Podcast appearances and mentions of Peter Wehner

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comLaunched in 2003, PEPFAR has saved over 25 million lives and stood as one of America's most celebrated bipartisan achievements. But under the Trump administration's second term, this global health initiative faces near-total collapse. In this urgent conversation, Peter Wehner—a veteran of three Republican administrations and a key PEPFAR advocate—explains how executive orders, the gutting of USAID, and MAGA-driven misinformation have jeopardized millions. Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and contributor to The Atlantic and The New York Times, also reflects on the unraveling of U.S. soft power, the erosion of moral clarity in the evangelical world, and how Christians should respond to mass suffering abroad.From the devastation of Africa's healthcare infrastructure to the ideological reshaping of the GOP, this episode is a powerful wake-up call for anyone concerned with human dignity, public health, or the soul of American politics.

Send us a textKen welcomes Washington political commentator, speechwriter, and author Peter Wehner. Pete is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. He is well known for his prolific contribution to the intersection of politics, public policy, and faith. Early on, he identified as a conservative, a Republican, and an Evangelical. From 2011, when Donald Trump campaigned to challenge the legitimacy of the Obama Presidency, suggesting that he was born in Kenya and not the U.S.A., Wehner has called out the danger of a Trump presidency. Pete has been a stalwart in opposing Donald Trump and in the process, he no longer identifies as a Republican or an Evangelical. He remains a traditional conservative. However, he has offered a powerful and sustained critique of evangelical support for Donald Trump and a Republican Party that has become subservient to the newly elected President. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson played a key role in that transition. Ken and Pete have a lively discussion over his early years as a new Christian, his college career, the influence of his scientist father, his move to Washington, Reagan's speech after the Challenger disaster, George Bush's 9/11 speech (Pete was in the White House that fateful day), and finally Donald Trump's complete take-over of the Republican Party and his return to the White House for a second term. SHOW NOTESBecome a Patron | Ken's Substack PageSupport the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com

In contrast with yesterday's guest, the Paris based Financial Times writer Simon Kuper, the newspaper's London based columnist Jemima Kelly hasn't quite given up on the United States of America. Trump, she suggests, might be the end of the line for the MAGA movement. Indeed, like another recent guest on the show, former Wired editor Peter Leyden, Kelly suggests that the Republicans might be flirting with the destruction of their brand for the next political generation. Unlike Leyden, however, Kelly isn't particularly bullish on the future of the Democratic Party, arguing that there is a desperate need for a formal national opposition to Trump's MAGA Republicanism. And in contrast with Leyden, Kelly doesn't see much of an opposition - moral or otherwise - from seemingly spineless tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg or Marc Andreessen. 5 Key Takeaways* Kelly is most concerned about Trump's "utter disregard for the legal system and the kind of lawlessness" that characterizes his second administration.* She believes Democrats lack cohesive opposition structure, noting America could benefit from a shadow cabinet system like the UK's to provide clear alternative voices.* Kelly predicts "MAGA is going to finish with Trump" as there's no viable successor who can match his charisma and stage presence.* She criticizes tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg for capitulating to Trump, questioning how they justify abandoning values for business interests.* Kelly argues that maintaining moral principles is crucial for Democrats, as sinking to Trump's level only erodes institutional trust, which has already been significantly damaged. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It is Wednesday, April the 23rd, 2025. Headlines today remain dominated by Donald Trump. Every story above the fold, at least above the digital fold in the Financial Times, seems to be about him. Yesterday, we talked to FT columnist Simon Cooper, a Dutchman living in Paris, who had an interesting piece earlier this week suggesting Americans should move to Europe, indicating the American dream was over. Cooper seemed to relish this news. Today, we're talking to another FT columnist, Jemima Kelly. She's based in northeast London, in Hackney, and she's talking to us today from the FT offices in the heart of London City. Jemima, what's your take on Simon's column this week? Is it indeed time for most Americans to move to Europe?Jemima Kelly: I thought it was a very interesting column. I'm particularly interested in this idea that you discussed on your show about the brain drain that has been going in the direction of America and that might start to come back in the other direction, which I hadn't really properly considered before in those terms. But I must say that I'm not really a fan of encouraging people to all be digital nomads. He's actually followed it up with a piece today about how to be a digital nomad in Paris. I'm not really a fan of that kind of lifestyle because I think that it means people aren't particularly invested in their local communities, and I think it makes a bit of a crappy neighborhood if everyone is just working their own jobs. The dream of earning a US salary while working remotely living in Europe—I'm just like, please don't do that because then we're just importing inequality.Andrew Keen: Although to be fair, was Simon actually saying that?Jemima Kelly: I think he did say that the ultimate life, the ultimate arbitrage was doing that. And it's true, it is the ultimate arbitrage. It's just not one that I would particularly want people to pursue. It's like the Airbnb culture—it's destroyed a lot of cities and priced out local people, meaning certain cities you visit have no locals, just tourists, which is quite crap as a tourist.Andrew Keen: I guess the other critique of Simon's piece, which is an extension of yours, is for Americans who don't like Trump—and there are many, including myself—it's not time to move to Europe. It's not time to retreat. It is time to stay and fight and try to change America. So there's no reason why you have to shift. Jemima, you're a columnist at what you call on your X account "Friends of the Deep State" (FT). I'm using you as the voice of the European deep state. What's the take from London on Trump on April 23, 2025? It's so hard to make any sense of it. In a meta sense, in a structural sense, what's your take on what's happening?Jemima Kelly: I'm going to answer that in three parts. First, the "Friends of the Deep State" is obviously a reference to Liz Truss, who referred to the FT as the deep state.Andrew Keen: I want to come on to Truss later, another rather clownish character, your version of Donald Trump.Jemima Kelly: Yes, Britain's proudest export. Second, I would probably not want to speak for Europe or Britain. Maybe I can start by saying what I think the mood is.Andrew Keen: You live in Hackney in northeast London, so maybe you can speak on behalf of Hackney. What's the take on Trump from Hackney?Jemima Kelly: Just utter dismay. And I mean, I would say that's probably the mood I'm getting, even from people who thought there was too much hyperbole used about Trump in the run-up to his election. I didn't think comparisons to Hitler were particularly helpful.Andrew Keen: You're not alone. We've had that conversation many times on the show. I strongly agree with you.Jemima Kelly: So while there were people who were very hysterical about the idea of a Trump 2.0 being worse than the first time, I think so far, it does seem kind of worse, doesn't it?Andrew Keen: I'm asking you.Jemima Kelly: I would say there is a sense that things are quite scary at the moment. I think what I personally find most worrying, and that many balanced people are talking about, is the utter disregard for the courts and the rule of law. I was amazed looking at Truth Social earlier. I saw a post from Trump about an alleged MS-13 gang member.Andrew Keen: The Venezuelan who was illegally extradited or seized and taken to El Salvador.Jemima Kelly: I think this guy is actually Salvadoran. Trump has posted a picture of an alleged knuckle tattoo with four symbols which some people have extrapolated to mean MS-13. It's very obviously just computer-generated text superimposed on the image. Trump has posted it and appears to believe this is actually tattooed onto the man's knuckles, using that as justification. I think the utter disregard for the legal system and the lawlessness of Trump 2.0 is for me the most disturbing aspect because where does that end? It's just utter chaos.I might write this week about how Trump sees the world as just deal-making and transactions. The ends will always justify the means. He's openly saying he's going to keep pushing as hard as he can to get what he wants. But his followers, who are constantly rushing to justify everything he does, including his vice president, are glorifying the means themselves, which Trump himself doesn't even really believe in. People are willing to take what he says at face value and make it happen, like Vance going to Greenland on this supposed visit.Andrew Keen: You said in an excellent column earlier this month that Vance has "the zeal of the convert" and that's the problem.Jemima Kelly: Yes, because he once called Trump "America's Hitler."Andrew Keen: And he didn't mean it in a complimentary way.Jemima Kelly: I don't think he did.Andrew Keen: So, Jemima, stand back a little. Simon noted that he'd always believed in America growing up. A lot of his friends went to America. You're a slightly younger generation from Simon. When you graduated from university, did a lot of your friends go to America? Did you ever think maybe you should go to America as a singer or a journalist?Jemima Kelly: Did any of my friends? It's quite difficult as a British person going to America. Quite a few of my friends have ended up there, particularly in LA for some reason. I almost moved to New York with my previous employer, Reuters, and have considered it, but wanted to stay in London. I love America; it's a completely amazing and fascinating place. But it does feel like people I speak to at the moment are feeling concerned. Someone in New Orleans told me that when conservative columnists in the New York Times are writing that it's time for some kind of uprising...Andrew Keen: That was David Brooks. And Simon wrote about a friend of his in Georgia who said he couldn't even go out because he was scared to bump into Trump people.Jemima Kelly: I saw that. That's not how I personally believe that divisions should be handled. The idea that you shouldn't go out because you might bump into some Trump fans—I don't know about that.Andrew Keen: I couldn't agree more. Your last column, in the spirit of Easter, was titled "It's the hope that saves you." It was a broader column, not just about America. But do you still have a vestige, a glimmer of hope in America? Have you given up?Jemima Kelly: Oh, God, yes, I still have hope. I am an optimist. But I also believe that being optimistic and hopeful, which as I explain in the column are slightly different things, gives you a higher chance of things going well. If you don't resort to cynicism and nihilism, which I don't think is particularly helpful.Another column I would like to write in the coming weeks is that I am becoming convinced that MAGA is going to finish with Trump. There is no MAGA after Trump. One thing that convinced me of this was listening to the "Triggered" podcast with Donald Trump Jr. I tried to listen to a range of podcasts, some more painful than others, and I listened to a full episode the other day and couldn't believe the level of imbecility.Andrew Keen: Well, we know what you mean anyway, even if that isn't the word.Jemima Kelly: And he's the best friend of the vice president, who's supposedly this genius.Andrew Keen: I'm sure in a year or two JD will have moved on to other "best friends."Jemima Kelly: Maybe, but I think they've been friends for a while. The thing with Trump is that he masks so much with his charisma and stage presence and what he calls "flexibility," not U-turning. And his people skills. Then you get the distilled version of him without all of that, and it's just so painfully bad and unpersuasive. There's no successor. Vance is the only one who the bookies currently have as the favorite, but that's because there's no leader on the other side; we don't know who the Democratic leader is.Andrew Keen: Peter Leyden, who was on the show a few days ago, the former editor-in-chief of Wired, believes that Trump is essentially destroying the Republican brand for a generation. It does provide an opportunity for the Democrats in the long term, although the Democrats probably have many problems of their own. Do you agree that ultimately the Republican brand has been decimated and is headed for 20 or 30 years of political isolation?Jemima Kelly: I think what they have going for them is that MAGA has its own name—there was always the MAGA part of the Republican Party and then the "other part" and the RINOs. Now they have somewhat merged, but I imagine that will start to separate if the Trump project keeps doing as badly as it seems to be. But it doesn't feel like there's any separation now between Trump and the institutions that are supposedly independent, with the Fed being an exception despite his saying he'd terminate Powell and then claiming the press made a big deal of it. It does feel like it will be difficult for Republicans to extricate themselves from Trump. There isn't anyone standing up and being vocally anti-Trump on that side at the moment.Andrew Keen: You noted that your satirical X profile "Friends of the Deep State" was borrowed from Liz Truss, who made a fool of herself and now is in political exile. Can we learn anything from the Truss fiasco? It seems to me as if Trump a couple of weeks ago on the bond front was, so to speak, "Trussed"—the market spoke and he had to retreat. Can we learn anything from recent British political or economic history to make sense of what's happening in the US, particularly in terms of Truss, who was humiliated by the markets?Jemima Kelly: Trump has the advantage of shamelessness, doesn't he?Andrew Keen: So you're saying that Liz Truss is not shameless?Jemima Kelly: That's a very good point. You could see the embarrassment on her face. Maybe that is just my projection of how I would feel.Andrew Keen: For people just listening, it's a picture of Liz Truss in New York with a MAGA hat on looking like a complete idiot.Jemima Kelly: Just before the inauguration saying, "It can't come soon enough."Andrew Keen: And she says "the West needs it," whatever that means.Jemima Kelly: She's constantly "saving the West." She was at a Bitcoin conference last weekend giving a speech on saving the West. It's really exciting that we have such capable hands to save the West.Andrew Keen: Especially at the Bitcoin conference.Jemima Kelly: Exactly. They're the real people to do it. What can we learn from Truss? What we can learn, and this takes us into the Democrats, is that a few people have floated the idea that America should have some form of shadow cabinet. One of the reasons that Truss lasted for only 42 days—less than the lettuce—was that we have such a vocal opposition in this country. It's very clear who the spokesperson is from the opposing party. So when a journalist is writing a story about Truss's mini budget, right away, you've got the shadow chancellor to tell you why it's a terrible idea. In America, it's not so clear, and I think that's a disadvantage.Andrew Keen: You wrote an excellent column in the last month on why America needs a "serious opposition."Jemima Kelly: It really opened my eyes, this idea of the shadow cabinet. Obviously, the government has a different structure in the US, and it's not a monarchy, etc. But the idea of some form—even if just in name only—if the Democrats were able to put forward a representative for each of the major government departments, it would help. It made me think that American media often sees itself as "the resistance"—the media is the resistance. I feel like our job is to report the news. Too often it feels like the media was trying to stop Trump from getting reelected or trying to hide that Biden was too old for another four years. The media is far too often doing the work that an opposition should be doing.It dawned on me that this is partly because of the lack of structure that we have with the constant back and forth. As a journalist, rather than having to explain why the Liz Truss mini-budget was bad, you've got someone on the other side to tell you. The Democrats are in disarray. Usually, there's nothing like a common enemy to unite you, and Trump should be that. Amid the tariffs, the trade war, the deportation of immigrants, threats to deport others to horrific Salvadoran prisons—if there were a time to be united, it would be now. This is peak Trump fear, and yet the Democrats have record low approval ratings among their supporters. A Gallup poll showed Republican approval of their congressmen is at 76 percent while Democrats are at 39 percent among Democrats. There is a real void of cohesive or coherent opposition.Andrew Keen: You've been quite critical of the Democrats. Back in July, you talked about the "Biden debacle" and the absurdity of a man clearly out of his depth. But you've also written more recently about Democrats not abandoning their morals. When historians look back, how much of a debacle was the Biden regime? Will it be seen as the trigger that enabled Trump 2.0, or would these things be seen separately?Jemima Kelly: I don't think it was Biden's administration; I think it was the cover-up of his physical decline.Andrew Keen: I wasn't surprised by that debate he had with Trump. He clearly was way beyond his shelf life. It was self-evident if you watched interviews with him.Jemima Kelly: It was already evident. I got into trouble for talking about this before the 2020 election because he had gotten the name of an interviewer wrong, and fact-checking organizations rushed in to say he hadn't. They were lying on his behalf, which shocked me.Andrew Keen: Does that make Trump's point on Truth Social that the media is really the Democratic party, or the two are inseparable?Jemima Kelly: It's funny because every time I've written about this, I've gotten pushback. I was the first "ritual sacrifice" on BlueSky a few months ago because I dared to say it was an echo chamber. Apparently, I implied that I wanted more Nazis on BlueSky, which is obviously sarcasm. One thing I find interesting—if you type "New York Times" into BlueSky, you'll get people complaining about how pro-Trump they are or how they're "both-sides-ists." If you type "New York Times" into X, you'll get people complaining about how anti-Trump they are and how it's just an extension of the Democratic Party.I think there's something like 3-4% of American journalists who vote Republican, so clearly, the media does lean left or Democrat. Trump is now letting really marginal right-wing news outlets into his briefings, which in some ways I don't think is all bad. I think it would be good to have a more balanced media.Andrew Keen: You wrote a good piece in December, "Democrats must not abandon their morals," which I guess goes without saying. There are still morals in the Republican party. Well, certainly ex-Republicans like David Brooks and Peter Wehner seem to be the most convincingly moral Americans. But that's another issue. What advice would you give the Democrats? On one hand, you've got a civil war within the party between its left—Bernie Sanders and AOC—versus centrists. They agree on almost nothing apart from being in the same big tent party. What advice would you give Democrats?Jemima Kelly: I don't feel in a position to give advice.Andrew Keen: What would you like to see then?Jemima Kelly: Just to be clear about the "Democrats shouldn't abandon their morals" column, that was written after Biden pardoned his son Hunter, which I found uncool. I hate that. I was arguing that if you're going to talk about how immoral the Trump project is and how full of lies it is—and it is all those things—then you have to show that you're better. I felt that was a failure during the first Trump term.I think outlets like the New York Times are doing better this time around. But there was an op-ed written after the first Trump victory about how objectivity needed to be abandoned, like there was a new game to play. I think that's really short-termist and will set a terrible precedent. Trump has come in again on the back of a massive loss of trust in institutions, which was already happening but was made worse by COVID—all the debates about origins, vaccines, etc. That chipped away at trust in science, government, and institutions in general.I write a lot about virtue and honor. I just wrote about hope. I don't think we think about values enough. Only the right in America seems to talk about religion. I'm not even a Christian myself—I was raised Catholic but don't consider myself that anymore—but I feel that values and morality aren't spoken about enough. The Democrats need to take the high ground. They were pulling up placards saying "Lie" at Trump's address to Congress, wearing colors to represent protest. AOC was doing videos saying "choose your fighter," trying to appeal to young people. It was all so cringe and inauthentic. When Trump is being seen as authentic, and Bernie Sanders, who does come across as authentic, there's such a vacuum of authenticity.Andrew Keen: You noted that one of the reasons why Trump is so successful is his eccentricity. That's one of his attractive qualities. A couple of quick questions before we go. You're at the FT, so you're supposed to understand the global economy. Back in September, you talked about America's crypto election. I have a nagging suspicion that crypto might be one of the things that ultimately blows up Trump. There is a lot of fraud within the administration on crypto, with some people making vast fortunes. Trump or his administration is in bed with the Bitcoin bros. What do you make of this association? Because Trump historically has always been ambivalent about crypto. Is this a sideshow or could it become the main show?Jemima Kelly: I don't think it could become the main show just because crypto is still not systemically important enough. If we compare it to the trade war, it pales in comparison in terms of numbers. The IMF downgrading forecasts by one percentage point for the US—that is far more likely to bring down Trump economically.Andrew Keen: Could we be seeing a restructuring of the global financial economy where crypto becomes an alternative to the Fed, given Trump's hostility towards the Fed?Jemima Kelly: God, no, not in my opinion. My ultimate point with crypto—and by the way, people who believe in Bitcoin (and I use the word "believe" deliberately because I do regard it as a belief system) think that Bitcoin is different from other crypto because it's the first one and will only have 21 million coins ever minted. But these are just strings of digits. Then someone comes along and says, "oh no, Bitcoin and Ethereum," and someone else adds Dogecoin as well.These aren't companies like the S&P 500 where there's a finite list. Each of these coins does absolutely nothing, and there's no limit to the number that can exist. I could speak about crypto for hours, but I always come back to the fact that there is no scarcity. Bitcoiners hate when I say this because they claim Bitcoin is different. There is no limit to the number of cryptocurrencies that can exist. If you look at CoinMarketCap.com, they used to count how many cryptocurrencies there were, but I think it got embarrassing because the counter disappeared. There are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands at this point. How can there be value when there's no scarcity?Andrew Keen: I hope you're right on that front. Finally, you've been very critical of Silicon Valley and big tech. You wrote a piece recently on Mark Zuckerberg caving into Trump. Zuckerberg caved in, Bezos appears to have with the Washington Post, some law firms have, some haven't. Do you think this will come back to haunt opportunists like Zuckerberg? Is it in the interest, not just moral but economic, of American business leaders, university leaders, and heads of law firms to stand up to all this nonsense?Jemima Kelly: I think so, yes. We have so glorified wealth that people only seem to think value exists in financial terms. If I were Mark Zuckerberg, I would care about what people thought of me, but that's even superficial. I would care about being able to sleep well at night. I don't know how these people justify it.I heard a Mark Andreessen podcast a few months ago where he said, "The one thing people don't understand about billionaires is they don't care about money. They just want people to like them." I thought that was really interesting, but it doesn't seem to match their actions.Andrew Keen: Well, we probably should end. I'm not sure if you've written any columns on Musk, but he seems to represent all of this. He's clearly distancing himself from Trump, just as Trump is distancing himself from Musk. Are we beginning to see the end of this love affair between the Musks and the Andreessens with Trump?Jemima Kelly: It's interesting because Musk was supposedly the savior of electric cars, but the current-day Musk would be so skeptical of electric cars. It's weird that he was that guy and now has to keep being that guy to a certain extent because it's his brand. I think he's been radicalized by people not liking him, and he's being pushed further into this corner because he wants to feel part of a tribe. Now he feels like he fits in at Mar-a-Lago and hangs out with Trump.Do I think that's the end of their relationship? It's hard to know. I wouldn't be surprised if they did fall out quite soon. But they're both very strange people, aren't they?Andrew Keen: To put it mildly. You've got a big picture of the two of them in a Tesla on the cover of the Financial Times. I think they're both secretly fans of Millwall Football Club with their famous song "Nobody Loves Us, We Don't Care."Jemima Kelly: What?Andrew Keen: I'm joking, but maybe the same is true of Donald Trump and certainly Elon Musk.Jemima Kelly: They care so much. That's what's funny. Trump cares more than anyone about people loving him. I think that's what drives him. He really wants to be seen as a good president, which comforts me when things are going badly because I think he wants people to love him. He really wants the Nobel Peace Prize, which is hilarious, but he does want that.Andrew Keen: Well, one thing we've resolved today is that Donald Trump is not a fan of Millwall Football Club. He wants everybody to love him. He does care if they don't. Jemima, I know you don't really care because you're someone who will always say what you think. We'll have to get you back on the show for The View from London. Not an eccentric view, but an irreverent view. Thank you so much, Jemima Kelly, columnist of the FT. We will have you back on the show. Keep well.Jemima Kelly: Thank you, you too. 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 Atlantic's Peter Wehner offers insights into the transformation of the GOP from the party that passed PEPFAR to the MAGA warriors of today. The Mona Charen Show is a weekly, one-on-one discussion that goes in depth on political and cultural topics. New shows drop Mondays. Find this show wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Go to Hungryroot.com/CHAREN and use code CHAREN to get 40% off your first box and a free item of your choice for life. REFERENCES: Peter's recent work at The Atlantic Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez The Closing of the American Mindby Allan Bloom The Power of the Powerless and Summer Meditations by Václav Havel The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1984 by George Orwell

