their arguments and provide a critique on their philosophy with reference to Edmund Burke and Patrick Deneen.   You can support Lex Libertas here - https://www.lexlibertas.org.za/support-us

Eric and Eliot pay their respects to the late Vice President Dick Cheney before welcoming their guest Laura Field to discuss her book Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. They explore the origins of the effort to create an intellectual ecosystem for Trumpism starting with the Claremont Institute and Michael Anton's infamous "Flight 93" article in the Claremont Review of Books. Laura explains the influence of philosopher Leo Strauss on these early efforts as well as Strauss's student Harry Jaffa. They discuss the emergence of post-liberalism, Catholic integralism, and the arguments made on behalf of these positions by Patrick Deneen and Adam Vermeule. They also discuss national conservatives, techno-monarchists, and advocates of Red Caesarism like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin. Finally, they touch on the openly theocratic efforts of Christian nationalists to fit into the Trumpist universe, and the overlaps and contradictions among these various Trumpist movements. Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right https://a.co/d/eeTmFrT Eric's Reflections on Vice President Dick Cheney:  https://thedispatch.com/article/dick-cheney-conservatism-republican-party/

So how smart is the MAGA intelligentsia? According to Laura K. Field — a longtime observer of the American right and author of Furious Minds — the making of the new right has less to do with original intelligence than with timing and marketing. What the professors, philosophers, and trolls of this movement have done so effectively, Field argues, is transform rage into a winning political coalition. It's not that figures like Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermuele, Peter Thiel or J.D. Vance are saying anything particularly original; it's that the way they're saying it feels new — sharper, more performative, more attuned to grievance. These men — and they are almost all men — have learned to ride a wave of popular anger against every form of traditional authority. Their rage, Field suggests, is what's truly revolutionary. Their ideas - particularly those of online influencers like Stone Age Pervert and Curtis Yarvin - are not.1. “We underestimate them at our peril.”The MAGA intelligentsia aren't just provocateurs. Field insists that figures like Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule are serious scholars whose anti-liberal philosophies are shaping the intellectual spine of Trump-era conservatism.2. “Their anger is their originality.”Rage is the organizing principle. The MAGA thinkers' ideas are recycled, Field says, but their fury and performance—how they say things—are what make the movement feel new.3. “It's a man's movement.”Misogyny sits at the center of the new right. From Bronze Age Pervert to J.D. Vance, Field sees a backlash against feminism and modern gender equality that defines the movement's identity.4. “They've turned politics into theater.”Thinking as performance. The new right blurs intellect and spectacle, borrowing the techniques of influencers, culture warriors, and trolls to make outrage go viral.5. “Liberals need conviction, not counter-rage.”Fury can't fix democracy. Field argues that progressives must rediscover how to talk about freedom, meaning, and the common good—without imitating the anger they oppose.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

The Post-Liberal Right threatens to roll back American liberty.

Freakonomics Podcast Episode⁠In this episode of Thinking Out Loud, Nathan and Cameron offer a thought-provoking theological response to Episode 644 of the Freakonomics podcast, "Has America Lost Its Appetite for the Common Good?"—featuring controversial political theorist Patrick Deneen. With their signature blend of faith, philosophy, and cultural analysis, Nathan and Cameron explore Deneen's critique of liberalism, the spiritual vacuum in Western political life, and the implications of his ideas for Christians navigating a fractured public square. From Why Liberalism Failed to Regime Change, Deneen's work prompts timely questions: Can a pluralistic society truly share a common good without shared faith? How should Christians think about post-liberalism, populism, and the loss of moral consensus in America? This episode is essential listening for believers seeking rich theological engagement with current events, political theory, and the future of Christian witness in the modern West. Whether you're washing eggs on the farm or commuting to work, join us for a deep dive into faith, politics, and the crumbling foundations of our common life.DONATE LINK: https://toltogether.com/donate BOOK A SPEAKER: https://toltogether.com/book-a-speakerJOIN TOL CONNECT: https://toltogether.com/tol-connect TOL Connect is an online forum where TOL listeners can continue the conversation begun on the podcast.