This is an important interview. I've always thought of the political essayist Peter Wehner as representing the conscience of conservative, religious America. Wehner, who writes both for the Atlantic and the New York Times, has been offering a moral critique of Trump's MAGA movement since 2015. And now that many of his direst warnings are being realized, his voice is amongst the most important in America. In this conversation, Wehner, a religious conservative who worked in several Republican administrations, reiterates his moral critique of Trump, explaining how revenge has become an obsessive emotion that is corrupting both MAGA leaders and followers. He expresses concern about how Trump's behavior is "emotionally rewiring" otherwise decent people, and contrasts this with a figure like the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel who stood defiantly for truth in the face of petty, revengeful authoritarianism. Five Key Takeaways from the Wehner Interview* Revenge as Trump's driving force - Wehner identifies revenge as Trump's core motivation, describing it as an insatiable appetite that crowds out noble emotions and justifies destructive actions.* Moral corruption spreads - Wehner warns that Trump's behavior is "emotionally rewiring" his supporters, with many now taking pleasure in cruelty and transgression rather than just tolerating it.* Religious hypocrisy - Wehner expresses deep disappointment in white evangelical Christians' embrace of Trump, noting the contradiction between their professed faith values and their celebration of Trump's cruelty.* Truth-telling as resistance - Inspired by dissidents like Vaclav Havel, Wehner emphasizes that speaking truth is essential resistance to authoritarianism, even when institutions and leaders are capitulating.* Institutional courage matters - Wehner contrasts organizations and leaders who stand firm (like The Atlantic) with those making "deals with the devil" (like The Washington Post), highlighting the importance of courage during this "stress test" for democracy.Peter Wehner, a Senior Fellow at the Trinity Forum, is a contributing Opinion writer for The New York Times and a contributing writer for The Atlantic, two of the most prestigious media journals in the world. He writes on politics and political ideas, on faith and culture, on foreign policy, sports and friendships. Mr. Wehner served in three presidential administrations, including as deputy director of presidential speechwriting for President George W. Bush. Later, he served as the director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives. Mr. Wehner, a graduate of the University of Washington, is editor or author of six books, including The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, which The New York Times called “a model of conscientious political engagements.” Married and the father of three, he lives in McLean, Virginia.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.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

Senior members of Trump's Cabinet got caught sharing attack plans—down to details of who they were planning to kill, and with what kind of weapons, while also wishing Godspeed to our soldiers—and now they'll say anything to get out of the jam they put themselves in. Also, JD Vance openly questioned the judgement of the president in front of those very senior Cabinet members. Meanwhile, vengeance has long been a defining feature of Trump, but the habits of his heart have also infected his supporters. And they've become a moral freak show cheering on deportations of families and starving Africans. Jeff Goldberg and Pete Wehner join Tim Miller. show notes Jeff's original scoop on getting texted war plans (gifted) Pete's piece on Trump's insatiable appetite for revenge Trump's 1992 interview with Charlie Rose

In this conversation, host Corey Nathan welcomes back Peter Wehner, contributing writer at The Atlantic and The New York Times, senior fellow at the Trinity Forum, and author of multiple books including The Death of Politics and City of Man. A former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, Pete brings a unique perspective shaped by his deep political experience, Christian faith, and unwavering moral compass. Together, Corey and Pete engage in a wide-ranging conversation on the 2024 election, the moral health of our nation, the role of the church, and the constitutional implications of a second Trump presidency. What We Discuss: How Pete Wehner processed the pivotal moments of the 2024 election, including Biden's withdrawal and Kamala Harris's campaign Why Donald Trump's reelection reveals unsettling truths about American society and the church How constitutional crises might unfold under Trump's second term Why thinkers like Vaclav Havel, Solzhenitsyn, and Tocqueville are essential guides in this political moment How to have more effective and empathetic conversations across political and religious divides Episode Highlights: [00:01:00] – Introduction to Pete Wehner's background and career [00:02:00] – Pete reflects on Biden's debate performance and why he felt Biden should have withdrawn sooner [00:05:00] – Analysis of Kamala Harris's campaign, debate performance, and what ultimately cost her the election [00:09:00] – The moral reckoning: what Trump's reelection says about American voters and the church [00:14:00] – Pete dissects why evangelicals have remained loyal to Trump and how rationalizations took hold [00:27:00] – A 30-page email exchange: Pete's attempt to reason with a high-profile Trump supporter and what it revealed [00:34:00] – Trump's “appetite for revenge”: Pete outlines troubling actions already taken in just 60 days of Trump's second term [00:41:00] – Defining a constitutional crisis and what happens when a president defies court rulings [00:46:00] – Finding hope and moral clarity through leaders like Havel, Solzhenitsyn, and Tocqueville [00:50:00] – The TP&R question: Pete's insights on how to build better conversations across our differences Featured Quotes: “Donald Trump is president because of the white evangelical vote. He touched something deep in the hearts of many Christians—and that should trouble us.” – Peter Wehner “Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well; it's the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.” – Vaclav Havel (quoted by Pete) “We're moving toward a constitutional crisis... If Trump defies a court order, we may find out how many divisions Chief Justice John Roberts really has.” – Peter Wehner “We have to prioritize human relationships. The ripple effects for the country can be healthy.” – Peter Wehner Resources Mentioned: Peter Wehner's articles in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/author/peter-wehner/ Peter Wehner's columns in The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/column/peter-wehner “The Power of the Powerless” by Vaclav Havel: https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/the-power-of-the-powerless/ The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-1918-1956-Experiment-Investigation/dp/0061253804 Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm

In this conversation, host Corey Nathan welcomes back Peter Wehner, contributing writer at The Atlantic and The New York Times, senior fellow at the Trinity Forum, and author of multiple books including The Death of Politics and City of Man. A former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, Pete brings a unique perspective shaped by his deep political experience, Christian faith, and unwavering moral compass. Together, Corey and Pete engage in a wide-ranging conversation on the 2024 election, the moral health of our nation, the role of the church, and the constitutional implications of a second Trump presidency. What We Discuss: How Pete Wehner processed the pivotal moments of the 2024 election, including Biden's withdrawal and Kamala Harris's campaign Why Donald Trump's reelection reveals unsettling truths about American society and the church How constitutional crises might unfold under Trump's second term Why thinkers like Vaclav Havel, Solzhenitsyn, and Tocqueville are essential guides in this political moment How to have more effective and empathetic conversations across political and religious divides Episode Highlights: [00:01:00] – Introduction to Pete Wehner's background and career [00:02:00] – Pete reflects on Biden's debate performance and why he felt Biden should have withdrawn sooner [00:05:00] – Analysis of Kamala Harris's campaign, debate performance, and what ultimately cost her the election [00:09:00] – The moral reckoning: what Trump's reelection says about American voters and the church [00:14:00] – Pete dissects why evangelicals have remained loyal to Trump and how rationalizations took hold [00:27:00] – A 30-page email exchange: Pete's attempt to reason with a high-profile Trump supporter and what it revealed [00:34:00] – Trump's “appetite for revenge”: Pete outlines troubling actions already taken in just 60 days of Trump's second term [00:41:00] – Defining a constitutional crisis and what happens when a president defies court rulings [00:46:00] – Finding hope and moral clarity through leaders like Havel, Solzhenitsyn, and Tocqueville [00:50:00] – The TP&R question: Pete's insights on how to build better conversations across our differences Featured Quotes: “Donald Trump is president because of the white evangelical vote. He touched something deep in the hearts of many Christians—and that should trouble us.” – Peter Wehner “Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well; it's the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.” – Vaclav Havel (quoted by Pete) “We're moving toward a constitutional crisis... If Trump defies a court order, we may find out how many divisions Chief Justice John Roberts really has.” – Peter Wehner “We have to prioritize human relationships. The ripple effects for the country can be healthy.” – Peter Wehner Resources Mentioned: Peter Wehner's articles in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/author/peter-wehner/ Peter Wehner's columns in The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/column/peter-wehner “The Power of the Powerless” by Vaclav Havel: https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/resource/the-power-of-the-powerless/ The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: https://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipelago-1918-1956-Experiment-Investigation/dp/0061253804 Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm

The Bulletin discusses Trump disruptions, university investigations, and the recent Syrian massacre. Find us on YouTube. Clarissa and Mike cover this week's headlines as they ask, “Is this the MAGA Americans wanted?” Political commentator Charlie Sykes joins the show to talk about the disruptiveness of Trump's first 50 days in office. Then, The Atlantic's Peter Wehner stops by for a thoughtful conversation about the state of US universities, tribalism, and the uniquely Christian posture of hopeful inquiry. Finally, we consider Syria's recent Alawite massacre and the future of peace in this war-torn region with research analyst Ahmad Sharawi. GO DEEPER WITH THE BULLETIN: Join us and go deeper on our Substack. Find us on YouTube. Rate and review the show in your podcast app of choice. ABOUT THE GUESTS:  Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. He was formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and his work also appears in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Affairs. Charles J. Sykes is one of the most influential conservatives in Wisconsin. Until he stepped down in December after 23 years, Sykes was one of the state's top-rated talk show hosts. He is currently an MSNBC contributor. Sykes has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, Salon, USA Today, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and other national publications. He has appeared on the Today Show, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, PBS, and the BBC and has been profiled on NPR. He has also spoken extensively on university campuses. Ahmad Sharawi is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, focusing on Middle East affairs, specifically the Levant, Iraq, and Iranian intervention in Arab affairs, as well as US foreign policy toward the region. Previously, Sharawi worked at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he focused mainly on Hezbollah. He created a map visualizing the border clashes on the Israeli-Lebanese frontier and authored articles on Jordan and Morocco. Sharawi previously worked at the International Finance Corporation and S&P Global. He holds a BA in international relations from King's College London and an MA from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. ABOUT THE BULLETIN: The Bulletin is a weekly (and sometimes more!) current events show from Christianity Today hosted and moderated by Clarissa Moll, with senior commentary from Russell Moore (Christianity Today's editor in chief) and Mike Cosper (director, CT Media). Each week, the show explores current events and breaking news and shares a Christian perspective on issues that are shaping our world. We also offer special one-on-one conversations with writers, artists, and thought leaders whose impact on the world brings important significance to a Christian worldview, like Bono, Sharon McMahon, Harrison Scott Key, Frank Bruni, and more. “The Bulletin” is a production of Christianity Today Producer: Clarissa Moll Associate Producer: Leslie Thompson Editing and Mix: Kevin Morris Music: Dan Phelps Executive Producers: Erik Petrik and Mike Cosper Senior Producer: Matt Stevens Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is it possible to change Washington, D.C. without it changing you? Today's guest, Peter Wehner, thinks so. But he's also a bit of an anomaly: a serious Christian who felt he never had to compromise his faith while serving in the Reagan and both Bush administrations. How did his faith and career merge? Did he ever have to hold back on what he believed in order to keep his role as an advisor? How did he justify the decisions around the wars going on at the time? Hear Peter and Keith discuss how serving in the highest levels of politics can (and can't!) corrupt your faith. And what kinds of pressures do all Christians face to conform? Listen now! Are you an advisor like Peter? Or maybe you're an artist, protester, trainer, builder, or ambassador? Find out by taking our quick quiz now: https://joyfuloutsiders.com/archetype-assessment Have you read "Joyful Outsiders" yet? It's available now! Learn more, read a sample chapter, and grab your own copy here: https://joyfuloutsiders.com/ Ok, truth time... Did you like this episode? Tell us by leaving a rating or review!

Everyone wants love and community in a fractured world. What happens when they are lost?   Host Curtis Chang and Pete Wehner, a columnist for The Atlantic and former White House staffer, explore the deep sense of political, cultural, and spiritual exile felt by many Americans. Reflecting on Pete's journey from shaping policy during 9/11 to breaking from the Republican Party over Donald Trump, they discuss the challenges of shifting identities while staying true to one's convictions. Drawing from the Psalms, cognitive psychology, and Christian history, they offer a vision for engaging culture and finding new purpose amid political disillusionment and feelings of living in exile, even in the place you call home.   This episode revisits a past conversation to examine cognitive dissonance and the pursuit of truth in times of uncertainty.   Send written questions or voice memos for “Ask Curtis” episodes to: askcurtis@redeemingbabel.org   Get a 25% discount when you buy The Art of Disagreeing by Gavin Ortland at thegoodbook.com with code: GOODFAITH   Resources From This Episode: Psalm 126 (New Living Translation) Winston Churchill's Painting as a Pastime A Short History Of The Dardanelles Campaign The GOP and the Birther Trap (article) by Pete Wehner Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Jonathan Rauch's The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth Jeremiah 29 (New Living Translation) Makoto Fujimura's Culture Care: Reconnecting with Beauty for Our Common Life  Mark Labberton's talk: The Deep Work of a New Creation Mark Labberton's talk: Beauty in Exile Rodney Stark (books) Russell Moore clip: “Jesus is a hood ornament” 2 Corinthians 5 New Living Translation   More From Pete Wehner: Read Peter Wehner's latest article: MAGA Has Found a New Model Peter Wehner's The Atlantic opinion pieces Peter Wehner at The Trinity Forum Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   Sign up: Redeeming Babel Newsletter

Journalist Jon Rauch's smart new book from Yale University Press, Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain With Democracy, offers three provocative and insightful essays. Though an outsider to Christianity—as he tells his long-time friend Pete Wehner of the Trinity Forum, Jon is a “gay Jewish atheist born in 1960”—Jon's new treatise follows a dozen books, and hundreds of articles, covering topics from free inquiry to gay marriage, political realism to happiness, and the constitution of knowledge to matters of American political economy.  The book explores the history and implications of three modes of the Christian faith in America. The first Jon terms Thin Christianity, embodied by mainline Protestantism. The second is Sharp Christianity—really MAGA white evangelicalism, what Jon calls a “fear-based” church. But the third chapter, Jon makes a case for Thick Christianity, exemplified by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other creative exilic religious minorities who have made peace with the fact of pluralism and the democratic opportunity of compromise and negotiation—the principles James Madison also affirmed. He calls this book a sort of atonement for his past arguments that American society, and its political system, would be better without the influence of religions convictions. What changed for Jon? Partly it was his realizing that religion is a load-bearing wall, in any democracy. But partly it was an emergent friendship with Pete Wehner and with other thinking believers who have enlarged Jon's vision.   Guests Jonathan Rauch Peter Wehner   Additional Resources “Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy,” by Jonathan Rauch “Let It Be: Three Cheers for Apatheism” by Jonathan Rauch "Evangelicals Made a Bad Trade" by Peter Wehner    

Ken welcomes Washington political commentator, speechwriter, and author Peter Wehner. Pete is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. He is well known for his prolific contribution to the intersection of politics, public policy, and faith. Early on, he identified as a conservative, a Republican, and an Evangelical. From 2011, when Donald Trump campaigned to challenge the legitimacy of the Obama Presidency, suggesting that he was born in Kenya and not the U.S.A., Wehner has called out the danger of a Trump presidency. Pete has been a stalwart in opposing Donald Trump and in the process, he no longer identifies as a Republican or an Evangelical. He remains a traditional conservative. However, he has offered a powerful and sustained critique of evangelical support for Donald Trump and a Republican Party that has become subservient to the newly elected President. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson played a key role in that transition. Ken and Pete have a lively discussion over his early years as a new Christian, his college career, the influence of his scientist father, his move to Washington, Reagan's speech after the Challenger disaster, George Bush's 9/11 speech (Pete was in the White House that fateful day), and finally Donald Trump's complete take-over of the Republican Party and his return to the White House for a second term. SHOW NOTESBecome a Patron | Ken's Substack PageEpisode #398Support the show

A special episode for the inauguration of Donald Trump's second term, as the forty-seventh president of the United States. Whether you're filled with hope and joy, or anxiety and fearfulness, how can we pursue a common citizenship that is grounded in faith and moral sensitivity, focused on justice and love, and rightfully patriotic? Today, Mark welcomes friends Pete Wehner (columnist, The Atlantic, and Fellow, Trinity Forum), Anne Snyder (editor-in-chief, Comment magazine), and David Goatley (president, Fuller Seminary). Together they discuss: The inauguration of Donald Trump for his second term in office; The meaning of patriotism in an unfolding, rambunctious democratic experiment; Repentance, repair, and understanding; How to keep a moral-ethical grounding in political life; Balancing open curiosity and genuine concern; What rejuvenates and renews us during anxious political times (exploring beauty in nature and art); Learning disagreement in a post-civility era; Peacemaking instead of polarization; Developing civic antibodies and the need for regeneration and renewal; And how to pray for Donald Trump as he enters his next term in office. About Peter Wehner Peter Wehner, an American essayist, is a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, and senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. He writes on politics and political ideas, on faith and culture, on foreign policy, sports, and friendships. Wehner served in three presidential administrations, including as deputy director of presidential speechwriting for President George W. Bush. Later, he served as the director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives. Wehner, a graduate of the University of Washington, is editor or author of six books, including The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, which the New York Times called “a model of conscientious political engagements.” Married and the father of three, he lives in McLean, Virginia. About Anne Snyder Anne Snyder is the editor-in-chief of Comment magazine, **which is a core publication of Cardus, a think tank devoted to renewing North American social architecture, rooted in two thousand years of Christian social thought. Visit comment.org for more information. For years, Anne has been engaged in concerns for the social architecture of the world. That is, the way that our practices of social engagement, life, conversation, discussion, debate, and difference can all be held in the right kind of ways for the sake of the thriving of people, individuals, communities, and our nation at large. Anne also oversees Comment's partner project, Breaking Ground, and is the host of The Whole Person Revolution podcast and co-editor of Breaking Ground: Charting Our Future in a Pandemic Year (2022). About David Goatley David Emmanuel Goatley is president of Fuller Seminary. Prior to his appointment in January 2023, he served as the associate dean for academic and vocational formation, Ruth W. and A. Morris Williams Jr. Research Professor of Theology and Christian Ministry, and director of the Office of Black Church Studies at Duke Divinity School. Ordained in the National Baptist Convention, USA, he served as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Campbellsville, Kentucky, for nine years (1986–1995). In addition to his articles, essays, and book chapters, Goatley is the author of Were You There? Godforsakenness in Slave Religion and A Divine Assignment: The Missiology of Wendell Clay Somerville, as well as the editor of Black Religion, Black Theology: Collected Essays of J. Deotis Roberts. His current research focuses on flourishing in ministry and thriving congregations, most recently working on projects funded by the Lilly Endowment and the Duke Endowment. Show Notes What each guest values and honours about America, expressing commitment and affection as citizens “Any presidential inauguration is weight bearing.” Pete Wehner: a first-generation American From ideals to reality about the history of America “ I'm the kind of patriot who is committed to the country being the best that it can be.” “Rambunctious unfolding-still … democratic experiment.” The scene for Inauguration Day 2021 Strength and vitality of American life What are your commitments and hopes for the next four years? “Some of my siblings for whom their angst is new, and I'm happy to say, welcome to my world.” The posture of believers and people of good will to “keep a moral ethical grounding” “Justice, especially for the dispossessed, the aliens, the powerless” Pulled in different directions Eugene Peterson formulation: “There's the Jesus truth, and the Jesus way.” Called to be different things at different moments Name reality as best we can “Is it possible to be both prophetic and the force of unity at the same time?” Will there be a World War III in the next decade? Creative ways to develop resilience “A great chastening” “I feel both curious and really concerned.” When patience runs out “ I'm socially and humanly curious—and strangely a little hopeful for new frames of how we are with one another—but I am steeling myself for turbulence and violence at a time when it feels like we can't afford those things.” The shifting global stage The need for deep compassion and energy that doesn't stop listening or caring What rejuvenates and renews you in this moment? Being outside, natural beauty, artistic beauty, and staying actively in community with people who will stay reflective. Turning off the news National Gallery of Art's Impressionist exhibit (link) “For most of us, our day-to-day lives, even in the political realm, are not really driven primarily by what's happening with the presidency.” Jon Batiste “Healthy, substantive arguments that are not ad hominem” Are we living in the post-civility era? Peacemaking instead of polarization Developing civic antibodies and the need for regeneration and renewal “Something has gone deeply wrong in the white evangelical world” “ I'm completely fine with deconstruction as long as there's reconstruction.” “There's a great line that the ancient Greeks used, Bobby Kennedy used that in a speech of his in the late ‘60s, where he said that the task was to tame the savageness of man and to make gentle the life of this world.” Prayers for Donald Trump That the Spirit of God would overshadow Donald Trump and political leaders That “Not our will but Thy will be done.” For moral sensitivity ”I'll just be candid here. I have a sense that he's a, he is a person with a lot of brokenness in his life.” “We're part of a story, and there's an author. … But those chapters aren't the whole story.” A notorious chapter in American history   Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.

In this week's conversation between Dr. James Emery White and co-host Alexis Drye, they discuss how this time of year always leads to both reflection on the year that has passed, as well as thoughts of what the year ahead will hold. For those listeners who subscribe to the Church & Culture blog, you'll have read Dr. White's recent blog titled “Twelve Predictions for 2025.” As Alexis noted, while the blog may not have contained worst-case scenario predictions, the list certainly wasn't optimistic. We didn't have time to walk through all twelve in this episode, but you'll be interested to hear more about what to anticipate for the year ahead. Episode Links The conversation started off with the massive shift that has taken place in our culture today - that churches seem far more invested in ideology than theology. This is not the first time this issue has been raised on the podcast. We'd encourage you to go back and listen to some past episodes if you missed them: CCP112: On January 6 and the Fastest Growing Christian Movement in America, CCP46: On the Clash over Religious Freedom and CCP37: On Christian Nationalism. Another concern that Dr. White shared has to do with the church taking the non-essentials of Christian orthodoxy and elevating them unnecessarily. This has been prevalent in the Church with the rise over the debate about women serving in ministry and the increasing embrace of Calvinism. Both of these topics have been discussed at length on the podcast, so we'd encourage you to go back and listen to these two episodes: CCP7: On Women in Ministry and CCP59: On Calvinism. The conversation then turned to parenting, and Dr. White noted an Aspen Institute study from 2022 that found children involved with travel sports teams spend 16.6 hours per week on average with those teams - including Sundays. What's sad is that the spiritual formation of these children is significantly impacted. You can read more about that study HERE. There are two past podcast episodes related to parenting that we've aired if you're interested in listening to those: CCP60: On Gentle Parenting and CCP101: On “Bluey” and Modern Fatherhood. Pivoting back to the Church, they discussed the need for the Church at large to truly become hybrid - offering a blend of online and in-person experiences. We'd encourage you to read Dr. White's book Hybrid Church for an in-depth look at how to make this shift in your church. The shift to the hybrid is part of what led to Mecklenburg Community Church's decision to end our multi-site model. You can read more about that in the Church & Culture blog “Why We're Ending Our Multi-Site Approach.” You can also check out the podcast conversation that he had with Carey Nieuwhof about this subject HERE. There are so many cultural changes taking place these days it's hard to keep up. And both Christians and non-Christians are often interested in knowing how the church would weigh in on these topics. Dr. White delivered a series at Mecklenburg Community Church called “What the Bible Really Says About…” after we polled Meck attenders via social media to find out their most pressing questions. The topics covered in this series include: A.I., Politics, Immigration, IVF and Abortion, and Angels. Finally, the podcast concluded with a look at the decivilization that has been taking place in our culture today - as though we have lost the ability to see others the way that God sees them. Even those outside the church are taking note of this. Dr. White referenced several recent articles in The Atlantic which have focused on this: Adrienne LaFrance, “Decivilization May Already Be Under Way,” The Atlantic, December 11, 2024, read online. Peter Wehner, “An Astonishing Level of Dehumanization,” The Atlantic, December 31, 2024, read online. For those of you who are new to Church & Culture, we'd love to invite you to subscribe (for free of course) to the twice-weekly Church & Culture blog and check out the Daily Headline News - a collection of headlines from around the globe each weekday. We'd also love to hear from you if there is a topic that you'd like to see discussed on the Church & Culture Podcast in an upcoming episode. You can find the form to submit your questions at the bottom of the podcast page HERE.