Notre Dame Professor Patrick Deneen's book, “Why Liberalism Failed,” was not a project undertaken to explain the Trump phenomenon after President Donald Trump's surprise victory in the 2016 election. Nevertheless, it quickly entered the panoply of books, with Vice President JD Vance's “Hillbilly Elegy” among them, that provided insight into a new era of not only American but Western politics. The book's success, even featured on former President Barack Obama's list of recommended books, ⁠catapulted Deneen⁠ to one of the most prominent academic figures in the West and his ideas to the forefront of America's most contentious political debates. Much has happened in the years since “Why Liberalism Failed” was published. Liberalism managed to claw back power, first through undermining Trump's agenda at almost every turn from within, and then through the empty vessel of former President Joe Biden. Yet, Trump was able to mount a surprising return in 2024 with a new resolve to dismantle the forces of liberalism concentrated in Washington, D.C. Deneen joined ⁠“The Signal Sitdown”⁠ this week to discuss what future lies beyond liberalism. Keep Up With The Daily Signal   Sign up for our email newsletters:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.dailysignal.com/email⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠     Subscribe to our other shows:    The Tony Kinnett Cast: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2284199939⁠ The Signal Sitdown: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2026390376⁠   Problematic Women:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL7765680741⁠   Victor Davis Hanson: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL9809784327⁠     Follow The Daily Signal:    X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=DailySignal⁠ Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Facebook:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Truth Social:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  YouTube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1⁠    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Continuing our discussion of the dangers to and weak points of liberal democracy, including consideration of Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed (2018) Francis Fukuyama's "Liberalism and Its Discontents" (his 2020 essay), and Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now (2018). Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

Patrick Deneen, a political philosopher at Notre Dame, says yes. He was a Democrat for years, and has now come to be seen as an “ideological guru” of the Trump administration. But that only tells half the story ... SOURCES:Patrick Deneen, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. RESOURCES:"The Ideological Gurus Battling for the Soul of Trump World," by Joshua Chaffin and Zusha Elinson (Wall Street Journal, 2025)."Why the MAGA-DOGE coalition will hold," by Patrick Deneen (UnHerd, 2025)."‘I Don't Want to Violently Overthrow the Government. I Want Something Far More Revolutionary,'" by Ian Ward (POLITICO, 2023).Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, by Patrick Deneen (2023).Why Liberalism Failed, by Patrick Deneen (2018). EXTRAS:"In Search of the Real Adam Smith," series by Freakonomics Radio (2022).

What's the crisis of liberal democracy? Dylan, Wes and Seth are joined by St. John's College President J. Walter Sterling to discuss Abraham Lincoln's "On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions" (1838) plus the beginnings of Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now (2018), Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed (2018), and Francis Fukuyama's "Liberalism and Its Discontents" (the 2020 essay). Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsor: Visit functionhealth.com/PEL to get the data you need to take action for your health.  Enrollment is now open for Mark's online political philosophy course. See partiallyexaminedlife.com/class.

In this episode, Matt speaks with Brian Dijkema of Cardus, about the moral limits of modern liberalism. Dijkema argues that while classical liberalism emerged from a tradition concerned with virtue and the common good, today's liberalism often treats neutrality and technocratic governance as ends in themselves. They discuss the work of classical liberal theorists, Rawls' liberal vision, the legacy of Christian social thought, and how institutional renewal requires more than procedural fairness but rather a shared vision of the good. References: Brian Dijkema — Profile (Cardus) https://www.cardus.ca/personnel/brian-dijkema/ “Liberty, Equality, … Disintegration?” — Patrick Deneen in conversation with Brian Dijkema https://comment.org/liberty-equality-disintegration/ “Labor's Conservative Heart” — Brian Dijkema (American Compass) https://americancompass.org/labors-conservative-heart/ Why Liberalism Failed — Patrick Deneen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Liberalism_Failed “The Ethics of Attention in an Age of Distraction” — Brian Dijkema https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=icctej Brian Dijkema — Contributor Archive (Convivium) https://www.convivium.ca/writers/bio/bdijkema/page/2/ Brian Dijkema — Articles at Comment Magazine https://comment.org/contributors/brian-dijkema/ “The Classical Liberal Diaspora” — Michael C. Munger https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/513d2184-ca95-4508-b4ef-f137a03b32f0   Thanks to Our Patrons Including Kris Rondolo, Amy Willis, and Christopher McDonald. To support The Curious Task, visit: https://patreon.com/curioustask  