Few Americans have been as consistently critical of Donald Trump's morality than the New York Times and Atlantic columnist Peter Wehner. How to prevent the worst happening, Wehner thus wrote, in his final Atlantic column before the election. So now that the worst has actually happened, how exactly is Wehner - who worked in several Republican administrations - feeling about the future of the American Republic? More optimist than one might. American self-renewal is a wonder of the world, Wehner explained to me, which is why, he believes, we should still be remain cheerful about American democracy.Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. His books include The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, which he co-wrote with Michael J. Gerson, and Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism. He was formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and his work also appears in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Affairs.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Transcript“What we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is.” -Pete WehnerAK: Hello everybody. Election was two weeks ago, but we're trying to figure out the implications of the Trump/Vance win in the presidential election. We've done a number of shows, one with my old friend Jonathan Rauch. Rauch believes that November 5th represents what he calls a "moral catastrophe." And I'm curious as to what my guest today will say, whether he'll try to trump his old friend John Rauch. Wehner I've always seen as the conscience of American conservatism. He wrote a piece in The Atlantic—he writes a lot both for The Atlantic and The New York Times. Before the election, he wrote a piece for The Atlantic about preventing the worst from happening. He's joining us now two weeks after the election. Pete, did the worst happen? Is it a moral catastrophe?PETE WEHNER: Well, I see the worst happened in terms of what the binary choice was for this this election. Obviously, it's not the worst that could conceivably happen to a country, but given the circumstances, it's the worst that happened. Is it a moral catastrophe? You know, it's a moral blow. And I think it's a moral indictment, actually, of of much of the country as well. Whether it's a moral catastrophe remains to be seen. I mean, events will write that story. But I'm certainly concerned about where we are politically in terms of classical liberalism, in terms of the moral life and moral compass of America.AK: Immediately after the election. Peter Baker, New York Times writer, one of your one of your companions, colleagues on The Times, wrote an interesting piece about Trump's America, suggesting that this is the America who we are. Kamala Harris argued that we were different. But Baker believes that this is the America. It's Trump's America. As you know, Pete, he quoted you in the piece. You said, "This election was a CAT scan on the American people. And as difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption." Tell me more about this CAT scan. What does it tell us about the America of late 2024?PETE WEHNER: Well, I think it tells us things that are disturbing. It doesn't mean—and I wouldn't say and I didn't mean to imply—that people who themselves voted for Donald Trump are morally corrupt. But what I do mean to argue is that everybody who voted for Donald Trump voted for a man of borderless corruption, a man of moral depravity. And that's disturbing.AK: It's more than disturbing, Pete, the way you put it. "Moral depravity." In what way is he depraved?PETE WEHNER: Well, let me count the ways. I mean, the man was found liable to sexual assault. He's adulterer, porn star. He's cheated on his taxes and charitable giving. He tried to coerce an ally to find dirt on his opponent. He invited a hostile foreign power in the election. He instigated an insurrection against the Capitol. He tried to urge a violent mob to hang his vice president. He's a man who says racist things. He's a misogynist. He surrounds himself with people who are themselves deeply problematic, including picks that he wants for his cabinet. I would say that corruption has touched every area of his life, personal, professional, and in the presidency. So I don't think that that's a difficult argument to make. I think there's empirical evidence for it. But if there is a counter argument, I'm open to hearing it.AK: Well, I'm certainly not going to make that counter argument. You seem on the one hand, Pete, a little...tentative about, shall we say, morally smearing all Trump voters with his depravity. On the other hand, you know that everybody knows everything about Trump. There are no secrets here.PETE WEHNER: Right.AK: Can one then vote for Trump and not be in any way smeared by this moral depravity?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, it's a good question and I've thought a lot about it, Andrew. The way I think about it is that for Trump supporters, many of them, in any event, look, I know them. I mean, we've friends throughout our life, and I wouldn't deny that you can be a Trump voter and be a wonderful parent or neighbor and a person of high moral quality in a lot of areas in your life. On the other hand, I would say that this was an important election, and that Trump's depravity was undisguised. In fact, he kind of hung a neon light on it. And for an individual to cast a vote for that kind of man, who has done the things that he's done, and he's promised to do the things that he's done, I do think reflects on the person's character. And I don't think it's says everything about a person's character. I don't think this is the most important thing about a person's character. But I do think it says something. And I think that the people who voted for him should at least own up to who he is and the kind of man that that they cast their vote for. So if that's the tentativeness that you hear from me, that's an effort to explain why it's both tentative but something that I have fairly strong convictions on.AK: Pete, you and I talked about this a lot. You've been on the show many times. So it's a wonderful opportunity to talk to you. Is the church/state division in your head as sharp as it should be? For you, is politics essentially an extension of morality? I've always suspected there's an element of that, and I don't necessarily mean that as a criticism. It's just a reality of how you think.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I don't take it as a criticism. I do think that politics is an extension of of morality. I don't think it's the most important extension of morality. And I do believe that the people who are indifferent to politics, you know, their morality expresses itself in different ways. But yeah, I think from my youngest days, at least in junior high and high school and on, I've always had a sense that politics, at its core, is about justice and the pursuit of justice. And it's about a lot of other things. And it's an imperfect means to achieve justice; there's other ways to achieve justice. But I do think that that's what politics is about. And politics is also the expression of a set of moral beliefs. I mean, that, after all, is what law is in many cases. So I do think that morality and politics are tied. The last point I'll make on it, Andrew, is that if politics goes bad, if it goes really bad, it can have catastrophic human consequences. Gulags and killing fields and genocide and a lot of things less bad than that but that are bad enough. And so I just feel like that matters. And that's certainly a manifestation of morality.AK: What about the argument, Pete, that for all the immorality, the depravity, to use your word, of Trump, most of the voters are voting for change. There's a photo in one of your pieces, I think it may be in the Baker piece, of a Trump supporter on a motorbike with a "Trump 2024" flag, and the suggestion that the rules have changed. It seems to be clear in the two weeks after the election that Trump is determined to change the rules. I mean all his appointments seem to be challenging the current assumptions, institutions, elites, and conventions. Isn't that a good thing? America seems bogged down—I mean, I know you're a conservative, but there were many areas from health care to foreign policy to the environment, and they need to be fundamentally changed. It was a very odd election in the sense that Kamala Harris was supposed to be the progressive, and yet she turned out to be the conservative. She seemed to be suggesting that not much in America needs changing. She didn't seem to want to distance herself too much from Joe Biden, whereas Trump is the candidate of change. Is that a credible argument?PETE WEHNER: No, I don't think it's credible. At least let me qualify that. He's certainly a candidate of change. I think whether it's positive or negative change is really what matters. I think it's one thing to say that institutions need to be reformed, which I agree with and have agreed with for many years and have been part of various efforts, throughout the years, to advocate for the reform of institutions. It's another thing to try and destroy institutions, to burn them down. And I think that Trump and the MAGA world is in the latter category. I think that that is the ethos which defines them. So, you know, in terms of people who voted for Trump out of the country, 50%, whatever, the number is going to end up being, vote for him. I understand the impulse, some of the frustrations that have been expressed. So that is its own topic of conversation, which we can get into. But to me, the idea that Donald Trump is the solution to the problems is not plausible. And I point out too, Andrew, that he did have one term prior to it. And in many respects, the things that people are unhappy about got worse, not better, under his watch. So if you compare what his promises have been to what his record was in the first term, I just don't think it squares. And in addition to that, the kind of things that he's promoting now, I think will make things worse. Just to take one specific area, the manufacturing crisis. There's no question that, for a whole variety of reasons, that there's people who have been in the manufacturing industry have suffered. But actually, it was worse during Trump's watch than it was under Biden's watch. So I don't think that Donald Trump is is the answer to the to the question, even a legitimate question, that's being presented or posed.AK: Pete, you've always described yourself as a conservative. You believe that now you're homeless as a conservative. I wonder what you made, though, of the Harris campaign. Her association with Liz Cheney, of course, represents the conservative wing of the Republican Party that you've been involved with all your life. You work with Cheney and Bush and Reagan. Do you blame Harris for losing the election? Did she make a series of mistakes? And what does it tell us about the Democratic Party? I mean, it's always easy—you've written extensively about the crisis of the Republican Party and its Trump-ification. But is there a similar crisis within the Democratic Party?PETE WEHNER: Well, I think there's a crisis, or at least a challenge, in the Democratic Party, which I'll turn to in a second. I mean, they've they've lost two of the last three elections to Donald Trump. So that is a cause for for self-reflection, for for sure. In terms of the Harris campaign, I'm not as critical as a lot of people are of her. I thought she ran a much better campaign than I thought that she would. It wasn't a perfect campaign by any means, but given the tasks she faced, given her own history, I thought that she did extremely well. And I don't blame her for the loss. I think there were certain intrinsic disadvantages that she had. I mean, she was essentially an incumbent in an election where the impulse for the public was change. Joe Biden's approval rating was 41%. She's going to end up with about 48% of the popular vote. That actually, to me is pretty impressive. The idea that she could have beaten, or have been ten points better, in the popular vote from the Biden approval rating would have been a spectacular achievement. I don't think it was achievable. She made mistakes. She didn't distance herself sufficiently from the Biden administration, but I don't think she ever really could have, because she was vice president. I think that the biggest stage, the biggest moment with the largest audience of all, she absolutely obliterated Donald Trump in the debate. I thought her convention speech was good. I'd sort of graded it at a B plus. I thought the convention itself made a lot of sense. I thought her rallies were very good. She was better on the stump than I thought. She had a huge amount of of energy. I thought she was not so good on interviews. And I think she stumbled at a few points, particularly when she was asked on The View where she differed from Joe Biden. She couldn't come up with anything. I think that she should have been prepared for that.AK: But to put it mildly, I mean, that was the most obvious question that everyone wanted to know. How could she have been so unprepared?PETE WEHNER: Well, I don't know if she was unprepared, I assume—AK: Or unwilling or unable to answer this fundamental question.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I'm guessing that what was going through her mind, and probably the mind of the people that she spoke with, was that there was still a lot of loyalty to Joe Biden. And so she had to be careful in how far she distanced herself from him and whether that would create some unhappiness among Biden supporters. Secondly, she was vice president. And so there's a plausibility issue here, which is: how much can you separate yourself from a president if you're vice president? That said, look, I think she should have had 2 or 3 things that she could have named. And there was a relatively easy explanation, various explanations she could have offered: look, I believe in learning. When facts change, people change. I think that, you know, in my in my earlier life, I was wrong on certain issues and name what they were, and say that hopefully I've learned from that, I hope to continue to learn. I mean, there are all sorts of ways you could answer that. But look, Andrew, I will say this, too, which is having worked on several campaigns and having observed a lot of them over the decades, it's a lot harder to run as a candidate than people can imagine. And every candidate, no matter how good they are, whether you're Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, have made mistakes. And the prism through which people view it is completely based on whether you win or not. If Trump had lost, you can imagine all of the things that we would say about, you know, really, was it wise to to close the argument talking about the penis size of Arnold Palmer or feigning masturbation with a microphone? I mean, there are there are dozens and dozens of things we would have said.AK: Yeah, I take your point, but of course he didn't. Let's talk about conservatism. You always made the argument—you were on MSNBC recently talking about why Trump is an enemy of conservatism. Is now, shall we say, the Harris wing, which is the center/right of the Democratic Party, which seems to have got into bed, so to speak, with Liz Cheney, are they really the conservatives now in America? I mean, they seem to think that America works pretty well. They always talk about America being American, and we're better than that. Is your conservative Republican Party, has it been swallowed by the Democratic Party?PETE WEHNER: I don't think it's been swallowed by the Democratic Party. And of course, it depends on what aspects of conservatism one is talking about. I would say that given the current constellation of reality in the two main parties in America, that conservatives have a better home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party right now. But I don't think it's a natural home, and it's certainly not the kind of home that conservatives have been used to in the Republican Party pre-Donald Trump. I'd say the main point in terms of the question you asked is to underscore how fundamentally unconservative the Republican Party, Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, are. You know, there's a line in the movie The Dark Knight, the Batman movie, in which Alfred is talking to Bruce Wayne, and Bruce Wayne is trying to explain the criminal mindset to Alfred. And Alfred is saying, but you don't understand. And here he's talking about the Joker. He says, some people can't be bought, bribed, coerced. Some people just want to watch the world burn. And I think that Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have within them that kind of sensibility. I don't think it's defining to all of them, and I don't think it's completely defining to them. But I think that there is a nihilistic impulse, this effort not to reform, as I said earlier, institutions, but just to burn them to the ground, to take a wrecking ball. But, you know, Matt Gaetz as attorney general, or Pete Hegseth as defense secretary or Tulsi Gabbard as the head of the intelligence agencies, and just, out of anger, grievance, try and destroy them, try and destroy the so-called deep state. That's so fundamentally unconservative, in my estimation, that a conservative couldn't, in good conscience, find a home there. And right now, the alternative is the Democratic Party. And I don't think, on that central question of disposition and temperament, the Democrats are nearly as unconservative, nearly as radical, nearly as revolutionary, as the current-day Republican Party.AK: It all reminds me a little bit of a cowboy movie, The Magnificent Seven (or perhaps the Un-Magnificent Seven.) Talk about a natural party, Pete, but does that really work in American politics, where most African-Americans now vote for a Democratic Party that was in favor of segregation?PETE WEHNER: I'm sorry, say that again.AK: You talk about a natural party. You said, well, conservatives said that the Democrats aren't the natural party of conservatism. But can we use this term convincingly in American politics? After all, most African-Americans vote for the Democratic Party, which was the party of segregation.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. And they changed in the end, you know, it took them longer than it should have. No, I don't think that there's anything, you know, endemic or intrinsic to parties that makes them a natural home to any political movement or political philosophy. Because parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that. I do think that you can take a step back and say, look, over the last 50 years, when you chart the trajectory of the Democratic and Republican Party, there are certain trends that you can see. And so for some period of time, I think that the Democratic and Republican parties were natural homes to certain movements.AK: Is there anything we should celebrate about the election? There were a lot of warnings beforehand that there was going to be a massive gender split, and it didn't turn out to be true. Trump promised that he would get a lot of Hispanic and African-American voters. He got a lot of Hispanic and quite a few African-Americans, especially men. Could one argue that November 5th, 2024 was the first post-identity politics election? Is that something to be encouraged about?PETE WEHNER: Well, in this case, I'd say no, because I think the results of that post-identity politics is going to have really damaging consequences. I see your point, and I do think that to the extent that political parties can't count on certain groups constituencies, that's probably, as a general matter, good. It means you have to go out and earn their vote rather than reflexively rely on them. But as somebody who's been a Trump critic, and who has predicted what four more years under Donald Trump is going to be like, I just think that that overwhelms whatever good that could have come out of it. I suppose I would add, there's one good thing that's come out of this, which is there hasn't been violence. But honestly, I think that's because Donald Trump lost, and the Democratic Party believes in the peaceful transfer of power, and they're not going to do in 2024 what Donald Trump and his supporters did in 2020. I'm glad that's not happening, but I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that violence won't happen because the Democratic Party is the more responsible and civilized party in that respect.AK: How are you doing personally? Trump hasn't been shy to boast about his revengefulness. You've being one of his most articulate critics in The Times, in The Atlantic, certainly from the right, or from traditional conservatism, a very strong moral critic. How are you dealing personally with this situation?PETE WEHNER: You know, I think I'm probably dealing with it better than a lot of people would imagine given my own views on Trump. I think just disposition, temperamentally, I'm not a person who has found politics to be overwhelming or disorienting. I don't want to pretend that it's not a difficult moment, both in terms of what I think it means for the country and for what, as I said earlier, what I think it says about the country. And for somebody who grew up loving America and probably, to some extent, mythologizing America, seeing this happen is difficult. But most of my life and the spirit of my life and is based on my relationships mostly with family and with friends. And those, to me, are the things that really determine what my mood is on any given day or any week. I will say that my wife Cindy and I, in the last two weeks, have really been struck by the number of people that we have heard from who are deeply grieved and fearful of what's happening. We saw somebody a week ago Sunday, and Cindy asked this person, how are you doing? And she burst into tears. She had been abused by her husband. And she said that Donald Trump was a person just like her husband, and she couldn't fathom that America elected him. And we have a friend who's a family therapist, and she said she had spent the week before with sexual abuse victims, and the fact that Trump had been elected and that people in her family were celebrating that...other people who felt like much of what they had given their lives to was shattering. So we've really felt more, I suppose, in a listening mode, in a comforting mode, trying to help people to sort through it. It's different, Andrew, I will say, in my experience and the experience of the people around me, I think, in the country now than it was in 2016. I think 2016 could be argued that that was an aberration, a parenthesis, and I think it's clearly not the case. This is the Trump era, and I think that's hard for a lot of people to come to terms with. Other people are celebrating it. They think that this is wonderful. Donald Trump is, to them, the personification of what they want in a leader and a human being. And now we've got it.AK: Yeah, we will see. You wrote an interesting piece in The Atlantic after the election suggesting that 2024 is different from 2016. It's less shocking, more a confirmation. You wrote an interesting piece in response to what happened, "Don't Give Up on the Truth," in The Atlantic. We are where we are. But there is, if not reason to celebrate, reason to, at least, resist. Are you part of a moral resistance, in some ways, Pete, do you think, to Trump, or at least Trumpism, in America?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I think that's fair. I think some people who have been critical of Trump are going to dial back their criticism, or they just might find other things to think about or talk about or write about. And I understand that. That's not where I am. I mean, I have to think about what my posture is going to be in the Trump era. That's not clear to me yet. And I think it'll become clear to me as circumstances unfold. But, you know, what I wrote, I believed, and I continue to believe in, and the fact that Donald Trump won the election doesn't allay my concerns, it deepens them. I hope I have enough intellectual independence that if he is different than I think, and if he does things that I agree with, that I'm willing publicly to say that. I tried to do that in the first term. And I hope I can do it in a second term and I hope I'm given reasons to do it, and I hope that my foreboding of what this means for America is wrong. But I can't shake what I believe to be true. And I read the opposite views of mine and critiques of mine and try to understand what I'm getting wrong about Donald Trump. And I may be blinded on this, but I don't think I have been wrong about him. I think all of the things that I've been writing about him since 2015—actually, 2011, and go back to the birther moment—I think they've been validated. And I feel like given my role in life and the outlets that I have, that I can't help but give voice to those concerns. And whether that makes a difference or not, time will tell. It certainly didn't have an impact this time around, that's for sure.“Parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that.” -PWAK: Well, you certainly have a natural home on this show, Pete. And in your excellent Atlantic piece, you talk about the importance of truth telling. You are a truth teller, that goes without saying. What do you think is the most effective way, though, to tell the truth these days? I don't think you're a big social media guy, you're not going on X or Instagram or TikTok. How does one most effectively tell the truth in Trump's America?PETE WEHNER: That's such a good question, Andrew, and a deep one. I'm not sure what the answer is. I think in terms of what each individual has to do, they just have to find within the circumstances of their life the places that they can tell the truth. Some of that just may be with family and friends, maybe in neighborhoods and community groups. It may be in churches. It may be, if you're a writer, in The Atlantic, in The New York Times. You know, I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process. And if you're dealing with a person—for example, in my estimation of Donald Trump and what I do believe is this moral depravity, I just think that is true about him—how do you say that? How do you say that without crossing lines? How do you engage with people who are Trump supporters, as I have, many of them, and to try and point out and argue for my position, and to do so in a way that isn't disrespectful or dehumanizing? Those aren't easy questions. I'm sure I haven't gotten them right. But I think you just try the best you can in the world that you live in to try and give voice to the truth. And probably it helps to look back to others who have faced far more difficult circumstances than we have. I mentioned in my most recent Atlantic essay Solzhenitsyn and Havel who were great dissidents and spoke, in the case of Solzhenitsyn, when the Soviet Union was a country to which he was hostage to, and for Havel, there was a communist movement in Czechoslovakia. And they and so many others, Orwell in a different way, and Jesus in a different way, said that the important thing to do was to speak the truth. It doesn't mean you succeed, necessarily, when you do it, but it's important to do. Times change. Circumstances change. Inflection points can happen. And sometimes speaking the truth can create those moments. And other times when those moments open up, people who spoke the truth have a capacity to shape events in a way that they didn't before that. I should say one interesting example that apposite, maybe, you and your own history knowledge: you take someone like Winston Churchill. And Churchill was the same man in the 30s as he was in the 40s, and in the 30s he was viewed as a social pariah, an alarmist, a kind of ridiculous figure, he had very, very little influence. But events changed, the war came, and all of a sudden Churchill became arguably the greatest person of the 20th century. So there's probably a lesson in that for people who want to be truth tellers.AK: Yeah, I've always thought of you, Pete, as the moral conscience of America, although you've been involved in politics, but I can't imagine you ever running for political office. You talked about Solzhenitsyn and Havel in particular as an activist, as someone who stood up very bravely and indeed humorously to the Russian colonialists in Czechoslovakia or Soviet colonialism. Does the anti-Trump movement need a Havel, a Solzhenitsyn, a Winston Churchill? Seems to be lacking, Harris clearly wasn't. I've always wondered whether Michelle Obama could have been that person. And I know that everyone says, well, she couldn't have run. She doesn't like politics, but maybe she had almost a moral responsibility as an American. But where are we going to get an America? Where are we going to get our Churchill, our Havel, our Solzhenitsyn? All of course, white men. Maybe we need some women, too.PETE WEHNER: Yeah, you know, those are rare people. And it's not a dime a dozen. Yeah, I felt like Liz Cheney was that person in this moment more than Harris, more than others. I think I felt that way about Liz, because there was a cost, there was a very concrete and practical cost, to what she had done. And that, to me, is a sign and a symbol of courage, which is: if you do the right thing when there's a cost to doing the right thing. And I thought her articulation of why she broke with Trump and voted for Harris was extremely powerful. So I'd say of the people in the landscape in American politics right now, Liz Cheney would be supreme for me, but of course, she was tossed out of the Republican Party. She was beaten in a primary. And the Democratic Party's not a natural home for her either. So these are her wilderness years, Churchill had his, I'm not saying that Liz is Churchill, Churchill was Churchill and that's about it. But she showed enormous courage and articulation. I think the fact that for a person of my view, she made such a powerful and persuasive case, and it just didn't win over enough voters. And I think that that's an indictment not of Liz, but I think it's an indictment of an awful lot of voters in America. But that would make sense, because I see the world in a certain way, and the majority of Americans saw it differently. And this is a democracy. And so now we've got Trump and the people who voted for him, and the rest of us get to live with them.AK: Are there hierarchies of morality, Pete? There's a great deal of revisionism now on on Churchill reminding us all that he was an overt racist, a colonialist, a warmonger in some ways, although, of course, we don't use that word in terms of his opposition to Hitler. Trump made that point about Cheney, I mean, in his own vulgar way, but Cheney, of course, was also a warmonger—or, certainly her father was, millions of people—well, certainly hundreds of thousands of people—in the Middle East lost their lives because of catastrophic American wars in the region. Could one argue that Cheney's support for these catastrophic wars are equally immoral, if not more immoral, than Trump's moral transgressions?PETE WEHNER: Yeah, if you believe that narrative, I mean, I think that narrative is flawed. I don't mean that the wars weren't mistaken, but I think the way you framed it is is a caricature. But if you believe that, if you're right and I'm wrong, sure, then, of course. And there is a moral hierarchy. I mean, you know, morality is judged by the actions that you take in the moment that you live and the consequences that they create. And if a person or an individual does an action that creates massive harm and the destruction of human lives, human civilizations, if someone is advocating maliciousness and malevolence on a wide scale, that obviously has to be judged differently than if you lose your temper as a boss or somebody who works for you. So morality is a complicated subject. You also have to take into account, to some degree, the circumstances in which people lived. If you lived in the 14th century, if you lived in the 18th century, if you lived in the 20th century, if you lived in the 21st century, there were different moral standards and moral ethics and moral norms. That doesn't mean, in the case of the American founders, the slave holders, that was a grave sin, and I think probably traditionally on the on the American right, because there's been almost a defecation of the founding fathers, that they've been excused too much for tolerating slavery. Lincoln himself, who I think is the greatest American in history, his history was somewhat spotty. I think he was a magnificent figure. And he grew, but that happens. But just to come back to what you said earlier, if you were to say to me, Liz Cheney versus Donald Trump on any reasonable moral spectrum, I would say that that Liz Cheney has him beat by a country mile, by virtually any metric that you want to judge her and him on.AK: In that excellent Atlantic piece, Pete, you talked about this being a moment where we, and I'm quoting you, we need to guard our souls. But what about for those of us who might not believe in the existence of souls?PETE WEHNER: Yeah. Then I would use a different word.AK: What word would you use?PETE WEHNER: Your inner life, your interior life, your sense of humanity, how you view others. I think most people, whether soul is the word that they use, I think most people aren't strict materialists, or they don't believe in scientism. They believe that there are parts of human life, human existence, human reality that aren't materialistic, that has to do with beauty and esthetics and love and = humanity and caring for the least of these. And, you know, many people that I know that are not believers personify those high virtues, honestly, in ways that are more impressive than people I know who claim to be followers of Jesus. So I use the word soul because I think it speaks to something that is true for human life and human beings. But I understand if you're not a believer that you wouldn't use that term. But I imagine that there's some other term that would get at essentially the same thing, which is your core humanity. What makes you an estimable human being. Compassion, honor, dignity, being a peacemaker, and so forth.AK: You're also more cheerful in the sense that you want to remind everyone that, of course, we want to cultivate hope, humanistic hope. But all this needs to be understood within the historical context. You argue that, in the Atlantic piece, presumably Trump's only going to be around for four years. Things change, there are always party realignments, so, cheer us up, Pete. Why might this just be a blip in the history of humanity rather than the end of it in some way?PETE WEHNER: Yeah. It's not going to be the end of humanity. Even if my most dire warnings are realized. Look, I would say that there can be a kind of catastrophism that happens on all sides and that we need to be careful about it. Life is complicated. Human history is complicated. There are moments of glory and moments of catastrophe and disaster. You know, in the American experience, we had the 1850s that lead up to the Civil War. We had the Civil War. We had the profound difficulties in reconstruction. We had segregation, child labor laws, women can't vote. Just enormous challenges in this country. The first election, really contested election in America between Adams and Jefferson in 1800, was a vicious affair. So, you know, we've we've faced a lot. And that's just America. And, you know, you look at world history, I quote it at the end of my essay, "Don't Give Up on the Truth" in The Atlantic, a speech, one of my favorite speeches, that Bobby Kennedy gave in 1966 at University of Cape Town in South Africa, where he talked about the ripples of hope, and how the ripples of hope can overcome the worst and highest walls of oppression. Now, when Kennedy gave that speech, it was 66. It was at the apex of of apartheid, and eventually apartheid was overthrown, and—AK: Yeah, it's worth repeating the RFK quote, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." Of course, it's particularly resonant given that his son is involved in the Trump administration and is probably not someone you're particularly keen on.PETE WEHNER: No, he's, no pun intended, but I'm not particularly keen on his son. But the father I admired, and I think those words are timeless words. And we shouldn't forget them. Look, the other thing I'd say, Andrew, is that what we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is. I mean, honor is living a life—an imperfect life. We all struggle, we're all fallen, we're all flawed—But trying to advance that. And the other thing I would emphasize again is that human life, human history, the progression of countries, are not straight lines. There's forward and backward, there's zigs, there's zags, inflection points develop, and things change in ways that a person may never anticipate. You mentioned John Rauch earlier, and he and Andrew Sullivan were leading the campaign for same sex marriage. When they started that campaign, especially, Andrew, in 1989, I think he wrote a cover story in The New Republic on the conservative case for gay marriage. Now, if you would have asked either of them in the late 80s, 90s and so forth, whether gay marriage would be prevalent or even be found to be a constitutional right, they would have said that's inconceivable. It couldn't happen. And it happened. Whether you agree or not with same sex marriage, it shows capacity of events to change. And you and I could name a lot of things in which that's happened. So you don't know when those moments come, when those inflection points happen. And I also believe the American capacity for self-renewal is a kind of wonder of the world and that people will—AK: Say that again: American self-renewal is a wonder of the world.PETE WEHNER: Yeah. I think the American capacity for self-renewal is extraordinary. I think it's shown itself throughout history. Again, it's a mixed history, but—AK: But where does that come from, that American self-renewal? Is it a spiritual thing? Is it an economic thing? “I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process.” -PWPETE WEHNER: You know, I'd imagine part of it is part of the American DNA. The things that shape anybody in any country, the factors, the history...there's certainly something, I think it's reasonable to say, in America, about freedom and liberty, that is part of the American character. You know, people could go back and read Tocqueville, which is still relevant to what Americans are like. I think our political history has helped shape us. Civil society has helped shape us. So, you know, each country has a certain kind of a DNA. And I think by and large, America's has been good. So there's history to give you hope, and not just American history. So, I just think you need to keep putting one foot in front of the other. I think you have to call out things that happen that are wrong, immoral or illegal as they as they happen, and hope that over time you bend events enough in your direction. Martin Luther King Junior had that quote, which is pretty well known, about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, but that does not—AK: It's not natural, is it? As you suggest, it requires human agency, doesn't bend on its own. Finally, Pete, and you've been very generous, as always, with your time. A lot of comparisons, there always have been, with America and the Roman Republic, this shift into, sort of, decadence. There's also a fashion these days for stoicism. Some of the ideologies or the intellectual movements of the late Roman decadent, not the republic, but imperial Rome. What would you say to people—won't say necessarily Stoics formally, but people who are espousing a kind of stoicism—who will say, "Well, I'm just not going to watch the news for the next four years, Trump doesn't really affect me. I'm just going to ignore him. I'm going to go to sleep for four years, and when I wake up, things will have changed." Do we all need to stay awake? Is the stoical response to essentially ignore the political world, is that healthy in Trump's America?PETE WEHNER: I think some people need to stay awake. You know, it really would depend on the facts and circumstances, Andrew. I mean, if you're an individual who feels overwhelmed by what Trump represents and really can't process it in a very healthy way, and you find your spirit being pulled down and obsessing on him and just, you know, casting shadows over your life, then I'd say, yeah, just to the degree that you can pull the plug. Don't follow, you know, the unfolding events, and attend to your life, your inner life, and the people that you love and care for. On the other hand, if that happens more broadly, and just people shut up and don't speak out, I think that that would be a great tragedy, because I think it's important to speak the truth in its own terms. I think it's important that there are individuals who give voice to what people believe and the moral concerns that they have when they don't have the capacity to do it on a large scale. And as I said, you know, I mentioned earlier, Solzhenitsyn and Havel, and I don't pretend that America is in a situation like the two of them faced. So the challenges and sacrifices that are called on Americans today who are in the so-called resistance isn't comparable to what Solzhenitsyn and Havel and many others have faced. But you need to speak out, and you can't go to sleep. Democracy is, as you said earlier, about human agency. We're not corks in the ocean. We're not fatalistic. We shouldn't be fatalistic. We can create movements and trends and moments and trajectories and moments of and periods of honor and and virtuous chapters in the American story. But they don't happen accidentally. And you can be discouraged, but you've got to stay at it. A friend of mine once said that you could be a theoretical pessimist, but you should be an operational optimist.AK: That's a nice way of putting it. Peter Wehner, I'm not sure about American self-renewal being a wonder of the world, certainly your self-renewal is a wonder of the world. It's wonderful to have you around, and we will be calling on your wisdom, your ethical spirit of resistance against injustice, over the next four years. Keep well, keep safe, Pete, and we will talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.PETE WEHNER: Thanks. It's great to be with you, Andrew. 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

As the author of The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, the Cambridge University historian Gary Gerstle was one of first people to recognize the collapse of neoliberalism. But today, the real question is not about the death of neoliberalism, but what comes after it. And, of course, when I sat down with Gerstle, I began by asking him what the Trump victory tells us about what comes after neoliberalism.Gary Gerstle is Paul Mellon Professor of American History Emeritus at the University of Cambridge. Gerstle received his BA from Brown University and his MA and PhD from Harvard University. He is the author, editor, and coeditor of more than ten books.  He is currently the Joy Foundation Fellow at the Harvard-Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, where he is working on a new book, Politics in Our Time: Authoritarian Peril and Democratic Hope in the Twenty-First Century.  He resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Named as one of the "100 most pivoted men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's most pivotal broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the pivotal author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two cats, both called Pivot.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. TRANSCRIPT“It's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world.” -Gary GerstleAK: Hello everybody. As we try to make sense of the aftermath of the US election this week, there was an interesting headline today in the Financial Times. Donald Trump apparently has asked, and I'm quoting the F.T. here, the arch-protectionist Robert Lighthizer, to run U.S. trade policy. You never know with Trump, he may change his mind tomorrow. But nonetheless, it suggests, and it's not a great surprise, that protectionism will define the Trump, presidency or certainly the second Trump presidency. And it speaks of the structural shift in the nature of politics and economics in the United States, particularly given this Trump victory. One man who got this, I think before anyone else, is the Cambridge historian Gary Gerstle. He's been on the show a couple of times before. He's the author of a wonderful book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era. It's a profound book. It's had an enormous impact on everybody. And I'm thrilled and honored that Gary is back on the show. This is the third time he's been on the show. Gary, is that important news? Have we formally come to the end now of the neoliberal order? GARY GERSTLE: I think we have, although there's an element of neoliberalism which may revive in the Trump administration. But if we think of a political order as ordering political life so that all participants in that order have to accept its ideological principles, we have moved out of that order. I think we've been out of it for some time. The critical election in this case was 2016, and the critical move that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders made in 2016, the two most dynamic presidential candidates in that year, was to break with the orthodoxy of free markets, the orthodoxy of globalization, the orthodoxy of a world without borders where everything was free to move and the market was supreme. And the only role of government in the state was to ensure as full access to markets as was possible in the belief that if governments got out of the way of a private capitalist economy, this would spur the greatest growth for the greatest number of people everywhere in the world. This was governing orthodoxy, really from the time of Reagan until 2016. Trump broke it. Sanders broke it. Very significant in this regard that when Biden came into office, he moderated some of the Trump tariffs but kept the tariffs on China substantially in place. So there's been continuity for some time, and now we're going to see an intensification of the protectionist regime. Protectionism used to be a dirty word in American politics. If you uttered that word, you were excluded from serious political discourse. There will be other terms that are used, fair trade, not just because protectionism has a negative connotation to it, but we are living in an era where governments assert the right to shape markets as they wish to in the interests of their nation. So, yes, we are living in a different era, although it must be said, and we may get into a discussion of this at some point, there are sectors of the Trump coalition that want to intensify deregulation in the domestic market, that want to rollback government. And so I expect in the new Trump administration, there is going to be tussles between the protectionists on the one hand and those who want to, at least domestically, restore free trade. And by that I mean the free operation of private capital without government regulation. That's an issue that bears watching.AK: Is that a contradiction though, Gary? Can one, in this post-neoliberal order, can governments be hostile to regulation, a la Elon Musk and his association with Trump, and also be in favor of tariffs? I mean, do the two—can the to go together, and is that the outline of this foggy new order coming into place in the second quarter of the 21st century?GARY GERSTLE: They can go together in the sense that they have historically in the past gone together in the United States. In the late 19th century, the US had very high tariffs against foreign goods. And domestically, it was trying to create as free a domestic market as possible. What was known as the period of laissez-faire domestically went along with a commitment to high tariffs and protection of American laissez-faire against what we might call global laissez-faire. So it has been tried. It did work at that time. But I think the Republican party and the constituencies behind Donald Trump are divided on this question. As you noted, Elon Musk represents one pole of this. He certainly wants protection against Chinese imports of electric cars and is probably going to get that because of all the assistance he gave Trump in this election. But domestically, he wants no government interfering with his right to conduct his capitalist enterprises as he sees fit. So that's going to be one wing. But there's another wing of the Republican Party under Trump that is much more serious about industrial policy that says we cannot leave the market to its own devices. It produces too many human casualties. It produces too many regions of America left behind, and that we must use the government to help those people left behind. We must structure free enterprise industry in a way that helps the ordinary working-class man. And I use the word “man” deliberately in this context. Interestingly, JD Vance, the vice president, embodies both these tendencies, sees, on the one hand, a creature of venture capital, Silicon Valley, close to the Musks and Peter Thiels of the world. On the other hand, he has talked explicitly, as in his vice-presidential acceptance speech, about putting Main Street over Wall Street. And if he's serious about putting Main Street over Wall Street, that's going to involve a lot of government intervention to displace the privileged position that finance and venture capital now has in the American economy.AK: Gary, you're a historian, one of the best around, you're deeply versed in the past, you bring up Vance. He presents himself as being original, even has a beard. But I wonder whether his—I don't know what you would call it—a Catholic or Christian socialism, or at least a concern with the working class. Is it in any way new, for you, historically? I mean, it certainly exists in Europe, and there must be analogies also in American history with him.GARY GERSTLE: Well, if he is a convert to Catholicism, I don't know how well-versed he is in the papal doctrines of years past. Or decades. Or even centuries passed. But there was a serious movement within the Catholic Church in the late 19th and early 20th century to humanize capitalism, to declare that free market capitalism produced too many human casualties. Too many ordinary Catholic workers and workers who are not Catholic were hurt by unemployment, poverty, being thrown out of work in the troughs of business cycles, having no social welfare to fall back on, as a result of injury or misfortune in life. And so there was a profound movement within Catholic churches, in the United States, and in Europe and other parts of the world as well, to humanize capitalism. Whether this very once important Catholic tradition is an active influence on Vance, I don't know, because he's a recent convert to Catholicism, and I don't know how deeply has imbibed its history or its doctrine. But there is a rich tradition there. And it's possible that this is one of the sources that he is drawing on to shape his contemporary politics.AK: We were talking before we ran live, Gary, I said to you, and I think you agreed, that this use of the word "fascism" to describe Trump isn't always particularly helpful. It reflects a general hysteria amongst progressives. But I wonder in this context, given the way in which European Catholicism flirted, sometimes quite openly, with fascism, whether the F-word actually makes a little more sense. Because after all, fascism, after the First World War, was a movement in the name of the people, which was very critical of the capitalism of that age and of the international market. So, when we use the word fascism now, could it have some value in that context as a kind of a socioeconomic critique of capitalism?GARY GERSTLE: You mean fascism offering a socioeconomic critique of U.S. capitalism?AK: Yes. For better or worse.GARY GERSTLE: I'm reluctant to deploy the term fascism, since I think most people who enter the conversation or who hear that word in the United States don't really know what it means, and that's partly the consequence of historians debating its meaning as long as they have, and also suggesting that fascism takes different forms at different times and in different places. I prefer the term authoritarianism. I think that tendency is clearly there and one can connect that to certain traditions within the church. The United States once had a intense anti-Catholic political tradition. It was unimaginable in the 19th century. AK: Yeah, it drove the KKK. I mean, that was the Klan hated the Catholics probably more than they hated the Jews.GARY GERSTLE: It drove the Klan. And the notion in the 19th century—I'm not remembering now whether there are 5 or 6 Catholics who sit on the Supreme Court—but the notion in the 19th century that 5 or 6 Catholics would be the chief custodians and interpreters of America's most sacred doctrine and document the Constitution was simply unthinkable. It could never have happened. There was a Catholic seat. As for a long time, there was a Jewish seat on the Supreme Court, but understood that this would be carefully cordoned off and limited and that, when push came to shove, Protestants had to be in charge of interpreting America's most sacred doctrine. And the charge against Catholics was that they were not democratic, that they vested ultimate power in God and through an honest messenger on Earth, who was the pope. John F. Kennedy, in 1960, became the first Catholic president of the United States. Biden is only the second. Vance is the first Catholic vice president. Before in the campaign that Kennedy was running in 1960, he had to go in front of thousands of Protestant ministers who had gathered in Houston so he could persuade them that if he became president, he would not be handing America over to the pope, who was seen as an authoritarian figure. So for a long time, Catholicism was seen as a carrier of authoritarianism, of a kind of executive power that should not be limited by a human or secular force. And this promoted, in the United States, intense anti-Catholic feeling, which took the country probably 200 years to conquer. Conquered it was, so the issue of so many Catholics on the Supreme Court is not an issue. Biden's Catholicism is not an issue. Vance's Catholicism is not an issue. But Vance himself has said, talking about his conversion, that of his granny—I forget the term he uses to describe his granny—were alive today, she would not be able to accept his conversion because she was so deeply Protestant, so evangelical, so—AK: A classic West Virginian evangelical. So for me, the other contradiction here is that Vance is unashamedly nationalist, unashamedly critical of globalization. And yet, by embracing Catholicism, which is the most international of face, I don't quite understand what that suggests about him, or Catholicism, or even history, that that these odd things happen.GARY GERSTLE: Well, one thing one can say in history is that odd things happen and odd couples get together. I don't know myself how fully Vance understands his Catholicism. I believe Peter Thiel led him to this. Vance is still a young man and has gone through a lot of conversions for a young man. He was—AK: Well, he's a conversion expert. That's the narrative of his life, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Yes. Yes. And he began as being a severe anti-Trumper, almost a Never-Trumper. Then he converted to Trumpism. Then he converted from Protestant to Catholicism. So a lot of major changes in his life. So, the question you just posed is a fascinating one. Does he understand that the church is a catholic church, meaning small c catholic in this case, that it's open to everyone in the world? Does he really understand that? But I would extend my puzzle about religion beyond Catholicism to ask, for all the evangelical supporters of Trump: where is Jesus's message of peace and love? Where did that go? So there are puzzles about the shape of Christian religion in America. And there's no doubt that for its most devout supporters in the United States that has taken a very hard nationalist turn. And this is true among Protestants, and it is true among many Catholics. And so, I think the question that you posed may be one that no one has really confronted Vance with.“What we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine.” -Gary GerstleAK: And I would extend that, Gary. I think that the most persistent and credible critics of Trump also come from the religious community. Peter Wehner, for example, former—I don't know if you're familiar with his work. He writes a lot for the Times and The Atlantic. Very religious man, is horrified—worked in the Bush and the Reagan administrations. Let's go back to—I was looking at the cover of the book, and obviously authors don't pick the covers of their books—GARY GERSTLE: I did. I picked this.AK: Okay. Well, when you look at the—GARY GERSTLE: This is this is not the original cover.AK: Right, so, the book I'm looking at, and for people just listening, I'm going to describe. The dominant picture is of the Berlin Wall being knocked down in the evening of November 1989. It's odd, Gary, isn't it, that...for the rise and fall of the neoliberal order, which is an economic order in a free market era, you should have chosen the image of a political event, which, of course, Fukuyama so famously described as the end of history. And I guess, for you as an economic historian who is also deeply interested and aware of politics, is the challenge and opportunity to always try to disentangle the economics and politics of all this? Or are they so entangled that they're actually impossible to disentangle, to separate?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think sometimes you need to disentangle them, sometimes they move in different directions, and sometimes they move in the same direction. I think to understand the triumph of the neoliberal order, we have to see that politics and economics move in tandem with each other. What makes possible the neoliberal triumph of the 90s is the fall of communism between 1989 and 1991. And no picture embodies that better than the taking down of the Berlin Wall. And that connotes a message of freedom and escape from Soviet and communist tyranny. But the other message there is that tearing down of those walls opens the world to capitalist penetration to a degree that had not been available to the capitalist world since prior to World War One, prior to the war, and most importantly, to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. And where communists came to power everywhere, they either completely excluded or sharply curtailed the ability of capitalist business to operate within their borders. Their message was expropriate private property, which meant expropriate all corporate property. Give it over to the state, let the state manage it in the interest of the proletariat. This was an extraordinary dream that turned into an awful tyrannical outcome. But it animated the world, as few other ideas did in the 20th century, and proposed a very, very serious challenge to capitalist prerogative, to capitalist industry, to free markets. And so the collapse of communism, which is both the collapse of a state—a communist state, the Soviet Union—but perhaps more importantly, the collapse of the belief that any governments could structure the private economy in ways that would be beneficial to humankind. It's what opened the way in the 1990s to the neoliberal triumph. And it's important to recognize that the neoliberal triumph carried within it not just the triumph of capitalism, but the triumph of freedom. And I think the that image of the wall coming down captures both. It's people wanting to claim their freedom, but it also paves the way for an unregulated form of capitalism to spread to every corner of the world. And in the long term—we're in the mid-term—that was going to create inequalities, vulnerabilities to the global financial and economic systems, that were going to bring the global economy down and set off a radically different form of politics than the world had seen for some time. And we're still living through that radically different form of politics set off by the financial crash of 2008/2009, which, in my way of thinking, was a product of untrammeled capitalism conquering the world in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's and communism's collapse.AK: Yeah, and that's the other thing, isn't it, Garry? I mean, it goes without saying that the bringing down of the war fundamentally changed the old Soviet economy, the East European economies, Poland, Hungary, eastern part of Germany. But what no one—I think very, very few people imagined in '89 was that perhaps the biggest consequence of this capitalist penetration wasn't in Warsaw or Moscow or the eastern part of Berlin, but back in West Virginia with guys like JD Vance. How did the bringing down of the wall change America, or at least the American economy? I've never really quite understood that.GARY GERSTLE: Through the mass exporting of manufacturing to other countries that—AK: Wasn't that before? Wasn't that also taking place before '89, or did it happen particularly in the '90s?GARY GERSTLE: It began before 1989. It began during the Great Recession of the 1970s, where the first districts of manufacturing in the U.S., places like Buffalo, New York steelmaking center, began to get hollowed out. But it dramatically intensified in the 1990s, and this had to do with China permitting itself to be a part of this global free market. And China was opened to capitalist penetration from the United States and Europe. And what you saw in that decade was a massive shift of manufacturing to China, a shift that even intensified in the first decade of the 21st century with the admission of China in 2001 to the World Trade Organization. So China was a big factor. Also, the passage of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which rendered the northern half of the Western Hemisphere one common market, like the European Common Market. So, enormous flight of jobs to places like Mexico. And the labor costs in places like China and Mexico, and then East Asia already leaving Japan for Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, parts of the South Asian subcontinent. The flight of jobs there became so massive, and the labor costs there were so cheap, that American industry couldn't compete. And what you begin to see is the hollowing out of American industry, American manufacturing, and whole districts of America just beginning to rot. And no new industries or no new economies taking the place of the industries and the jobs that had left. And this America was being ignored, largely in the 1990s and first decade of the 21st century, in part because the ideology of neoliberalism said, we understand that this global free market is going to increase inequality in the world, it's going to increase the distance between rich and poor, but the distance between rich and poor is okay because all boats will rise. All people will benefit. This is not just an American story, this is also the story of other parts of the North Atlantic economy. Britain certainly, Germany was a partial exception, France, other places, and this was the ideology...growth would benefit everyone, and this was not the case. It was a fallacy. But the ideology was so strong that it held together until the financial crash of 2008/2009. After that crash, it became impossible to make the point that all boats were rising under the neoliberal regime. And this is when the forgotten Americans and the forgotten Brits of the northern part of the of Great Britain. This is when they began to make their voices heard. This is when they began to strike a very different note in politics. And this is where Donald Trump had his beginnings with these forgotten, angry people who felt ignored, left behind, and were suffering greatly, because by the early decades of the 21st century, it wasn't just jobs that were gone, but it was healthy marital life, divorce rates rising, rampant drug use. Two Cambridge economists wrote a book called Depths of Despair.AK: Yeah, that book comes up in almost every conversation. I once went down to Princeton to interview Angus Deaton. Like your book, it's become a classic. So let's fast forward, Gary, to the last election. I know you're writing a book now about politics in our time of authoritarianism, and you're scratching your head and asking whether the election last week was a normal or an apocryphal one, one that's just different or historical. And I wonder, in that sense, correct me if I'm wrong, there seems to have been two elections simultaneously. On the one hand, it was very normal, from the Democrats' point of view, who treated America as if it was normal. Harris behaves as if she was just another Democratic candidate. And, of course, Trump, who didn't. My interpretation, maybe it's a bit unfair, is that it's the progressives. It's certainly the coastal elites who have become, implicitly at least, the defenders of the old neoliberal order. For them, it kind of works. It's not ideal, but it works and they can't imagine anything else. And it's the conservatives who have attacked it, the so-called conservatives. Is there any truth to that in the last election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I think the Democrats are certainly seen by vast sectors of the population as being the defenders of an old order, of established institutions controlling the media, although I think that's less and less true because the legacy media has less and less influence and shows like yours, podcasting and rogue Fox Television and all kinds of other outlets, are increasingly influential. But yes, the Democrats are seen as a party of the establishment. They are seen as the party of the educated elite. And one of the factors that determines who votes for who now is now deeply educational in the sense of, what is your level of educational achievement? If you are college educated, you're much more likely to vote Democratic, regardless of your income. And if you're high school educated or less, you're much more likely to vote Republican. I don't think it's fair to say that the Democrats are the last protectors of the neoliberal order, because Biden broke with the neoliberal order in major, consequential ways. If the defining characteristic of the neoliberal order is to free the market from constraints and to use the state only to free up market forces—this was true, to a large extent, of Obama and of Clinton—Biden broke with that, and he did it in alliance with Bernie Sanders, set of task forces they set up in 2020 to design a new administration. And his major pieces of legislation, reshoring CHIPS manufacture, the biggest investment in clean energy in the country's history. $1 trillion infrastructure bill, the biggest infrastructure project since the interstate highway system of the '50s, and arguably since Roosevelt's fabled New Deal. These are all about industrial policy. These are all about the government using its power and resources to direct industry in a certain way so that it will increase general happiness, general welfare, general employment. So this represents a profound change from what had come before. And in that way, the Biden administration can't be seen as the last defenders.“The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims?”AK: And let me jump in here, Gary, there's another really important question. There was a very interesting piece, I'm sure you saw it, by Nicholas Lemann in the New Yorker about Bidenomics and its achievements. You talked about the New Deal, the massive amount of investments—it was post COVID, they took advantage of the historical crisis. Trillions of dollars have been invested in new technologies. Is Bidenomics new in any way? Or is it basically just a return to the economics, or the political economy, of FDR?GARY GERSTLE: Well, it certainly draws inspiration from FDR, because at the core of the New Deal was the conviction that you could use government to direct industry to positive uses that would benefit not just the corporations, but the population as a whole. But there was nothing like the Green Energy Project in the New Deal. The New Deal, except for hydroelectric projects, was primarily about prospering on a cheap fossil fuel economy. The New Deal also was very comfortable with accepting prevailing gender and race conceptions of the proper place of women and African Americans in American life in a way that is unacceptable to Bidenomics. So there are redirections under Bidenomics in ways that modify the New Deal inspiration. But at its core, Bidenomics is modeled on the New Deal conviction that you need a strong federal government to point industry in the right direction. And so in that sense, there's a fundamental similarity in those two progressive projects. And I think people in the Biden administration have been quite conscious about that. Now, the particular challenges are different. The world economy is different. The climate crisis is upon us. So, it is going to take different forms, have different outcomes. But the inspiration clearly comes from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal.AK: Well, let's go over to the other side and Trump. You scratching your head and figuring out whether this is unusual. And of course, it's the second time he's won an election. This time around, he seems to be overtly hostile to the state. He's associated with Musk, who's promised to essentially decimate the state. In historical terms, Gary, is there anything unusual about this? I mean, certainly the opponents of FDR were also very hostile to this emergent American state. As a historian, do you see this as something new, the pleasure in essentially blowing the state up, or at least the promise of blowing the state up?GARY GERSTLE: That impulse is not new. There have been members of the Republican party who have been talking this language since the New Deal arrived in America in the 1930s and '40s during the '50s and '60s and early '70s, they were marginal in American politics. And then with the neoliberal order coming into being in the '70s and with Reagan as president, their voice has gained enormous traction. One of Reagan's key advisors in the 1980s and 1990s, one of his favorite lines was, “I want to shrink the size of the federal government until we can drown it in the bathtub.” It's a wonderful image and metaphor, and captures the intensity with which conservative Republicans have wanted to eliminate the strong centralized state. But they have not been able to do it to a degree that makes that have satisfied them. It turns out that Americans, for all their possible ideological opposition to big government like big parts of it, like Social Security, like Medicare, like a strong military establishment that's gonna protect the country, like clean air, clean water. So it's proved much more difficult for this edifice to be taken down than the Reaganites had imagined it would be. So, the advocates have become more radical because of decades of frustration. And what we have to think about in regard to Trump is, will they take on projects that will threaten the constitutional foundation of the United States in order to achieve their aims? What does Musk represent, and what does part of Trump represent? It represents unbounded executive power, unconstrained by Congress, to promote conditions of maximum freedom. And the freedom they have in mind is not necessarily your personal freedom or mine, as the abortion issue signifies. What they have in mind is corporate freedom. The freedom of Elon Musk's companies to do whatever they want to do. The freedom of the social media companies to do whatever they want to do. The question is, will they be able to get further than past generations of Republicans have by their willingness to break things? And will they go so far as to break the Constitution in the pursuit of these aims? Peter Thiel has said, very forthrightly, that democracy no longer works as a system, and that America has to consider other systems in order to have the kind of prosperity and freedom it wants. And one thing that bears watching with this new Trump administration is how many supporters the Peter Thiel's and the Elon Musk's are going to have to be free to tear down the edifice and the institutions of the federal government and pursuit of a goal of a reconfigured, and what I would call rogue, laissez-faire. This is something to watch.AK: But Gary, I take your point. I mean, Thiel's been, on the West Coast, always been a convenient punchbag for the left for years now, I punched him many times myself. I wanted to. But all this seems to be just the wet dream of neoliberals. So you have Musk and Thiel doing away with government. Huge corporations, no laws. This is the neoliberal wet dream, isn't it?GARY GERSTLE: Well, partly it is. But neoliberalism always depended on a structure of law enforced by government that was necessary to allow free markets to operate in a truly free and transparent manner. In other words, you needed elements of a strong government to perfect markets, that markets were not perfect if they were left to their own devices. And one of the dangers of the Elon Musk phase of the Trump administration is that this edifice of law on which corporations and capitalism thrives will be damaged in the pursuit of a radical libertarianism. Now, there may very well be a sense that cooler heads prevail in the Trump administration, and that this scenario will not come to fruition. But one certainly has to be aware that this is one of the possible outcomes of a Trump administration. I should also say that there's another very important constituency in the Republican party that wants to continue, not dismantle, what Biden has done with industrial policies. This is the other half of JD Vance's brain. This is Tom Cotton. This is Marco Rubio, this is Josh Hawley, senator from Missouri. And they want to actively use the government to regulate industry in the public interest. And there's a very interesting intellectual convergence going on between left of center and right of center intellectuals and policymakers who are converging on the importance of having an industrial policy, because if Elon Musk is given his way, how is the abandoned heartland going to come back?AK: It's cheering me up, Gary, because what you're suggesting is that this is a fairly normal moment. You've got different wings of the Republican Party. You've got the Cottons and the Rubios, who were certainly not revolutionary. Why should we believe that this is a special moment then?GARY GERSTLE: January 6th, 2021. That's the reason. Trump remains the only president in American history to authorize an attack on the very seat of American democracy. That being: Congress sitting in the Capitol. And once he authorized the attack, he waited for three hours hoping that his attackers and his mob would conquer this building and compel the legislators inside to do—AK: And I take your perspective. I'm the last person to defend that. But we're talking about 2024 and not 2021. He won the election fairly. No one's debating that. So, why is 2024 a special election?GARY GERSTLE: Well, here's the key. Well, maybe it's a special election in two ways. It may signify the reconfiguration of a genuinely populist Republican party around the needs of ordinary working-class Americans. And we should say, in this regard, that Trump has brought into his coalition significant numbers of Latinos, young blacks. It has the beginning of a look of a multiracial coalition that the Democrats once had, but now appear to be losing. So it may be an epochal moment in that regard. The other way in which it may be an epochal moment is: what if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way? That's how January 6th, 2021, still matters. I'm not saying he's going to do that, but I think we have to understand that that is a possibility, especially since he has shown no remorse for the outcome of the last election. If I read into your comments, I hear you saying: he won this time. He doesn't have to worry about losing. But Trump is always worried about losing. And he is a man who doesn't really know the Constitution, and the parts that he knows and understands he doesn't especially like, because his dream, along with Elon Musk's dream, and this is one reason why I think they are melding so tightly, at the apex of American government should be unbounded executive power. This is not how the country was set up. And as Congress and as the courts begin to push back, will he accept those limits, that there must be bounds on executive power? Or will he try and break through them? I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's something that we have to be concerned about.AK: I wonder, again, wearing your historical cap you're always doing, the more you talk, the more Trump and Trump's Republican party is Nixonian. This obsession with not being responsible for the law. The broadening of the Republican party. Certainly the Republican party under Nixon was less singularly white than it became later. Isn't, in some ways, Trump just a return to Nixon? And secondly, you're talking about the law and Trump ransacking the law. But on the other hand, everything he always does is always backed up by the law. So, he has a love hate relationship with the law himself. He could never have accomplished anything he's done without hiring all these expensive lawyers. I don't know if you saw the movie this year, The Apprentice, which is built on his relationship with what's with Roy Cohn, of course, who schooled him in American politics, who was McCarthy's lawyer. So, again, I'm not trying to defend Trump, but my point is: what's different here?GARY GERSTLE: Well, a key difference from Nixon is that when push came to shove, Nixon submitted to the rule of law, and Trump did not. Nixon did not unleash his people on Congress when a group of senators came to him and said you're going to be impeached if you stay in office, you should resign. He resigned. So the '70s was a moment of enormous assertion of the power of Congress, and assertion of the power and authority of the Constitution. That is not the story of Donald Trump. The story of Donald Trump is the story of the Constitution being pushed to the side. If you ask, is there anything new about Americans and politicians trying to manipulate the law in their favor? There's nothing new about that. And Trump, having made his fortune in New York real estate, knows there's no such thing as perfect markets, knows that judges can be bought and corrupted. And so, he has very little regard for the authority of courts. Everything's a transaction. Everything can be bought and sold. So, he understands that, and he has used the law to his advantage when he can. But let me bring you back to his first inauguration speech. There was no mention of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution in what he had to say that day. I think we'd be hard pressed to find another inaugural speech that makes no reference to the sacred documents having to do with the founding of the American Republic. And so I think in that way, he is something new and represents, potentially, a different kind of threat. I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's certainly possible. And let me add one other element that we have to consider, because I'm suggesting that he has a fondness for forms of authoritarian rule, and we have to recognize that hard rights are on the march everywhere in the world right now. The social democratic government of Germany has just fallen. Britain may soon be alone in terms of having a left-center party in control and upholding the values of liberal democracy. The world is in a grip of an authoritarian surge. That is not an American phenomenon. It is an international phenomenon. It is not a phenomenon I understand well enough, but if we're to understand the kind of strongman tendencies that Trump is exhibiting, the appeal of the strongman tendencies to so many Americans, we have to understand the international context in which this is occurring. And these movements in these different countries are fully aware of each other. They draw strength from each other's victories, and they get despairing from each other's defeats. So this is an international movement and an international project, and it's important, in that regard, to set Trump in that historical context.AK: Final question, Gary, there's so much here, we'll have to get you back on the show again in the new year. There's certainly, as you suggested, a great deal of vitality to conservatives, to the Cottons, the JD Vances, the Steve Bannons of the world. But what about on the left? We talked earlier, you sort of pushed back a little bit on the idea that the progressive elites aren't defenders of the neoliberal order, but you kind of acknowledged there may be a little bit of truth in that. In response to this new conservatism, which, as you suggested, is in some ways quite old, what can and should progressives do, rather than just falling back on Bidenomics and reliance on a new deal—which isn't going to happen now given that they had the opportunity in the COVID crisis to spend lots of money, which didn't have any impact on this election, for better or worse. Is there a need to re-architect the progressive politics in our new age, the age of AI, a high-tech age? Or do we simply allow the Bernie Sanders of the world to fall back on 20th-century progressive ideas?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I'm not sure where AI is taking us. AI may be taking us out of democracy altogether. I think one of—AK: You're not giving it any chance, if that's the case.“What if Trump does not get his way in his term in office for something he really wants? Will he accept that he is bound by the Constitution, that he is bound by the courts? Or will he once again say, when he really wants something, no constitution, no law, will stand in my way?”GARY GERSTLE: Well, there are different versions of AI that will be coming. But the state of the world right now suggests that democracy is on the defensive, and authoritarianism is is on the march. Those who predict the death of democracy have been wrong in the past. So I'm not predicting it here, but we have to understand that there are elements of life, technology, power in in private hands today, that make democracy much harder to do effectively. And so, this is a period of reflection that groups who care about democracy at all points on the political spectrum have to be thinking very seriously about. As for the here and now, and politicians don't think in terms of 10 or 20 years—or you have to be a leader in China, where you can think in terms of 10 or 20-year projects, because you never have to face any election and being tossed out of office—but in the here and now, I think what Democrats have to be very aware of, that the party that they thought they were is the party that the Republican Party has become, or is becoming: a multiracial, working-class party. And if the Democrats are to flourish—and in that regard, it's very significant—AK: It's astonishing, really.GARY GERSTLE: It is astonishing. And it's important to to note that Trump is the first Republican nominee for president since George W. Bush in 2004 to get a majority of votes. And the only person to do it before him in the last 30 years was his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988. Kamala Harris came within 200,000 votes of becoming president of the United States. That's not well enough understood yet. But if 200,000 votes had changed in three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she would be the president elect of the United States. However, she would have been the president elect while losing the popular vote. And one has to go very far back in history to find the Democrats being the beneficiaries of the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. And I think the fact that they lost the popular vote for only the third time in the last 50 years, maybe? I mean, when they elected someone...has to suggest that they have to do some serious thinking about how to reclaim this. Now, Bernie Sanders is coming out and saying, they should have gotten me on the public stage rather than Liz Cheney, that going after suburban Republican women was the wrong route. You should have stuck with me. We had a left/center alliance that worked in 2020. We could have done it again. But that's not my reading of the situation. My reading of the situation is that Bernie-style politics is distinctly less popular in 2024 than it was in 2020. The Democrats have to figure that out, and they have to figure out what they have to do in order to reclaim majorities in American life. And in order to do that, I think their economic programs are actually on the right track, in that respect, under the Biden administration. I think they probably have to rethink some of their cultural policies. There were three issues in this election. The economy was number one. The immigration issue was number two. And then, the trans issue was number three. The Republicans ran an estimated 30,000 ads declaring that the Democratic party was going to take your children away by turning them from boys to girls or girls to boys. The Democratic party has to do some hard thinking about how to have a progressive policy on immigration and how to have a progressive policy on issues of trans matters without losing a majority of the American people, who clearly are, at this moment, not with them on those important issues.AK: It's an astonishing moment, Gary. And I'm not sure whether it's a revolutionary moment or just surreal.GARY GERSTLE: Well, you've been pressing me, on a number of occasions, as to whether this is just the normal course of American politics, and if we look in that direction, the place to look for normality is...incumbents always do badly in high-inflationary times. And Ford and Carter lost in the 1970s. Every incumbent during COVID and during the inflationary period in Europe seems to have lost a recent election. The most normal course of politics is to say, this is an exceptional moment having to do with the enormity of COVID and what was required to shut down the economy, saved people, and then getting started up again, and we will see something more normal, the Democrats will be back to what they normally do, in 2028. That's a possibility. I think the more plausible possibility is that we are in the midst of some pretty profound electoral realignment that is giving rise to a different kind of political order. And the Democrats have to figure out if that political order is going to be under their direction, what they have to do to pull that off. AK: And maybe rather than the neoliberal order, we're talking about, what, a neo-authoritarian order? Is that—GARY GERSTLE: Well, the Trump forces are maybe neo-authoritarian, but we don't have a name for it. Pete Buttigieg—AK: Well, that's why we got you on the show, Gary. Don't you have a name for it?GARY GERSTLE: No. You know—AK: We're relying on you. I hope it's going to be in your next book.GARY GERSTLE: Well, I have till January 20th, 2025, to come up with the name. Pete Buttigieg called it the Big Deal rather than the New Deal. I don't think that cuts it. And there's some other pundits who are arguing about building from the middle out. That doesn't cut it.AK: That sounds terrible. That sounds like—GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's—AK: Designing political parties by committee. It's like an American car.GARY GERSTLE: This is part of Biden's problem. You can't name, effectively, in a positive way, what he's done. One thing that's going to happen—and this may be a sign that things will continue from Biden to Trump, in terms of industrial policy. Do you have any doubt that Trump is going to plaster his name on every computer chips plant, every battery factory? Trump brought this to you, he's got to be there for every opening. He's not going to miss a beat. He'll see this as a grand publicity tour. I think there's a good chance he will take credit for what Biden has started, and that's going to upset a lot of us. But it may also signify that he may be loath to abandon many of these industrial policies that Biden has put in place, especially since the Biden administration was very clever in putting most of these plants, and chip plants, and battery plants, in deep red Republican districts.AK: Well, Gary, I know you're not particularly cheerful. I don't suppose most of our audience are, but you actually cheered me up. I think things are a little bit more normal than some people think. But we will get you back on the show after January—what did you say—January 25th, when you'll have a word to describe the New World Order?GARY GERSTLE: Well, I said after January 20th, 2025, you can expect me to have a name. I probably should—AK: Gary, now, we'll have you back on the show. If you don't have a name, I'm going to report you to Trump.GARY GERSTLE: You'll have to bury me.AK: Yeah. Okay. Well, we're not burying you. We need you, Gary Gerstle, author of Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, a man who makes sense of our present with historical perspective. Gary, as always, a pleasure. Keep well and keep safe. And we'll talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.GERSTLE: Thank you. A pleasure talking with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