Are we all post-liberals now? The leading voice in the debate about what comes after liberalism, Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen, joins the podcast to discuss where American politics is headed now that the push for a globalized society has failed to survive contact with geopolitical reality.He and Oren unpack the failures of the liberal age, from free trade and open borders to foreign wars of adventure, and how a new conservatism helped deliver its demise. Finally, they make sense of where the waning liberalism of today leaves conservatives, and why young people are at the heart of this shift to something better.Further reading:"We Are All Postliberals Now," by Patrick Deneen

The Democratic Party has become too focused on appeasing its billionaire donors and has failed to communicate its commitment to the working class, argues long-time political journalist David Sirota. The question moving forward, he says, is if the party can ever refocus its brand orthodoxy from prioritizing social and cultural issues to economic populism.Sirota joins Bethany and Luigi to dissect the outsized role of money in American politics and how it has rendered Democratic messaging incoherent by prioritizing wealthy donors over the public. He describes the current moment of populist rage against the Democratic leadership, as evidenced by polls, as a “long overdue” opportunity and offers an explanation for how economic populism became pivotal to winning elections – thus shedding light on how to reclaim the platform moving forward. He describes how former President Barack Obama's "selling out" to Wall Street and big banks became a “generational tragedy,” why Trump's tariffs are more of a power grab than legitimate economic policy to revive manufacturing, and responds to Luigi's hypothesis that populist rhetoric and policy are much easier from the right than from the left.Sirota is the founder and editor of the investigative news outlet The Lever, served as a speechwriter for Bernie Sanders, earned an Academy Award nomination for screenwriting the 2020 Netflix climate apocalypse drama Don't Look Up, and has written three books, including one on how corporate interests have shaped American economic policy.Over the last four years, Capitalisn't has interviewed conservative thinkers like Oren Cass, Patrick Deneen, and Sohrab Ahmari to understand how the political right developed a new platform after President Joe Biden's victory in 2020. With this episode, we continue the same project with the left, by asking: What could be the economic basis for a new progressive platform?Also check out: How Democrats Forgot to Be Normal, with Joan WilliamsHow Big Money Changed the Democratic Game, with Daniel ZiblattWhat Happened to the American Dream? With David Leonhardt

Jeremy speaks with Patrick Deneen about the ambiguities inherent in the American founding, the differences between progressive liberalism, classical liberalism, Marxism, and conservatism, and how our elites mask their eliteness.Sponsored by AmPhil, helping nonprofits advance their missions and raise more money: https://amphil.com/.#interview #podcast #newepisode #nonprofitCenter for Civil Society's YouTube Channel

Vice-president J.D. Vance calls himself a "post-liberal Catholic." What the heck is that? In this video I critique a speech by author and scholar Patrick Deneen, one of the chief intellectual voices in the movement.

Back in 2016, Joan Williams, distinguished professor of law (emerita) at UC Law San Francisco, wrote an essay for the Harvard Business Review on why President Donald Trump attracted so many non-college voters. It went viral with almost four million views, becoming the most-read article in the 90-year history of the publication.Williams' new book, Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back, outlines how the seemingly common view that her fellow progressives must abandon their social causes to win back those non-college-educated voters is wrong. What is required, she argues, is a renewed understanding of class. She introduces her conceptualization of the “diploma divide,” or the gap between Americans with and without college degrees. Her worldview divides the electorate into three class-based groups: the college-educated, upper-class “Brahmin left”, the low-income working (middle) class, and the right-wing merchant class, which pushes for economic policies that benefit the rich. Her argument is that a new coalition between the latter two has shifted politics to the right.In this week's Capitalisn't episode, Luigi and Bethany invite Williams to discuss whether our society indeed breaks down so neatly. If it does, how does her breakdown help us understand recent electoral shifts and trends in populism and why the left is on the losing end of both? As she writes in her book and discusses in the episode, “[the Brahmin] left's anger is coded as righteous. Why is non-elite anger discounted as “grievance?” Together, their conversation sheds light on how the left can win back voters without compromising on progressive values.Over the last four years, Capitalisn't has interviewed conservative thinkers like Oren Cass, Patrick Deneen, and Sohrab Ahmari to understand how the political right developed a new platform after President Joe Biden's victory in 2020. With this episode, we begin the same project with the left by asking: What could be the economic basis for a new progressive platform?Show Notes:Read an excerpt from Joan Williams' new book, “Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back,” out now at St. Martin's PressQuiz: “Are You in a Class Bubble?”What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class, by Joan Williams, Harvard Business Review, November 10, 2016

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!

“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

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!

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!

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.

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