How should we respond to the anxiety, fear, and catastrophizing of Election Day? Is there an alternative to fight, flight, or freeze? Can people of Christian conviction stand firm, grounded in faith, leaning into the storm? In this special Election Day episode of Conversing, Mark Labberton welcomes Peter Wehner (columnist, the New York Times, The Atlantic) and David Goatley (president, Fuller Seminary) to make sense of the moral, emotional, and spiritual factors operating in the 2024 US general election. Together they discuss the emotional response to political media; faithful alternatives to the overabundance of fear, anxiety, and catastrophizing; how the threat of affective polarization divides families and friendships; biblical attitudes toward troubling or frightening political and cultural events; how to respond to vitriol, anger, cynicism, hate, and manipulative language; and how the church can help restore trust and be a faithful witness, standing firm through the political storm. About Peter Wehner Peter Wehner, an American essayist, is a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times, a contributing writer for The Atlantic, and senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. He writes on politics and political ideas, on faith and culture, on foreign policy, sports, and friendships. Wehner served in three presidential administrations, including as deputy director of presidential speechwriting for President George W. Bush. Later, he served as the director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives. Wehner, a graduate of the University of Washington, is editor or author of six books, including The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, which the New York Times called “a model of conscientious political engagements.” Married and the father of three, he lives in McLean, Virginia. About David Goatley David Emmanuel Goatley is president of Fuller Seminary. Prior to his appointment in January 2023, he served as the associate dean for academic and vocational formation, Ruth W. and A. Morris Williams Jr. Research Professor of Theology and Christian Ministry, and director of the Office of Black Church Studies at Duke Divinity School. Ordained in the National Baptist Convention, USA, he served as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Campbellsville, Kentucky, for nine years (1986–1995). In addition to his articles, essays, and book chapters, Goatley is the author of Were You There? Godforsakenness in Slave Religion and A Divine Assignment: The Missiology of Wendell Clay Somerville, as well as the editor of Black Religion, Black Theology: Collected Essays of J. Deotis Roberts. His current research focuses on flourishing in ministry and thriving congregations, most recently working on projects funded by the Lilly Endowment and the Duke Endowment. Show Notes Anxiety, Uncertainty, and Worst-Case Scenarios The regular appeal to “the most important election of our lifetimes” Assuming the worst about others “We are at a fork in the road for a certain kind of vision of who we want to be.” “As an African American, many of us always live in the crosswinds.” Living with fragility, vulnerability, and uncertainty Hymn: “On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand” Anger, Antipathy, and Fear Passions and beliefs—and an electoral system built to amplify those “They're more amplified than in the past.” Families and friendships that divide over politics. Feeling like we “share a continent but not a country” Affective polarization—”There's a sense of the other side being an enemy.” Catastrophizing Recalibrate, reset, and rethink Hoping that calmer heads prevail Church splintering and aligning with partisan politics “God will use all things—not that God intends all things.” The political balance wheel “Fear is not a Christian state of mind.” “Hope is based on something real.” “The long game for believers is to hearken back to the early church and remember that Jesus is Lord, and the emperor is not.” Political toxicity that infects the household of faith “We have to do all that we can to live with peacefully with each other.” Vitriol, hubris “It's important to name things. … If you don't name them—if you try to hide them—then you can't begin the process of healing.” “Faith is subordinate to other factors that they're not aware of.” The Era of Fear: What informs our fears? What can we do about our fears? Fear of the Lord that sets us free Firmness as an alternative to fighting or fleeing “Valuing the vibrant diversity of God” “Expand your reading.” Breaking out of conformity and homogeneity “Meeting the moment”: Inflection points in a human life or a society's life—a moment for leaders to rise up, speak, and shape Example: Winston Churchill and Great Britain pre–World War II (from pariah to prime minister) Example: Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation and the agenda to make schools phone-free These aren't the conditions for human flourishing “We've got to be faithful. We may not be successful.” Cultivating a political garden to prepare the soil for shared core values of decency, respect, fairness “… what we have loved, / Others will love, and we will teach them how” (William Wordsworth, “The Prelude”) Loving the right things Voting “Complicating my view of the world.” “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Before voting: “A prayer to submit myself to the will of God.” “Tell me how you came to believe what you believe … over time it can create a feeling of trust” “What don't I see? What about my own blindspots?” Stunned by the profundity and sobering word that “God will not be mocked” Expressing convictions through voting Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.

The US will soon choose its 47th president. Peter Wehner, former Republican insider, explains the national mood. In the week before the 2024 US presidential election, perhaps the most consequential election in this year of elections, we hear from former Republican speechwriter and evangelical Peter Wehner on what has happened to the party he used to call his own.Wehner served in three Republican administrations. He explains how President Ronald Reagan's vision of America as a “shining city on a hill” drew him to conservatism in the first place and contrasts that aspirational national myth with the current mood in the Republican party.Now a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum based in Washington D.C., Wehner's public commentary on politics, faith, and the politicisation of faith regularly appears in The New York Times and The Atlantic.We delve into the role of self-described evangelicals in American politics, and Wehner's grave concerns for the future of not only the Republican party, but his country.ExplorePeter Wehner's profile on X (Twitter)Peter Wehner's article in The Atlantic: This Election is DifferentSimon's interview with Michael Wear, Cultivating Better Politics.Simon's interview with Darrell Bock, The US Election and the Politicisation of Faith.

There's no question we're living in difficult times that lead many of us to adopt a cynical outlook. But while cynicism might feel smart, science shows it's corrosive not only to our own wellbeing, but to society as a whole. We'll talk to Stanford Professor of Psychology Jamil Zaki about the surprising benefits that a willingness to trust in the goodness of others can offer, and how to build this skill in a wise way through habits of mind and action.We'll also speak with political writer Peter Wehner about how cynicism leads to the political division and discord so prominent in politics today, and how religion, when practiced in its best form, can help overcome it.Jamil Zaki is the author of the new book Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness, and the author of The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured Word. Find out more about his work on his website.   Peter Wehner is a contributing writer for The New York Times and The Atlantic who served in three Republican administrations. He is the author of The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump and City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era.  

Love of country has long been a cornerstone of American identity, shaping personal narratives and national discourse across generations. Through times of triumph and turbulence, Americans have grappled with what it means to be patriotic while confronting their nation's complexities. During a volatile election cycle, that national admiration is called to question and Peter Wehner from The Atlantic invites each of us to find the balance between patriotic love and critical engagement with its challenges.

Dig into Wednesday’s headlines with Boyd Matheson! Jeff Greenfield joins Boyd to discuss how an “October surprise” could be preeminent and change the presidential showdown. Learn how border politics has become increasingly toxic due to outdated solutions with Fiona Harrigan. Peter Wehner weighs in on the importance of having patriotic love through this election. Theodoric Meyer warns of political debates facing extinction and the future of political discourse and more!

Contributing columnist and host Abby McCloskey talks with former political speechwriter Peter Wehner about the First Amendment, Christian Nationalism and other church/state topics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Host Curtis Chang and guest Pete Wehner (columnist at The Atlantic and former speechwriter for George W. Bush) share their personal journeys to their pro-life convictions, while also explaining how their views depart from much of the politics and practices of the current pro-life movement. They examine how this issue has distorted evangelicals, Trump, and the Republican Party. Curtis also reframes the politics of abortion through the Old Testament offices of “prophet, priest, and king,” offering a way to understand how Christians can most helpfully integrate their religious beliefs with their social engagement.    Listen to Songs For the After Party, get sheet music, lyrics, and prayers for your church.   Bring The After Party course to your church or small group!    Let the Good Faith podcast “Stack Your Shelf.” Enter HERE to win 16 books by friends of the pod.   Join Curtis Chang in person: See Curtis Chang and David French at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC See Curtis Chang and Tim Alberta at Wheaton College   For a window into the hermeneutical debate over Exodus 21:22-25: Read this pro-life analysis of the text from an article in Christianity Today (written in 1973 but still relevant) Read this balanced take (also from a pro-life writer) of the problems with “proof-texting” practiced by both sides For an even more detailed overview about the interpretive challenges in play with Exodus 21 and other passages, read Mako Nagasawa's book, Abortion Policy and Christian Social Ethics in the United States.   Referenced in this episode: Read Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post opinion piece from February 15, 1985 "Abortion Debate: Just Words" Watch the trailer for Juno, Diablo Cody's 2007 film about teenage pregnancy Pew Research Center What the data says about abortion in the U.S. Crisis pregnancy care through Avail NYC and Claris Health   Explore Peter Wehner's work: Read Peter Wehner's The Atlantic article from August 27, 2024: Trump's Evangelical Supporters Just Lost Their Best Excuse Read more of Peter Wehner's opinion pieces in The Atlantic Engage with a broad cross-section of Peter Wehner's work linked At the Trinity Forum, where he serves as a Senior Fellow

The US Republican Party used to be known as the party of law and order. Now it's headed by a convicted felon, Donald Trump. Peter Wehner, has served in three Republican administrations and was speechwriter for George W. Bush during his presidency. He now writes for The Atlantic and The New York Times and says what has happened to his party “haunts” him. He joins Chris Jones in The Bunker to explain why.    Peter Wehner's essay for The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/trump-vance-republican-party.html     Support us on Patreon. We are sponsored by Indeed. Go to Indeed.com/bunker for £100 sponsored credit.    Written and presented by Chris Jones. Producer: Eliza Davis Beard. Audio production: Jade Bailey. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison Music by Kenny Dickinson. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Atlantic's Peter Wehner joins the group to discuss the DNC and Harris's new tone, Trump's pivot on abortion, and the misfit toys (RFK Jr., Gabbard) of the Trump campaign.  Highlights / Lowlights:  Mona: Can We Be a Little Less Selective With Our Moral Outrage? by Bret Stephens in The New York Times. Peter: Lowlight: Trump Insists He Won California in Wild, Jesus-Filled Rant With Dr. Phil (Daily Beast) Damon: Highlight: Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition by Edmund Fawcett Bill: Highlights: The Return of Hamiltonian Statecraft by Walter Russell Mead and Stopping the Next China Shock by Aaron L. Friedberg Linda: Highlight: Making Race Skin Deep by Quico Toro in Persuasion

Peter Wehner is the conscience of American conservatism. Having worked in three Republican administrations, the ex Republican is now a regular contributor to the New York Times and the Atlantic, writing compelling moral critiques of Trump and the authoritarian populism now dominant in the GOP. Many of you will have already read his latest Times piece, What Has Happened to My Party Haunts Me - but what, I asked Wehner, once made the GOP "his” party and could he ever imagine rejoining it?Peter Wehner, an American essayist, is a contributing Opinion writer for The New York Times and a contributing writer for The Atlantic, two of the most prestigious media journals in the world. He writes on politics and political ideas, on faith and culture, on foreign policy, sports and friendships. Mr. Wehner served in three presidential administrations, including as deputy director of presidential speechwriting for President George W. Bush. Later, he served as the director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives. Mr. Wehner, a graduate of the University of Washington, is editor or author of six books, including The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, which The New York Times called “a model of conscientious political engagements.” Married and the father of three, he lives in McLean, Virginia. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On 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 the wake of a chilling assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, our nation finds itself at a crucial crossroads, grappling with the fragility of democracy and the power of unity. Peter Wehner from The Atlantic highlights this shocking event as a stark reminder of the importance of civil discourse and mutual respect in our political landscape, even amidst deep divisions. As we reflect on this harrowing moment, we are presented with an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the democratic principles that have long defined our nation.

A lot of news headlines have hit over the weekend and Boyd covers it all. Delve into the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, the Republican National Convention, J.D. Vance being picked as Trump’s vice president. John Curtis joins Boyd to talk about the Republican National Convention. Learn about the importance of restraint with Peter Wehner. Jeni Wilson joins to talk about her organization, Jeniology, and the importance of telling stories of everyday heroes that knit our communities together and More!

The new series counting down to the US Presidential Election. This week: The US Supreme Court has voted to give the president partial immunity from criminal prosecution. That is music to Donald Trump's ears who's facing more charges in the coming months. What does this change, and does it mean a president can now assassinate an opponent and get away with it? Plus, former advisor and speech writer for George W. Bush, Peter Wehner, joins the panel to discuss why he could never vote for the GOP whilst Trump is at the helm. Nikki McCann Ramírez, of Rolling Stone, Jacob Jarvis and Chris Jones discuss the latest issues in US politics. Follow us on social media:  Twitter Instagram  TikTok Written and presented by Chris Jones, Jacob Jarvis and Nikki McCann Ramírez. Audio editor: Simon Williams. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Executive producer: Martin Bojtos. Artwork by James Parrett. Music: Orange Factory Music. AMERICAN FRICTION is a Podmasters Production. www.podmasters.co.uk  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode host Andrew Keen sits down with Peter Wehner to discuss the intersection of faith and politics and the rise of the Evangelical movement in the Republican Party. Pete reflects on his early caution of the dangerous intertwining on faith and politics, his concerns about the religious impact on the Republican Party, and the shift towards more authoritarian tendencies within the party. He explores the connections among figures such as Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump, tracing the evolution of the Republican Party's conservative ideologies and its current state.

Send us a Text Message.In this episode of the Faithful Politics podcast, Josh and Will welcome Peter Wehner, a prominent political commentator, author, and senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. Peter Wehner shares his extensive background in public service, including roles in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations. The discussion dives into the intersection of Christianity and politics, exploring how Peter's faith journey influenced his political career and writing. They discuss the contemporary Christian landscape, particularly how the Trump era has impacted evangelical Christians' political alignments and the broader societal implications.Peter articulates the deep divisions within the Christian community, driven by politics and cultural shifts. He highlights the problematic alignment of some evangelicals with Trump's ethos, which he argues has amplified negative traits such as resentment and grievance. The conversation also touches on Peter's recent article in The Atlantic, where he reflects on Christianity's relationship with power, emphasizing the faith's anti-power ethos exemplified by the crucifixion.The dialogue covers significant historical moments that shaped the evangelical political landscape, the role of the media, and the challenges of maintaining faith integrity in a polarized political environment. Both hosts express appreciation for Peter's insights and the need for a more reflective and compassionate Christian witness in today's society.Read the article mentioned in this conversation THE GREATEST CONTRIBUTION OF CHRISTIANITYGood Friday reminds us of the ephemerality of human power: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/easter-christianity-relationship-with-power/677921/Guest Bio:Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. His books include The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, which he co-wrote with Michael J. Gerson, and Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism. He was formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and his work also appears in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Affairs.Support the Show.To learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics Subscribe to our Substack: https://faithfulpolitics.substack.com/

Trust in our elected officials seems at an all-time low. Moral failures, infighting, and scandals have become commonplace. Today, on Unbelievable? we ask, Can we rediscover the moral compass in politics? With crucial primaries taking place in the USA and an election in the UK on July 4 we are asking what should be the standard for behaviour of elected officials? And who decides? The discussion is hosted by BBC veteran broadcaster Roger Bolton. Can politics uplift and inspire? Is our political identity intertwined with our personal one? How can Christians reshape politics for the greater good? Michael Wear, the founder of the Center for Christianity and Public Life, emphasizes the importance of gentleness in American political dialogue. As a key figure in President Obama's faith outreach and a prolific writer, Wear advocates for integrating Christian values into public life for the benefit of all. Watch out for another perspective on this topic from Shane Idleman, coming soon on Unbelievable?. #politics #election #morality #moralpolitics #christiannationalism SOCIAL LINKS: Twitter: https://twitter.com/unbelievablefe Facebook: / https://facebook.com/premierunbelievable Instagram: / https://instagram.com/premierunbelievable Tik Tok: / https://tiktok.com/@premier.unbelievable Other shows to check on for other perspectives on this topic:

Swifties are celebrating the record-breaking release of two new albums, but some conservative Christians are not happy. They're accusing Taylor Swift of mocking Christianity and promoting witchcraft. Our resident Swiftie, Kaitlyn Schiess, explains the controversy. Then, former presidential speechwriter and contributor to The Atlantic, Pete Wehner, talks with Skye about the future of the Republican Party. Will the Trump spell ever break? Also this week—the end of America's monoculture, and how dumb were dinosaurs? 00 - Intro 1:03 - Show Starts 2:15 - Theme Song 2:35 - Sponsor - Wheaton Graduate School - Learn in a rich, rigorous Christian environment - www.wheaton.edu/holypost 3:36 - Sponsor - The Pour Over - Subscribe for free to news that points to eternal hope - https://www.thepourover.org/holy-post 4:50 - Update on Phil 6:08 - Dinosaurs—Were They Smart? 13:00 - Is Taylor Swift Mocking Christians? 15:12 - Taylor Swift's Bohemian Mishmash 18:12 - Artistic vs Political Usage of Biblical Language 23:13 - Taylor Swift and Kids 23:23 - Children and Public Spaces 31:02 - Portrayal vs Endorsement 35:18 - Everything is a Cult Now and 20th Century Communication Technology 40:17 - What Even is Mainstream? 44:27 - Labels and the Good Samaritan 50:14 - Choice and Community 55:43 - Sponsor - Faithful Counseling - Get 10% off your first month at www.betterhelp.com/HOLYPOST 56:42 -  Sponsor -  Go to https://www.songfinch.com/HOLYPOST and start your song – after you purchase, you'll be prompted to add Spotify Streaming for your original song for FREE! That's a $50 value! 58:13 - Interview 1:03:48 - What Radicalized the Republican Voter Base? 1:08:25 - Where There Signs 20 Years Ago That Radicalization Was Coming?  1:11:30 - Pro-Life Republicans Changing Their Stances? 1:22:20 - What's the Future for the GOP? 1:33:58 - End Credits   Links Mentioned in the News Segment:   T. Rex Was Probably About As Intelligent as a Crocodile https://www.popsci.com/science/t-rex-intelligence/   Taylor Swift's Religious Imagery for a Spiritually Syncretic Era https://religionnews.com/2024/04/23/taylor-swifts-ttpd-religious-imagery-for-a-spiritually-syncretic-era/   Taylor Swift Mocks Christianity in Her New Album https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/taylor-swift-mocks-christianity-in-her-new-album.html   Everything's a Cult Now https://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/24133960/america-cult-internet-culture-end-monoculture-communication-tribalism#:~:text=Writer%20Derek%20Thompson%20on%20how,we're%20never%20going%20back.&text=The%20internet%20has%20fractured%20our,and%20habits%20of%20everyone%20online.   Other resources: The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump: https://a.co/d/2ute7Ua   Holy Post website: https://www.holypost.com/ Holy Post Plus: www.holypost.com/plus Holy Post Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/holypost Holy Post Merch Store: https://www.holypost.com/shop The Holy Post is supported by our listeners. We may earn affiliate commissions through links listed here. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Is there actually a light at the end of the tunnel, a way out of MAGA domination for the Republican Party? Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution and Peter Wehner of the Trinity Forum, walk us through their much-discussed plan outlined in a recent New York Times opinion piece for a new movement to return to a rational, conservative Republican Party in America. ***Please remember to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.*** 00:59 Exploring the Roots and Reasons for a GOP Split 05:05 The Exile Strategy: Overcoming MAGA's Grip 09:12 The Moral and Strategic Imperatives of Overthrowing MAGA 14:34 Potential Leaders and the Path Forward 26:55 The Psychological Battle Against MAGA Dominance

Political power often changes the church more than the church changes those in power—the most glaring example is the damage Trump has done to the credibility of the white evangelical world. Plus, Bill Barr is a liar, and the evolution of Mike Johnson. Peter Wehner joins Tim Miller. show notes: AP story on Bill Barr and the Mueller Report Pete's piece on the forgotten radicalism of Jesus Christ 

It's no secret that modern American Christians are deeply divided over politics. This division raises important questions about the influence of Scripture on political beliefs. To make sense of this, we invited renowned scholar NT Tom Wright, theologian, professor and star of the "Ask NT Wright Anything Podcast" along with New York Times bestselling author Dr. Preston M. Sprinkle host of the Theology in the Raw podcast. Tom Wright stresses the need for Christians to prioritise the kingdom of God and embody its values within the church. Preston talks about how Israel's exile to Babylon, Jesus' mission on earth, and the teachings of Paul all shaped the church's relationship with politics and can inform our own relationship with politics today. Tom Wright's co-author Mike Bird came on Unbelievable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zieWeTqe2qc). This is part of our continuing series on navigating politics. #politics #godandpolitics #ntwrightonline #debate SOCIAL LINKS: Twitter: / unbelievablefe Facebook:  / premierunbelievable Instagram:  / premierunbelievable Tik Tok: / premierunbelievable • Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: https://pod.link/267142101 • Support us: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/donate FOR TOM: Read Tom Wright and Michael Bird's book Jesus and the Powers Ask NT Wright Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ask-nt-wright-anything/id1441656192 And more resources online: https://www.ntwrightonline.org/ ⬇️ Follow Tom on Social Media IG: @ntwrightonline FOR PRESTON: Read Preston Sprinkle's book Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of Empire ⬇️ Follow Preston on Social Media X: @PrestonSprinkle IG: preston.sprinkle For more on on this and related topics check out:

The Atlantic's Peter Wehner joins the panel to discuss Trump hawking a "patriotic" Bible, accusations of lawfare regarding Trump's trials, and Putin's war on truth. Highlights / Lowlights: Mona— What Would You Have Israel Do to Defend Itself? (David Brooks, NYT) Damon— Tucker Carlson's hilariously wrong prediction that Sam Bankman-Fried would avoid justice because he was a megadonor. Peter— Lowlight: Jesus's Crucifixion. Highlight: Easter, of course. Linda— Bridge collapse brings stark reminder of immigrant workers' vulnerabilities (WaPo) Bill— Democrat who ran heavily on abortion rights, IVF wins Alabama special election (WaPo)

Few conservatives or Christians have stood up to Donald Trump with the coherence and bravery of The New York Times and Atlantic columnist Peter Wehner. “I think morality is to Trump what color is to a person who is colorblind”, Wehner told me. And, in contrast with the ethically monochromatic Trump, Peter Wehner's moral palette is akin to a sophisticated painter. In a wide ranging KEEN ON AMERICA conversation about his life in and out of Republican politics, Wehner explains why there is nothing “conservative” about Trump or “Christian” about many right-wing evangelicals, and how the Republican party is now flirting with ethical bankruptcy. Regular KEEN ON viewers know that I don't care much for the Trump-Hitler comparison, but if there's any truth to it, then Peter Wehner could be the Dietrich Bonhoeffer of conservative Christian resistance to Trumpism. Peter Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and the Atlantic. He is a senior fellow at the the Trinity Forum who served in Ronald Reagan's, George H.W. Bush's and George W. Bush's administrations. In 2001, he was named deputy director of speechwriting for President George W. Bush. He later served as director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives, where he reached out to prominent thinkers and advised the White House on a range of domestic and international issues. A senior adviser to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, he has been affiliated with several leading research organizations. Mr. Wehner is a frequent commentator on television and radio and has written widely on political, cultural, religious and national security issues. He is the author (with Arthur C. Brooks) of “Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism” and (with Michael Gerson) of “City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era.” The Washington Monthly has called him one of the most influential reform-minded conservatives, and in Forbes, the political consultant Mary Matalin featured him on a short list of conservatism's leading “educators and practitioners of first principles.”Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On 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

Welcome to a special bonus episode of The Russell Moore Show! Peter Wehner returns for a conversation about the television drama The Chosen, which began its fourth season on February 1, 2024. Wehner expounds on his recent article in The Atlantic, sharing how the series pleasantly surprised him as someone who historically avoided on-screen depictions of Jesus. He describes the ways that Jesus (played by Jonathan Roumie) in The Chosen has a fully-formed personality, displays emotion, and shows how intimately Jesus understood human nature—all elements that have led Wehner to love the show.  Moore and Wehner discuss how The Chosen sheds light on Jewish life under Roman occupation and the role of the Pharisees. They talk about another Christian media phenomenon—the He Gets Us campaign—and consider the wide range of responses to it. Their discussion covers political division, the relationship between the intellect and the heart in belief, and what it means for Christians to be called to faithfulness rather than success. Resources mentioned in this episode include: The Chosen “Jesus on the Small Screen” by Peter Wehner Peter Wehner The Trinity Forum Navigating Friendship and Loss with Peter Wehner The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien Jesus of Nazareth  He Gets Us campaign E.Y. Mullins Further Up and Further In Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis The Jesus Way by Eugene H. Peterson Do you have a question for Russell Moore? Send it to questions@russellmoore.com. Click here for a trial membership at Christianity Today. “The Russell Moore Show” is a production of Christianity Today  Executive Producers: Erik Petrik, Russell Moore, and Mike Cosper  Host: Russell Moore  Producer: Ashley Hales  Associate Producers: Abby Perry and McKenzie Hill Director of Operations for CT Media: Matt Stevens  Audio engineering by Dan Phelps  Video producer: Abby Egan  Theme Song: “Dusty Delta Day” by Lennon Hutton Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on The Enemies List, Rick is joined by writer and former speechwriter for the administrations of three Republican U.S. presidents, Peter Wehner. Together they engage in a deep discussion about the significant ideological and moral shifts within the Republican Party, particularly under Trump's influence. They contrast the party's past values of compassionate conservatism and dignified leadership with its current populist nationalism, marked by malice and division. Timestamps: [00:01:23] Defined by cruelty [00:04:06] What does the Republican party reflect now? [00:10:05] Immigration and the American brand [00:13:30] Surviving without optimism [00:19:59] Biden's communication style Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael speaks with Peter Wehner about his book "The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump." The New York Times opinion writer, media commentator, outspoken Republican and Christian critic of the Trump presidency offers a spirited defense of politics and its virtuous and critical role in maintaining our democracy and what he believes we must do to save it before it is too late. Original air date 6 June 2019. The book was published on 4 June 2019.

Vince Vitale hosts this timely discussion around faith and politics, with Pete Wehner, journalist and senior fellow at Trinity Forum and Jonathan Rauch who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. The topic is Should faith and politics mix? How can we take the fear out of politics and make it transcendent rather than transactional? Atheist Jonathan Rauch is an expert in governance studies and the author of eight books and many articles on public policy, culture, and government. He is also a contributing writer of The Atlantic and recipient of the 2005 National Magazine Award, the magazine industry's equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. Across from him, is Pete Wehner a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and also a contributing editor for The Atlantic. A graduate of the University of Washington, Pete Wehner served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations, including as Deputy Director of Speechwriting and later Director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives for President George W. Bush.   These two, Pete Wehner, a Christian for many years, and Jon Rauch, an avowed atheist, have plenty of experience in the fray of politics and have distinct political differences. What they share is a deep respect for each other and a loyal friendship built over decades. Listen to the end of the podcast where Jonathan Rauch articulates the three defining characteristics of Christianity.   @Peter_Wehner  @jon_rauch  • Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: https://pod.link/267142101 • More shows, free eBook & newsletter: https://premierunbelievable.com • For live events: http://www.unbelievable.live • For online learning: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/training • Support us in the USA: http://www.premierinsight.org/unbelievableshow • Support us in the rest of the world: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/donate

We may have averted a government shutdown for the moment, but the new speaker of the House believes dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. Pete Wehner joins Charlie Sykes for a deep dive on Mike Johnson. Plus, the closing of the American mind on the right. show notes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/polite-zealotry-mike-johnson/675845/ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/06/opinion/trump-allan-bloom-republicans.html 

Kristin Du Mez and Peter Wehner join the group to analyze evangelical support for Trump, as well as the Georgia indictment. Accountability, danger, and many unknowns. Plus, in our highlights and lowlights segment, Kristin notes the start of the school year and gives a shout-out to the teachers, while Bill extols the healing benefits of a vacation. show notes: Kristin's book, Jesus and John Wayne Linda's highlight: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-sanitized-french-connection-vs-the-hip-hop-gutter-film-music-rap-slur-culture-the-exorcist-6b8f73d0 Mona's lowlight: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12413181/ALAN-DERSHOWITZ-Al-Gore-2000-Donald-Trump-indictment.html Pete's remembrance: https://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-keller-remembered-by-thousands-at-st-patricks-cathedral.html

New York Times contributor Peter Wehner joins the panel to evaluate the GOP presidential field, consider whether Republicans care about issues, and ponder the Trump indictment. Plus, in our highlights and lowlights segment, Damon and Linda praise the Supreme Court's ruling on the Alabama voting rights case, and Pete pays tribute to his family's beloved dog, Romeo.  highlights/lowlights Linda's and Damon's: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-alabama.html Bill's: https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-06-06/commentary-on-pgas-merger-with-liv https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/08/the-new-right-patrick-deneen-00100279 Mona's: https://www.freedomforum.org/freeexpressionawards/ https://www.slowboring.com/p/misinformation-isnt-just-on-the-right-214 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

New York Times contributor Peter Wehner joins the panel to evaluate the GOP presidential field, consider whether Republicans care about issues, and ponder the Trump indictment. Plus, in our highlights and lowlights segment, Damon and Linda praise the Supreme Court's ruling on the Alabama voting rights case, and Pete pays tribute to his family's beloved dog, Romeo.  highlights/lowlights Linda's and Damon's: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/08/us/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-alabama.html Bill's: https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-06-06/commentary-on-pgas-merger-with-liv https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/08/the-new-right-patrick-deneen-00100279 Mona's: https://www.freedomforum.org/freeexpressionawards/ https://www.slowboring.com/p/misinformation-isnt-just-on-the-right-214 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Too many GOP leaders failed to grasp that going along with Trump would increase his hold on the party—and further radicalize the base. Now, the party is being consumed by the monster it created. Plus, Trump goes even further than a mob boss. Peter Wehner joins Charlie Sykes today. Show Notes Peter's Atlantic piece Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Too many GOP leaders failed to grasp that going along with Trump would increase his hold on the party—and further radicalize the base. Now, the party is being consumed by the monster it created. Plus, Trump goes even further than a mob boss. Peter Wehner joins Charlie Sykes today. Show Notes Peter's Atlantic piece Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Republican establishment scolding Trump has little to do with morality and everything to do with power. Peter Wehner joins Charlie Sykes today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices