Podcasts about politics in america

In the 500th episode of the "Right About Now" podcast, host Ryan Alford celebrates the milestone by discussing the recent election results, particularly Donald Trump's return to office, and its implications for business and society. Chris Hansen and Brianna join the conversation, sharing insights on the political landscape, economic growth, and health and wellness. Chris highlights the surge in Bitcoin's value, while Brianna emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balanced lifestyle amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The episode concludes with reflections on the American Dream and the significance of community and support in navigating business and politics.TAKEAWAYSRecent election results and Donald Trump's return to officeImplications of the election for business and the economyPerspectives on health and wellness in the context of political changesImpact of COVID-19 on public perception and media trustDiscussion on cryptocurrency, particularly Bitcoin and DogecoinOptimism about economic growth under Trump's administrationThe role of community in the cryptocurrency marketThe concept of the American Dream and its relevance todayImportance of maintaining a balanced lifestyle post-pandemicReflection on the podcast's journey and listener engagement If you enjoyed this episode and want to learn more, join Ryan's newsletter https://ryanalford.com/newsletter/ to get Ferrari level advice daily for FREE. Learn how to build a 7 figure business from your personal brand by signing up for a FREE introduction to personal branding https://ryanalford.com/personalbranding. Learn more by visiting our website at www.ryanisright.comSubscribe to our YouTube channel www.youtube.com/@RightAboutNowwithRyanAlford.

As election day approaches, join us for a conversation with OneCry Founder - Byron Paulus and Dr. Erwin Lutzer, who served as pastor of Moody Church for 36 years. Together, we explore the critical intersection of faith, politics, and culture, emphasizing the church's role in addressing the moral and spiritual challenges no government can solve. In this episode, Dr. Lutzer discusses his latest book, "The Eclipse of God," and delves into the intellectual roots of secularism that have obscured divine presence in our lives. He shares insights on the importance of understanding and confronting these cultural shifts, and how believers can navigate the political landscape with a focus on biblical truth. Let us be reminded that while politics is important, our ultimate hope lies in a spiritual awakening that only God can bring about. You can find Dr. Lutzer's New Book - "The Eclipse of God" HERE Start your own Personal Revival Journey Today at www.onecry.com

SHOW MANTRA:  I Am Enough and So Are You   Today's Topic:  Truth About Being Neutral or Apolitical in Politics Rescheduled from 10/16 -- Welcome to the new format of Voices of the Sacred Feminine as I go back to my roots here on the show and discuss the "bees buzzing round in my bonnet."  I'll still have the occasional guest to chat with, but I've shortened the show to 30 minutes or less and I've taken the advice of my wise women friends and have decided to let you hear from me instead of a new author each week. And this week you'll be hearing me discuss my ideas around The Truth About Being Apolitical or Neutral in Politics.  And maybe some other fruits of those honey bees that are buzzing round in my bonnet!  "People often say with pride, I'm not interested in politics.  They might as well say I'm not interested in my standard of living, my health, my job, my rights, my freedom, my future, or any future.  If we mean to keep any control over our world and lives, we MUST be interested in politics." ~ Martha Gelhorn, writer, novelist, journalist

Prime Minister Modi is set to make strategic decisions that could reshape global geopolitics, as discussed by Sumit Peer and Vibhuti Jha. Explore the complex political dynamics at play on the global chessboard during Modi's visit to America, where key alliances and partnerships could take new directions.

After Amy's trip to Switzerland she shared her experience in talking about American politics with locals and getting a sense for their view on our government and their own.

"In the Basement with JaVonne and Terez" is a popular podcast hosted by JaVonne and Terez, two friends who share their humorous and insightful perspectives on various topics. Their conversations often cover pop culture, social issues, personal growth, and relationships, all while maintaining a lighthearted and comedic tone. Each episode typically features the hosts discussing their thoughts and experiences, often with hilarious banter and witty observations. They might also interview guests or share listener stories, creating a sense of community and connection with their audience. If you're looking for a podcast that's both entertaining and thought-provoking, Today we will cover the upcoming election and more! CALL IN AND SHARE "In the Basement with JaVonne and Terez" is definitely worth checking out! You can find it on popular podcast platforms like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Google Podcasts. Enjoy!

On tonight's episode of RPM, we'll talk about how the “border crisis” is manufactured under capitalism and break down some of the dangerous presidential election year framing we see from both Republicans and Democrats.   You'll hear from Yvette Borja, abolitionist and Laura E, Gomez Teaching Fellow at UCLA Law. Yvette lived and organized in Tucson for 6 years and will tell us what it's really like on the ground in Southern Arizona along the border and why there are no single issue voters. We'll also hear from Luisa and Tristan, members of the DSA IC International Migration Working Group, about that working group's new webinar series, revitalizing migration organizing efforts during a presidential election year and so much more.  To listen to Radio Chachimbona: https://www.radiocachimbona.com/And you can follow Yvette on Instagram @RadioChachimbona You can read DSA statement on Migration and International Solidarity Between Working People here: https://www.dsausa.org/statements/statement-on-migration-and-international-solidarity-between-working-people/And visit dsaic.org/MigrantRights to register for upcoming webinars. 

Considered the "gold standard" of political parties texts.Get all the news you need by listening to WBZ NewsRadio 1030 on the free #iHeartRadio app! Or ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio.

American democracy is more than a set of governmental institutions and practices. It rests on a foundation of deeply ingrained values that both shape and reflect our hearts. Some of these values are noble. Other values—including ones we take most for granted—are in direct conflict with the gospel. Historical perspective can help us to see contemporary American democracy with new eyes, in the process helping us think more Christianly as we think and act politically. Professor Tracy McKenzie is a professor of history at Wheaton College, where he holds the Arthur Holmes Chair of Faith and Learning and is a recipient of the college's Distinguished Teaching Award. He is the author, among other works, of The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us about Loving God and Learning from History, and We the Fallen People: The Founders and the Future of American Democracy. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled “‘The Almighty Has His Own Purposes': Abraham Lincoln and American Civil Religion.” Bookmarks 00:00 - Intro 03:48 - Part 1 23:49 - Part 2 46:36 - Q&A

Catch “The Drive with Spence Checketts” from 2 pm to 6 pm weekdays on ESPN 700 & 92.1 FM. Produced by Porter Larsen. The latest on the Utah Jazz, Real Salt Lake, Utes, BYU + more sports storylines.

Hi. Happy Almost A Holiday! Today, we're re-releasing our episode from July 2021, "The Racist History of Austerity Politics In America," featuring a new introduction from Cody Johnston. We'll be back with a new Reagantastic episode of "Some More News" next Wednesday. Watch the original episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMMTNwmED7w Check out our MERCH STORE: https://shop.somemorenews.com SUBSCRIBE to SOME MORE NEWS: https://tinyurl.com/ybfx89rh Subscribe to the Even More News and SMN audio podcasts here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-more-news/id1364825229 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ebqegozpFt9hY2WJ7TDiA Follow us on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomeMoreNews

The ERLC's Jason Thacker, Miles Mullin, and Alex Ward discuss the 40th anniversary of the book The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America by Richard John Neuhaus and how it can inform our understanding of bringing our faith into the public square. 

How did politics become so poisonous in America? Journalist Kenneth Walsh articulates the unique character of the current political moment, and the forces that have created it, by comparing and contrasting the Trump and Biden presidencies with administrations of the past. Walsh also profiles some of the key political “attack dogs” who have shaped the modern landscape: the campaign strategists, activists, and media figures who have played outsized roles in political campaigns. Drawing on his long career as a journalist specializing in presidential coverage, Walsh argues that due to the complex, often conflicting nature of American government, the angriest, most decisive voices can command media, voter, and legislative attention and thereby maintain and consolidate their power. This results in frustration, alienation, and cynicism, and ultimately a diminishment of voter participation that can reinforce this vicious cycle and lead to electoral disaster. MLF ORGANIZER: George Hammond A Humanities Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Leonard Raskin joins Nestor to talk election results and money in politics in America The post Leonard Raskin joins Nestor to talk election results and money in politics in America first appeared on Baltimore Positive WNST.

Shortly after its introduction, photography transformed the ways Americans made political arguments using visual images. In the mid-19th century, photographs became key tools in debates surrounding slavery. Yet, photographs were used in interesting and sometimes surprising ways by a range of actors. Matthew Fox-Amato, an Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, examines the role of photography in the politics of slavery during the 19th century and the important legacies of those uses on later visual politics in his new book, Exposing Slavery: Photography, Human Bondage, and the Birth of Modern Visual Politics in America (Oxford University Press, 2019). The book examines the use of photographs by slaves, abolitionists, slaveholders, and Union soldiers to explore the rich complexities of the visual politics of the moment. He also considers the legacies of this use of the new medium. In this episode of the podcast, Fox-Amato discusses the ways these various groups used photography for individual purposes and to shape the debates surrounding slavery in the antebellum period. He explains how photographs also highlight how union soldiers were beginning to think about a post-slavery racial hierarchy during the war. The book demonstrates the importance of thinking about photographs as both visual images and material objects. In the interview, Fox-Amato discusses the research necessary to analyze the photographs in both these ways and the broader importance of studying visual and material culture in all their historical complexity. Christine Lamberson is an Associate Professor of History at Angelo State University. Her research and teaching focuses on 20th century U.S. political and cultural history. She's currently working on a book manuscript about the role of violence in shaping U.S. political culture in the 1960s and 1970s. She can be reached at clamberson@angelo.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Shortly after its introduction, photography transformed the ways Americans made political arguments using visual images. In the mid-19th century, photographs became key tools in debates surrounding slavery. Yet, photographs were used in interesting and sometimes surprising ways by a range of actors. Matthew Fox-Amato, an Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, examines the role of photography in the politics of slavery during the 19th century and the important legacies of those uses on later visual politics in his new book, Exposing Slavery: Photography, Human Bondage, and the Birth of Modern Visual Politics in America (Oxford University Press, 2019). The book examines the use of photographs by slaves, abolitionists, slaveholders, and Union soldiers to explore the rich complexities of the visual politics of the moment. He also considers the legacies of this use of the new medium. In this episode of the podcast, Fox-Amato discusses the ways these various groups used photography for individual purposes and to shape the debates surrounding slavery in the antebellum period. He explains how photographs also highlight how union soldiers were beginning to think about a post-slavery racial hierarchy during the war. The book demonstrates the importance of thinking about photographs as both visual images and material objects. In the interview, Fox-Amato discusses the research necessary to analyze the photographs in both these ways and the broader importance of studying visual and material culture in all their historical complexity. Christine Lamberson is an Associate Professor of History at Angelo State University. Her research and teaching focuses on 20th century U.S. political and cultural history. She's currently working on a book manuscript about the role of violence in shaping U.S. political culture in the 1960s and 1970s. She can be reached at clamberson@angelo.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Shortly after its introduction, photography transformed the ways Americans made political arguments using visual images. In the mid-19th century, photographs became key tools in debates surrounding slavery. Yet, photographs were used in interesting and sometimes surprising ways by a range of actors. Matthew Fox-Amato, an Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, examines the role of photography in the politics of slavery during the 19th century and the important legacies of those uses on later visual politics in his new book, Exposing Slavery: Photography, Human Bondage, and the Birth of Modern Visual Politics in America (Oxford University Press, 2019). The book examines the use of photographs by slaves, abolitionists, slaveholders, and Union soldiers to explore the rich complexities of the visual politics of the moment. He also considers the legacies of this use of the new medium. In this episode of the podcast, Fox-Amato discusses the ways these various groups used photography for individual purposes and to shape the debates surrounding slavery in the antebellum period. He explains how photographs also highlight how union soldiers were beginning to think about a post-slavery racial hierarchy during the war. The book demonstrates the importance of thinking about photographs as both visual images and material objects. In the interview, Fox-Amato discusses the research necessary to analyze the photographs in both these ways and the broader importance of studying visual and material culture in all their historical complexity. Christine Lamberson is an Associate Professor of History at Angelo State University. Her research and teaching focuses on 20th century U.S. political and cultural history. She's currently working on a book manuscript about the role of violence in shaping U.S. political culture in the 1960s and 1970s. She can be reached at clamberson@angelo.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Shortly after its introduction, photography transformed the ways Americans made political arguments using visual images. In the mid-19th century, photographs became key tools in debates surrounding slavery. Yet, photographs were used in interesting and sometimes surprising ways by a range of actors. Matthew Fox-Amato, an Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, examines the role of photography in the politics of slavery during the 19th century and the important legacies of those uses on later visual politics in his new book, Exposing Slavery: Photography, Human Bondage, and the Birth of Modern Visual Politics in America (Oxford University Press, 2019). The book examines the use of photographs by slaves, abolitionists, slaveholders, and Union soldiers to explore the rich complexities of the visual politics of the moment. He also considers the legacies of this use of the new medium. In this episode of the podcast, Fox-Amato discusses the ways these various groups used photography for individual purposes and to shape the debates surrounding slavery in the antebellum period. He explains how photographs also highlight how union soldiers were beginning to think about a post-slavery racial hierarchy during the war. The book demonstrates the importance of thinking about photographs as both visual images and material objects. In the interview, Fox-Amato discusses the research necessary to analyze the photographs in both these ways and the broader importance of studying visual and material culture in all their historical complexity. Christine Lamberson is an Associate Professor of History at Angelo State University. Her research and teaching focuses on 20th century U.S. political and cultural history. She's currently working on a book manuscript about the role of violence in shaping U.S. political culture in the 1960s and 1970s. She can be reached at clamberson@angelo.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Shortly after its introduction, photography transformed the ways Americans made political arguments using visual images. In the mid-19th century, photographs became key tools in debates surrounding slavery. Yet, photographs were used in interesting and sometimes surprising ways by a range of actors. Matthew Fox-Amato, an Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, examines the role of photography in the politics of slavery during the 19th century and the important legacies of those uses on later visual politics in his new book, Exposing Slavery: Photography, Human Bondage, and the Birth of Modern Visual Politics in America (Oxford University Press, 2019). The book examines the use of photographs by slaves, abolitionists, slaveholders, and Union soldiers to explore the rich complexities of the visual politics of the moment. He also considers the legacies of this use of the new medium. In this episode of the podcast, Fox-Amato discusses the ways these various groups used photography for individual purposes and to shape the debates surrounding slavery in the antebellum period. He explains how photographs also highlight how union soldiers were beginning to think about a post-slavery racial hierarchy during the war. The book demonstrates the importance of thinking about photographs as both visual images and material objects. In the interview, Fox-Amato discusses the research necessary to analyze the photographs in both these ways and the broader importance of studying visual and material culture in all their historical complexity. Christine Lamberson is an Associate Professor of History at Angelo State University. Her research and teaching focuses on 20th century U.S. political and cultural history. She's currently working on a book manuscript about the role of violence in shaping U.S. political culture in the 1960s and 1970s. She can be reached at clamberson@angelo.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-south

Shortly after its introduction, photography transformed the ways Americans made political arguments using visual images. In the mid-19th century, photographs became key tools in debates surrounding slavery. Yet, photographs were used in interesting and sometimes surprising ways by a range of actors. Matthew Fox-Amato, an Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, examines the role of photography in the politics of slavery during the 19th century and the important legacies of those uses on later visual politics in his new book, Exposing Slavery: Photography, Human Bondage, and the Birth of Modern Visual Politics in America (Oxford University Press, 2019). The book examines the use of photographs by slaves, abolitionists, slaveholders, and Union soldiers to explore the rich complexities of the visual politics of the moment. He also considers the legacies of this use of the new medium. In this episode of the podcast, Fox-Amato discusses the ways these various groups used photography for individual purposes and to shape the debates surrounding slavery in the antebellum period. He explains how photographs also highlight how union soldiers were beginning to think about a post-slavery racial hierarchy during the war. The book demonstrates the importance of thinking about photographs as both visual images and material objects. In the interview, Fox-Amato discusses the research necessary to analyze the photographs in both these ways and the broader importance of studying visual and material culture in all their historical complexity. Christine Lamberson is an Associate Professor of History at Angelo State University. Her research and teaching focuses on 20th century U.S. political and cultural history. She's currently working on a book manuscript about the role of violence in shaping U.S. political culture in the 1960s and 1970s. She can be reached at clamberson@angelo.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/photography

Shortly after its introduction, photography transformed the ways Americans made political arguments using visual images. In the mid-19th century, photographs became key tools in debates surrounding slavery. Yet, photographs were used in interesting and sometimes surprising ways by a range of actors. Matthew Fox-Amato, an Assistant Professor at the University of Idaho, examines the role of photography in the politics of slavery during the 19th century and the important legacies of those uses on later visual politics in his new book, Exposing Slavery: Photography, Human Bondage, and the Birth of Modern Visual Politics in America (Oxford University Press, 2019). The book examines the use of photographs by slaves, abolitionists, slaveholders, and Union soldiers to explore the rich complexities of the visual politics of the moment. He also considers the legacies of this use of the new medium. In this episode of the podcast, Fox-Amato discusses the ways these various groups used photography for individual purposes and to shape the debates surrounding slavery in the antebellum period. He explains how photographs also highlight how union soldiers were beginning to think about a post-slavery racial hierarchy during the war. The book demonstrates the importance of thinking about photographs as both visual images and material objects. In the interview, Fox-Amato discusses the research necessary to analyze the photographs in both these ways and the broader importance of studying visual and material culture in all their historical complexity. Christine Lamberson is an Associate Professor of History at Angelo State University. Her research and teaching focuses on 20th century U.S. political and cultural history. She's currently working on a book manuscript about the role of violence in shaping U.S. political culture in the 1960s and 1970s. She can be reached at clamberson@angelo.edu.

THE POLITICS EPISODE. With an introduction as long as the Gettysburg Address, Chris explains (by using his beloved Cleveland Browns as an incredibly strained metaphor for political tribalism) why he has actively avoided political conversation on the podcast thus far - and why it's now finally time to analyze our nation's current political divide. Chris is joined by longtime 3Q3D cohost and political junkie Amanda Adams, as well as an actual living, breathing politican: Ohio State Representative for the 34th district of the Ohio House of Representatives, Casey Weinstein. Over drinks both sophisticated and unrefined, the group discusses the root causes of our political polarization and whether it's possible to have better political conversations - including how we might see people less through the lens of red or blue and instead, as human beings worthy of respect no matter their political persuasion. Drinks in this episode:Ole Smoky Mountain Apple Pie Moonshine >> Call Uncle Jessie and have them Duke boys pack up the General Lee with a few bottles of Hazzard County's finest 'shine for delivery before Election Day. Pour it over ice and taste that sweet, sweet freedom.Sidecar Cocktail >> 1 1/2 oz cognac; 3/4 oz orange liqueur (such as Cointreau); 3/4 oz freshly squeezed lemon juice. Coat the rim of a coupe glass with sugar, and set aside. Add the cognac, orange liqueur and lemon juice to a shaker with ice and shake until well-chilled.Strain into the prepared glass, garnish with an orange twist and toast to democracy. Baluarte Reposado Tequila Reserva Especial >> Fly to Mexico and be seduced into purchasing this delicious 100% agave tequila by a smooth talking employee of the airport Duty Free Shop. Pour into a cocktail glass over a large ice cube, garnish with a lime wedge while citing the Pledge of Allegiance.If you've been enjoying the 3Q3D podcast, please subscribe and consider giving us a (5 star?!) rating. Great reviews make our day, and we'd love it if you shared a favorite episode with an inquisitive friend. See the drinks and follow our social sites here:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/3drinkspodcast/?hl=en Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/3DrinkspodcastThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5053128/advertisement

Welcome to a riveting episode of The Spartan Leadership Podcast! In this edition, we're thrilled to introduce Emmanuel Whitfield as our special guest. Brace yourself for an exploration into a range of crucial topics that mold both our society and the leadership landscape.Join us as we dissect the profound implications of the Trump indictment and its far-reaching consequences. We will also share insights on the growing sex-trafficking problem and concept of financial reparations amidst the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic. Let's foster understanding and intellectual growth together!Don't miss this captivating episode, brimming with insights that will reshape your understanding of leadership and societal dynamics. Tune in now!Here are the timestamps……(00:00) Intro(02:24) Trump Indictment(17:58) Financial Reparations During Covid(19:51) Financial Illiteracy in America(21:31) The Game of Politics in America(34:53) Who is Vivek Patel?(37:19) The Sound of Freedom(45:05) JK's View on Sex Trafficking(50:19) - A Country Without BordersCONNECT WITH ME HERE:FacebookInstagramLinkedInTwitterTikTokYouTubeSUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST HERE:Apple PodcastsSpotifyYouTubeCONNECT WITH ME HERE:FacebookInstagramLinkedInTwitterTikTokYouTube SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST HERE:Apple PodcastsSpotifyYouTube

Tom Quinn, twice Emmy-nominated writer/produceer who spent 22 years making documentary programs for Discovery Channel, History Channel, BBC and others including Discovery's archaeology adventure series, Expedition Unknown chats with me today about his humorous book, What Do You Do with a Chocolate Jesus? An Irreverent History of Christianity - written as an argument against the growing religious fundamentalism in American law and politics.  He's also produced shows on urban legends, conspiracy theories and religious cults.  Originally from New Jersey, Tom has an MFA from the American Film Institute and today works as a freelance writer for print and YouTube.  He calls himself a humorous skeptic.

In this podcast, Kushal speaks with Anang Mittal as they discuss Hindu politics in America. They discuss the different shades of American politics from a Hindu perspective. How they vote, why do they vote the way they do, and many other things. Follow Anang: Twitter: @anangbhai YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/IndianBrah #HinduAmericans #Democrats #Republicans ------------------------------------------------------------ Listen to the podcasts on: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/kushal-mehra-99891819 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1rVcDV3upgVurMVW1wwoBp Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-c%C4%81rv%C4%81ka-podcast/id1445348369 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-carvaka-podcast ------------------------------------------------------------ Support The Cārvāka Podcast: Become a Member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPx... Become a Member on Fanmo: https://fanmo.in/the_carvaka_podcast Become a Member on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/carvaka UPI: kushalmehra@icici To buy The Carvaka Podcast Exclusive Merch please visit: http://kushalmehra.com/shop ------------------------------------------------------------ Follow Kushal: Twitter: https://twitter.com/kushal_mehra?ref_... Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KushalMehraO... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarvakap... Koo: https://www.kooapp.com/profile/kushal... Inquiries: https://kushalmehra.com/ Feedback: kushalmehra81@gmail.com

Liz Harrington is a Spokesperson for President Donald J. Trump. Trump 2024. Politics in America. 

In this episode Germinal G. Van and Louis Carter Jr. debate over the the significance of race in America, and how it intertwines with American politics. They debate over: 1) The difference between slavery and colonization 2) The Impact of slavery in America 3) The significance of Jim Crow Laws 4) Whether Hood Culture is inherently Black Culture 5) Black people and political power

Interview with Ryan P. Burge. His new book is, "20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America".Investing Skeptically: New Home sales vs. Home sales vs. Economy & interest rates.

Hyram dives into the current events impacting the LGBTQ community. He discusses the political climate surrounding the transgender and drag queen community, the harmful rhetoric surrounding trans youth, the strides that have been made and the challenges that still remain. Subscribe to the Justaposition YouTube channel ! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What is the state of politics in America and how is it shaping the direction of the country? Legendary columnist from the Washington Post George Will joins Inside Sources to discuss some of the concerning trends in Washington, education, and society. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CNN political commentator, author, attorney Bakari Sellers joins host Josina Anderson discuss if we become more of a trial society post-pandemic, to navigating the workspace as a male nowadays amidst multiple high-profile men drawing controversial headlines in corporate spaces, to his thoughts on who will represent the main tickets in the 2024 Presidential Election, to if he'll run for President himself, to if there's more or less police brutality now since the height of the Black Lives Matter movement, to how new abortion laws impact the women in his family, to his relationship with Colts cornerback Stephon Gilmore and how Lamar Jackson should handle the perception of collusion in the NFL subsequent to his non-exclusive tag. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Victor Davis Hanson and cohost Sami Winc talk about permanent Washington power, the problem of the FBI and other agencies, Adam Schiff's complaints, the new Republican House, and Charles McGonigal's indictment for Russian collusion.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Journalist Philip Bump's day job is as a journalist and correspondent for The Washington Post, where he writes the weekly newsletter, How to Read This Chart - in which he analyses trends in economics, pop culture, politics, and more using the data behind the news. His new book, The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America, examines the ways that America's largest generation has had an effect on manifold aspects of our culture. Who are the Boomers, beyond just a birth year? How do they continue to determine major aspects of our society, and what happens as they age and are eventually replaced by their generational competitor, the equally large generation of Millennials? Bump joins Jessica to talk about his new book on a deep dive into all things Boomer.

Many of the things we think we know about religion and politics in America simply aren't true, says Ryan Burge, and he has the data to back it up. As a professor, researcher, and pastor Ryan Burge has spent years exploring and now debunking many common myths around Abortion, Born-again experiences, and the so-called "Nones." In this episode, we talk about some of the myths and what church leaders should understand instead about American culture. Ryan P. Burge is an assistant professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University. Author of numerous journal articles, he is the cofounder of and a frequent contributor to Religion in Public, a forum for scholars of religion and politics to make their work accessible to a general audience. Burge is a pastor in the American Baptist Church and is the author of The Nones and 20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America The Future Christian Podcast is a production of Torn Curtain Arts and Resonate Media.

Rev. Mark Thompson of the MIP: Make It Plain with Mark Thompson podcast visited us at Netroots Nation 2022 to discuss Trump and today's political climate. I have not seen Mark Thompson since he left SiriusXM, but I have watched him navigate many cable network programs with his always-on-point commentary. He did not disappoint. Rev. Thompson discussed subjects from Trump's malfeasance to police violence to media and some economics. He also introduced his MIP: Make It Plain podcast described as follows: --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/politicsdoneright/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/politicsdoneright/support

Immigrant Politics in America: Tying the World Together Link to Episode Transcript: https://rebrand.ly/vz9vdak Thoughts? Email us at idavid@oah.org Participants: Christopher Brick, Hasia Diner This episode was produced by Ikerighi "IK" David

The Christian Outlook – July 30, 2022 Don Kroah turns to Katie Tubb, of the Heritage Foundation, to talk about President Biden's intent to take executive action to address climate change. Kevin McCullough talks with New York Congressman Lee Zeldin about increasing violence directed at our leaders following the recent attempt on his life. Brian From and Steven Coble, of “The Common Good” program, talk with Jay Kim, Silicon Valley pastor, about his book, “Analog Church: Why We Need Real People, Places, and Things in the Digital Age.” Tim Gaydos and Gregory Jantz talk about Jantz's book, “Social Media and Depression: How to be Healthy and Happy in the Digital Age.” Georgene Rice talks with Peter Wood, about his book, “Wrath: America Enraged.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

#1429: Wednesday, July 27, 2022   Jerry Nabours on the bad state of politics in America. Mayor Paul Deasy on flood emergency. + Jeff on EV batteries, fed rate hike and election picks.     —————————————————————— Mayor Paul Deasy talks flooding and declaration of an emergency (0:00-14:23)  + Jeff's Top News Picks including Fed raising rates 3/4pt and how to fix inflation.    Jeff and Olivia answer a listener comment on electric vehicles (14:24-30:57) including the cost of batteries.  + Listner question on the LD6 race and comments made by Karrin Taylor Robson about Kari Lake.    Jerry Nabours talks the (bad) state of politics in America (30:58-74:11) including…his pick for governor, senate and more. Jerry also chimes in on school choice (ESA's) and how abortion may or may not impact the 2022 elections. 

Today I'm re-joined by author Ryan Burge to discuss his new book "20 Myths About Religion and Politics in America." Ryan talks about how 'Born again' has become its own brand, ethos & style of thinking and how Evangelicalism is still the dominant form of Christianity in America. We also talk about cynicism, institutional trust, the role plausibility structures have played in American Evangelicalism, and more. Ep 109 with Ryan: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/you-have-permission/id1448000113?i=1000513058453 Ryan's Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanburge Ryan's Author Page: http://ryanburge.net/ 20 Myths Book: https://www.amazon.com/Myths-about-Religion-Politics-America/dp/1506482015/ref=sr_1_2?crid=3QBD12BES2J4&keywords=the+nones+ryan+burge&qid=1655855785&s=books&sprefix=the+nones+ryan+burg%2Cstripbooks%2C82&sr=1-2 The Nones Book: https://www.amazon.com/Nones-Where-They-Came-Going/dp/1506465854/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3QBD12BES2J4&keywords=the+nones+ryan+burge&qid=1655855756&s=books&sprefix=the+nones+ryan+burg%2Cstripbooks%2C82&sr=1-1 Follow Dan on IG: www.instagram.com/dancoke/ Or Twitter: twitter.com/DanKoch Faith deconstruction resources: www.soyouredeconstructing.com/ Edited by Josh Gilbert (joshgilbertmedia@gmail.com -- he is accepting more work!) Join the Patreon for exclusive episodes (and more) every month: patreon.com/dankoch Email about the "sliding scale" for the Patreon: youhavepermissionpodcast@gmail.com YHP Patron-only FB group: tinyurl.com/ycvbbf98 Website: www.dankochwords.com/yhp.html Join Dan's email list: www.dankochwords.com/ Artwork by sprungle.co/

This episode we talked about current events in America. What's your take on the current state of politics in America? Hope everyone enjoy!

It's more than you think. Also, can Democrats do anything to stave off disaster in the midterms? Ivanka's misdeeds versus Hunter's. And is the Big Lie taking over legislatures?

Subscribe to Reactionary Minds: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyWelcome to the inaugural episode of Reactionary Minds, a podcast from The UnPopulist that I’ll be hosting every month. This is a show about why some people reject liberalism and what the rest of us can do about it. This first episode is all about introducing the problem Reactionary Minds exists to address. In it, Shikha Dalmia, the editor of The UnPopulist and fellow at the Mercatus Center's Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange, discusses the biggest challenge of our times: The resurgent threat of populist authoritarianism here and abroad. Every regime has its pathologies and populist demagoguery is the pathology of democracies. The “liberal” in liberal democracies is supposed to keep this genie in the bottle, but now that it is out, can we put it back in?This transcript has been lightly edited and condensed for clarityAaron Ross Powell: Welcome to the show.Shikha Dalmia: Thanks for having me, Aaron.Aaron: What is populism?Shikha: It's a good question, and as you've noticed, the name of my newsletter is The UnPopulist, and its addressed at the authoritarian currents we are seeing around the world. Then the question arises why am I calling it The UnPopulist and not the anti-authoritarian or something like that? Partly, because it's cuter, but the more serious reason is that the kind of illiberalism and the kind of authoritarianism we are seeing around the world has what is essentially a populist element.Now there's a lot of confusion around the word populism, and there is actually a great deal of effort on the left to try and take back this word which it thinks has been unfairly characterized in the last six years with the rise of the Trump era and the MAGA era. I, in some ways, feel for some of the left-wing writers, like Thomas Frank who's a public intellectual and an author and something of a Bernie Sanders progressive. He wrote a book not too long ago defending the term populism because he sees populism as essentially a movement of the people. Roger Cohen, a New York Times columnist, similarly wrote in 2018, shortly after Trump, where he also was lamenting the fact that the term populism has acquired this negative connotation.Now, I actually feel for some of these liberals because, as you and I know, we are still grieving the loss of the term liberal. However, I think they fundamentally misunderstand what populism really means and why it has a bad connotation.To some extent, it's a semantic issue, you can give any phenomenon any name, but populism, for the longest time has had a bad odor. They [Frank et al] see populism as essentially a popular movement that is supposed to do the most good for the most people, and those most people are not the rich people. They are generally lower or middle-income people who are the vast majority of the population.But that's not what populism really is. It's not a popular movement. A populist movement, if you read the literature on it, which admittedly is murky, it's about pitting the “real” people against some other entity, and that entity is the elites. The elites are considered to be these corrupt oligarchs, and the people are supposed to be something pure, representing something good.There is instantly this division between the elite, which controls “the establishment,” and the pure people whose interests are being avoided. Now, even that exactly doesn't capture the problem with the term populism. The term populism gets its bad odor from the fact that it's not just that the real people are trying to get their way and have their preferred policies enacted, it is more that they want to flatten certain elements of liberalism, the deliberative process, the representative process, because they believe it's been captured by some bad people, by The Establishment which is not representing them.It's an effort to flatten certain institutions of liberalism, not improve them, not reform them, but simply to either side step them or do an end-run around them, or even just get rid of them so that the real people can have their will.Now, obviously, the real people can't govern. There are too many of them, somebody has to govern for them. So in some senses populist and authoritarian seem like anti-poles. But inevitably they come together because whenever you have a populist movement some authoritarian figure or demagogue arises who will say they're representing the people. And we saw very clearly with Trump, we the people became me the people…they are not representing the people, they are the people. Populism inevitably goes hand-in-hand with a certain kind of authoritarianism, and so therefore, the term unpopulist and therefore why populism is something to be worried about.Aaron: I think that's one of the interesting things about watching the rise of populism in the U.S over the last five or six or seven years, has been that it's framed as an anti-elite movement and “drain the swamp” is an anti-elite thing. We're constantly hearing about these coastal cities where these out-of-touch elites who don't understand the real people are. The real Americans in this context really just means rural working class whites. But then you look at their leadership and it is fantastically wealthy, though we don't know quite how wealthy [in Trump’s case], because his finances are a little sketchy, but a fantastically wealthy businessman.Then in Congress the figureheads for this movement, or at least people trying to claim that mantle, tend to be Ivy league law school educated, pretenders to the common-man identity. You're right, it is this odd thing what begins as a movement framing itself as of the people turns into a personality cult that's no longer about the people's identity, it’s about the people building their identity through fealty to this strong-man leader, which is then how it can very quickly turn into an authoritarian movement, because either that leader's power when he has to do something is seen as absolute, because he's the embodiment of our hopes and dreams and cultural identity, or when that leader's position is threatened, as we saw when Trump lost the election, it can morph quickly into violence in defense of that leader's status. Not so much the working class or the common man status, but defending that leader from perceived failure.Shikha: That's right. Now, populism can be of both the left wing and the right wing varieties, and we have seen them throughout history. Latin America has had populism of every strain. In every instance it has led to the cult of the personality, but there are two things in populism. There is a cult of personality, which is the leader, and then there is a cult of the people too. There is a certain deification of the people that they are true owners of the society, their will needs to be respected.The two, the cult of the leader and the cult of the people, build on each other, they both deify each other. Whether it is Hugo Chavez, whether it is Bolsonaro right now. The Bolsonaro is interesting and he's losing some of his popularity, but Trump is a classic phenomenon of a cult leader, of a demagogue who is leading in the name of the real people, and then the real people deify him. He really was a deity in certain MAGA circles, and he in turn deifies them in his rallies.If you watched some of his rallies, which I tried to avoid as much as possible, but he was constantly flattering the people there. It was, "You people are great, and you are being ignored." Yes, there is this mutual cult of the leader and the cult of the people that goes hand-in-hand in a populist movement.Nomenclature and TaxonomyAaron: I want to stay for a moment on our terms and taxonomies, because the purpose of this show, ultimately, is not just to critique illiberal and populist ideas, but to try to understand them, to try to understand where these people are coming from, what the philosophies and personality traits and historical perspectives that inform them because it's hard to challenge ideas without understanding them deeply and, to the extent you can, fairly.We've talked about what populism is, but this show is not called the authoritarian mind, it's not called the populist mind, it is called Reactionary Minds. Where does the term reactionary fit into all this?Shikha: Aaron, this is your show! You and I both talked about why we like Reactionary Minds. I'll give you my side and perhaps you can say something about why you like it. The textbook definition of reactionary is a person or a sensibility that is opposed to economic or political liberalization of any kind. Usually, it goes along with a certain conservative mentality.I think there's another element to the reactionary sensibility, and that is, it is also anti-ideas, and it's anti-intellectual. The reason is ideas and intellectual theories can lead to change. They require a certain amount of openness to the world and to knowledge, and those can be intensely threatening to existing cultural orders. In that sense, reactionary minds, I think, is a good way to describe the show because you and I are both quite troubled and perturbed by the last six years.Things are happening in America that we never thought would be possible. We think that there needs to be some kind of a response to this, but we can't really fight these ideologies unless we understand them. We do want to understand the reactionary movement that's brewing in America on its own terms. That's the reason I like the term reactionary minds.Aaron: Yes, I agree with all that. What I would add is, I think that you can make the case that political ideology, moral ideology, and so on is, to some extent, downstream of personality, that we tend to have different personal and personality preferences, and then we sometimes look around for theories or intellectual edifices that provide structure to them or support them or don't really challenge them.In that regard, reactionary it is a personality type that says I am turned off by, sometimes threatened by diversity, by change, by things being different than the way that I'm used to, or people who aren't like me being more prominent than they used to be, or higher status than they used to be, or the way we talk about language is changing and that bugs me, and I don't like these kids asking me to use different pronouns or different terminology. There is this set-in-my-ways-ness that drives a lot of this.It's not an accident that Trump when he was first running for president, he led with anti-immigration, with a xenophobic perspective and a nationalism that was the corollary of that, because for a lot of his most faithful followers, it's “America is looking different than either the way I was used to it being, or the way that I imagined it being, or the way that I would like it to look demographic.”On the far fringes of the populace, we get the Great Replacement Theory about they're trying to change the demographics of the country to make it less white than it used to be. There is this very “I don't like difference” and then reacting strongly against that, then that feeds into political preferences, which is, "I'm going to vote for the person who will stop the change, whether that's preventing immigrants who don't look and talk like me from coming into the country, or will elevate the status of the people who have the same preferences I do against the people with the diverse preferences that I dislike."That's another thing that I want to dig into on the show is the way that there is such a thing, I think, as a populist or an authoritarian or reactionary psychology as well. There are ideas that inform it, but there's also just beliefs and values and attitudes and they end up mixing together into this very toxic political outcome. That was the attraction to me of the reactionary minds, because it gets both the notion that this is an ideological perspective, but also that this is just an attitudinal perspective.Shikha: Right. That's very well stated, Aaron. I would, however, push back just slightly in that we do want to make a distinction between the conservative mind and the reactionary mind. Bill Buckley's very famous statement when he launched the National Review was he wants to stand athwart history screaming or yelling stop. There is a way in which, even though I am not a conservative, never have been, never will be, I can understand the urge to be careful about change and reform, and to be a little deliberative. You don't want to simply throw out existing social arrangements just because some fad has taken hold of the land.There is a way in which the conservatives, even though I'm not a conservative, they can be incrementalists, but not completely opposed to reform. Reactionaries, I think, is conservatism on steroids in that sense. Reactionaries simply don't want change because they don't like change. Usually, reactionariness is a phenomenon that's associated with conservatism, but to the extent that it's not just any change that reactionaries are opposed to, it's actually liberalism that they are opposed to. To the extent its liberalization they are opposed to, they can even come from the progressive side.Like communists when China liberalized its economy, there were reactionaries in China who wanted the communist order to hold and they didn't want liberalization. In that sense, I like the term reactionary because potentially, it will even capture the leftist reactionaries.Leftist ExcessesAaron: I think that often manifests in the contemporary American left as an intolerance of difference. That is, it's not the same as the intolerance of difference that we see from the right, which is obviously very much there, but rather, the left thinks we have advanced, we have liberalized, so certain behaviors that used to be socially unacceptable are now considered normal, or certain underprivileged groups that used to be underprivileged are now considered no different than everyone else.That liberalization is good. That's the kind of liberalization we want, but there is a tendency among some people on the left to then to be incredibly intolerant not of difference in the political realm. It's one thing to say yes, we should — people who want to re-criminalize gay marriage or gay relationships that's bad, but it's people who themselves in their own lives are not affirmatively supportive of these things need to be stamped out, need to be punished.This often can manifest in the lefts wanting to punish businesses that weren't supportive of gay weddings, baking cakes for gay weddings. The small conservative baker says, "That's against my conscience. I don't want to bake a cake for your wedding." In a genuinely liberal society the answer to that is, "Okay." Like, "I will go somewhere else and get a cake from somewhere else and no harm, no foul."The liberalism that manifests on the left is like, "No." It's not enough that you are just saying, "Hey, I don't want to participate." You have to participate and embrace, or we are going to, in this case, try to use the state to punish you, to destroy your business, to find you, to drive you out, because you're not one of us. That ends up with this ratcheting up of the reactionariness because then what that says to the people who are more culturally conservative is, "I need to dig in even deeper because if the culture drifts in a more liberal direction, that's even more ground for me to be punished often with state force. I need to fight even harder because  I won't be tolerated.Shikha: That's exactly the dynamic we are in right now. The problem with the left is that it's too impatient and, to some extent, one can understand its impatience. I think systemic injustices are prevalent, systemic racism is a thing! We all do need to grapple with legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, all of that is correct. But the left doesn't want to do the real hard work of changing hearts and minds. It wants to grab power nodes and exercise and push on them to engineer change.It's not just the levers of the state that they are using, it's also the levers of corporate power and what have you. Not all of [these tactics] are illicit. Some of them are perfectly acceptable. Certain kinds of boycotts against views clearly beyond the pale are probably acceptable. But they have lost the capacity of making distinctions between good-natured fear of what they are asking for — and a reactionary fear, I guess.It's this lack of calibration and this lack of finesse in their techniques, which is a big problem. This, in some ways, is driving a more reactionary attitude on the part of the conservatives, bringing out their worst tendencies.But I actually don't want to simply blame the left . I think the conservatives always wanted — there was a certain kind of conservative mind that was always uncomfortable with certain social changes, gay marriage, what have you. They've also been looking for a pretext to dig in. I think to some extent, the left is giving them a pretext [by its excesses]. It's not a reason, it's a pretext for their reactionariness. It's hard to untangle all of this, I admit, but all these currents are right now with us.Aaron: At their core they're all ultimately a rejection of genuine liberalism, which is if nothing else, it is a belief in a social tolerance and social pluralism. If we're going to live together in a big society, commonly governed, we have to get along with each other. The way that you get along with each other given our diversity of viewpoints and values and preferences and backgrounds and so on is to tolerate difference. To say: "I'm going to let you live the way that you want to live and I'm going to live the way that I want to live. Even if I'm not celebrating the choices that you make, I'm accepting them as part of this liberal consensus."So much of what we're seeing now seems to be a rejection of that liberal consensus of saying, "No, it's not just that I think I am right in… All of us think we're right in our own preferences and values or we wouldn't hold them. It's not just that, it's saying, Therefore, anyone who differs from my preferences and values is wrong and is wrong to an extent that they are dangerous or a threat or impure, or in some other way, need to be, whether it's with the state or other mechanisms, need to be shut down, excluded, punished so that we can have a higher degree of uniformity that happens to align with my preferences.Shikha: When Obama became president he was against gay marriage. He was against all kinds of pro-gay policies, and then, of course, during the course of his presidency he changed his mind. I wonder if there is any room for Obama in the current left. Room for evolution of thinking.Now I think Obama was always there and he was holding back for strategic reasons, which turned out to actually be not bad reasons. You can see the growing intolerance of the left in that it's not just being censorious against the right, but it's also being censorious toward its own. That’s why, in a way, I'm a little less worried about the left, because the left, in its demand for purity and consistency, in a way is becoming less united and is at that stage of devouring its own.The left is now generating healthy pushback. I actually think if Trump had not arrived on the horizon, there was so much concern within the left about the left that right now we would be in a much better position with respect to the left. But with Trump arriving on the scene, I feel myself pivoting. I think there is no bigger threat in this country than the right because it has become so completely not just reactionary, but authoritarian and illiberal in 30 different ways that I've had to drop my attention on the left and now right is the big problem.Before Trump arrived, I remember Vox, very much a progressive publication, had published a piece by a liberal professor saying something to the effect, "My liberal students terrify me." This piece went on to say that conservative students his class, this was a professor who's in a liberal arts college, who said the conservative students in his class will push back, might not like his ideas, but are still willing to discuss them. Liberal students were not willing to do that.Now what we are seeing on the other hand is that the right is no longer simply pushing back against what were legitimately called left-wing excesses. It wants to just crush them. Now you are seeing bills banning the teaching of critical race theory. That's where the reactionariness comes in. This is no longer now about calibrating the pace of the change, it's not about that. Now we are only going to impose our vision from like 200 years ago. Now it’s in a completely different orbit.The Roots of Modern Day Right-Wing PopulistsAaron: We talked about Trumpism as exemplary of the kind of populism that we are concerned about, but is Trump the major figure, or who are the other figures that are important to understand when looking at the lay of the land on American populism, left or right, the main, I guess, influencers, as the kids say?Shikha: Well, populism in America, depending upon how you use the term, has a long history. The first populist movement was the People's Party in 1890, which was a third party. It was this agrarian movement and labor movement against the industrialization that was happening. In the building of the railroads, lots of people were dispossessed; traditional livelihoods were lost. That is generally regarded as the first populist movement in this country. It got co-opted by the Democratic Party, which became the labor union party. The People's Party put it's a lot behind William Bryan Jennings. When he lost the election that year, it spelled the end of that party, but it got co-opted by Democrats.You've seen certain other populist movements arguably whether George Wallace, he was a populist phenomenon, very much appealing to the same kinds of anxieties that Trump now appeals to. In between, you had The Tea Party movement, you also had the Occupy Wall Street movement.The difference is that the Tea Party, I think, was the beginning of the turn towards MAGAism. Although interestingly, the Tea Party movement was very much pitching itself as this constitutional movement. It wanted to return to the Founders. It wanted to limit the scope of the government, all of which went out of the window when Trump came along.I think Trump is not sui generis. Partly, the Tea Party is behind him but partly, I think we had the phenomenon of right-wing radio with the advent of Rush Limbaugh who started pushing all kinds of populist tropes. He was a nativist. He was anti-left. The preoccupation with the leftist enemy is a huge, huge part of the right, right now. I think that's the single biggest motivating force. Even the anti-immigration and the anti-immigrant animus is not quite as powerful a force as the fear and anger and the hatred of the left, actually.I think Rush Limbaugh started stoking that, and then you had a whole slew of copycats on the right. That paved the way for Trump. The right was primed for a populist takeover, and then Trump came along with his MAGA message and at that stage, all the right wanted to do was use the levers of the state to smash the left and impose its vision of a insular, insulated, closed America polity.Aaron: This isn't new, even with Trump, even with Rush Limbaugh, this is what we watched in the '50s and '60s with anti-communism, was the Soviet Union was a legitimate threat, although maybe in retrospect, not as big of a threat as we thought it was at the time. There were communists in the country, although they weren't going to win out. America was not going to turn communist, but they did exist, and communism was very bad.The American right used that as a way to exert the power of the federal government to punish particularly culturally left people or people who were calling for liberalization of the positions of Blacks or gays or women and so on. That the urge to define an enemy and then use a potentially an inflated threat of that enemy — or mischaracterizations of that enemy or strawman version of that enemy — to justify a reactionary turn is very strong.A moment ago we were talking about Trump and you said had Trump not come along the left would have fractured more than it did. What's interesting about Trump is that he unified both the right and the left into these deeply tribally opposed camps. For decades, the conservative movement was split between — there was the base that looked very much like Trumpism does now. The conservative right’s reactionary base has been around as long as there has been a right. But you had the elites, the Bill Buckley types or the Ronald Reagan or the Paul Ryan who controlled the GOP and pushed it in a more, if not liberal, at least more liberal-adjacent on its best days direction.That went away with Trump and suddenly the elites all either swore fealty, or at least shut up about their criticisms of the really reactionary right. And then on the left, you had exactly that, that the left, those fault lines went away because we had a unified enemy. Trump won't be around forever, and so there's a sense in which that potentially gives a way out when that enemy has gone away.There are other people like what DeSantis is doing in Florida right now, he's clearly trying to tee himself up as the inheritor of the Trump mantel. But it's questionable whether any of the people trying to do that have Trump's — I'm going to call it — charisma, but a lot of people think of it as such, but Trump's showmanship. There's something about him and his celebrity and all of that that made him successful in the way that someone who had just spouted the same views probably would not have been. Is there cause for hope there that if the populist leader goes away, then the sides will become more pluralistic than they are now?MAGA’s Ugly Progeny: Integralists and NationalistsShikha: It's a good question. No, I'm actually not optimistic about that. Look, what Trump did was he didn't really unite the Republican Party, what he did was he united a certain element within the Republican Party, and the rest of those who didn't agree with him were either purged — Paul Ryan didn't last a year after Trump came on the scene — or became persona non grata within the party.That's actually a classic populist move. It's not just that they don't respect parliamentary institutions and they don't respect the opposition, they actually turn their own party into an embodiment of themselves, and you've seen that with Trump. It's literally classic populism. In that sense, I think he's been hugely damaging to the Republican Party in a way that I'm not sure the Republican Party can recover from it for a very long time. Or at least I think it has to be in the political wilderness for a very long time. It has to be punished at the polls repeatedly before it will give up this populist formula.I think even though there may not be a charismatic figure like Trump, and the reason I was laughing when you said charismatic, because I know to you and me, he's just so utterly not charismatic. It's hard for us to see his appeal, but there'll be other populists who will try and copy him. They may not be successful, but their very presence is going to be damaging. That's one.The bigger danger of Trump is not Trump but Trumpism. Trumpism is essentially an illiberal mindset that doesn't respect the checks on executive power. It gives various factions within the conservative right, therefore, the permission to use the levers of the state to promote their own vision. You've written about this, the integralist movement. Why is that emerging now? The national conservative movement, why is that emerging now?He's actually fractured whatever little uneasy fusion/consensus there was in the right and allowed these illiberal monster children of MAGAism now to assert themselves. I actually think things are going to get much worse before they get better.Aaron: Let's turn briefly to the integralist movement and the national conservatism movement which somehow overlap but are distinct in other ways because they represent an interesting move on the part of the conservative elite to try to take on the energy of Trump's populism, but intellectualize it too because, Trumpism is basically all id.There's not an intellectual philosophical through-line there, but the national conservatives and the integralist are saying, "No, there is a philosophical case against liberalism, that liberalism has failed for reasons inherent to it, and that we need to embrace non-liberal, well thought out philosophical positions." If Trump is spouting id, the integralists and the national conservatives have legitimately thoughtful and often interesting thinkers articulating these views in ways that are I think they're wrong and I think they're often dangerously wrong, but they're not stupid and they're worth wrestling with.It is interesting watching these very elites. These are law professors and philosophy professors and theologians trying to take this energy and reapply the intellectual veneer that used to exist with Buckley, the National Review but was shed under Trump.Shikha: The difference between Buckley and the [Adrian] Vermeules of the day is that Buckley was still trying to promote a certain conservatism within a broadly liberal framework and a broadly liberal understanding. He agreed that checks and balances were a good thing, checks on executive power were a good thing. All of that is now out of the window with these new movements.Discontents with liberalism are always there because liberalism is an uneasy equilibrium between all kinds of different interests that don't comfortably fit together. Minorities are not happy with liberalism because liberalism doesn't give them the levers of power to instantly correct all the injustices against them. They are always unhappy. Of course, the majority is unhappy because, especially in a liberal democratic society, if pure majoritarian rule were to exist, it would get its way far more frequently.Everybody is always unhappy with liberalism. But there has always been this understanding there that life on the other side of liberalism is nasty, brutish, and short, so we better stick with liberalism. That consensus that liberalism may be wanting, but there is no other real alternative, that understanding is completely gone because some people have come to believe, thanks to Trump's assault on liberalism, that they can have the whole cake.The integralists, and you wrote great stuff about this — integralists, as you've pointed out, are a really weird movement because they're Catholics, they are actually a minority, and integralists within Catholicism are a really small minority, so why would you want to give up liberalism? The answer is that they think that any conservative state will give them more of what they want than they'll get from a liberal state.Ultimately, even a reactionary like Trump will give them more than anybody else will. Hence they have turned on liberalism because they feel they're getting less out of it. Every faction within conservatism I think is making a similar bet. You have national conservatism, which is a very, very diverse movement. You have Yoram Hazony who's an Israeli intellectual, who's the godfather of this movement, weirdly enough. You also have standard nationalists who just feel like there should be more flag-waving in the United States. You have somebody like Rich Lowry, who was actually [initially] a Never Trumper, and now feels that there needs to be some kind of America First-ism in America. He's flirting with something like blood and soil nationalism based on geography and ancestry. That will rule me out as a robust American citizen, I'm not sure about you. Geography it means Americans need to love the landscape of this country. The Shenandoah Valley is something that every American should do a pilgrimage to. It's all goofy stuff. They all feel whatever was missing in the liberal arrangement in America now they feel it's up for grabs, and they're all trying to make a bid for it very quickly to get what they can.Aaron: In the time that we have left, I want to turn to the future of this podcast. This is the inaugural episode of Reactionary Minds, we plan to do a lot more of these. Our goals, why we created this show, and what we're hoping to get out of it. I can start on this one. I touched on this a bit earlier, but I think my goal is this rise of liberalism is really troubling. As someone who has dedicated his career to advancing a quite radical conception of individual and economic liberty and individual autonomy and self-authorship, this is a direct assault on the values that not only I hold, but I think are the ones that lead to the best world for everyone.This has always been with us, but it has ramped up considerably. We're seeing some of it on the left, we are seeing one of the two major parties, more or less, entirely overtaken by it. We have seen it embodied in a president, we are seeing an increasing number of intellectuals come out in support of it in one form or another. This is a real threat. The value of a show like this is in trying to understand where that's all coming from, and what it is the people who hold these views actually want, why they want it? What are the ideas that are leading them to it or providing support for it?I don't want this to be a superficial understanding or a dismissive or they're all just evil kind of way because that's easy and ultimately uninteresting. My goal is to really try to understand them on their own terms and then to critique it from the perspective of the value of radical liberty.Shikha: That's exactly right, Aaron. That's why I'm excited that you are doing this. I think this is going to be a great podcast. As you've said, the plan is to understand this illiberalism and its appeal at every level, psychological, social, political. I'm sure you will be having guests that address all of it. Marxism makes this distinction between theory and praxis. You and I, we both have a penchant for an intellectual understanding of things. We like to understand things at a theoretical level, it's almost an end in itself. But in this case, we cannot fight this phenomenon without actually understanding it. [On the praxis side], The UnPopulist is not going to shy away calling the right reactionary and taking on specific political figures who are behaving in an illiberal fashion. It’s not going to shy away from taking sides. We know what we are opposing. But to me the theory of Reactionary Minds is going to inform the praxis of The UnPopulist. So there is a yin and yang here that I’m super excited about. I really look forward to this. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunpopulist.substack.com

The Florida House Bill 1557, popularly known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, continues to stir controversy. The bill has been criticized by advocates of the LGBTQ community as discriminatory, while others believe that this gives parents the right to know what their children are being taught in school and that it would help protect their children from being exposed to gender ideology at a young age. As the "Don't Say Gay" bill has brought to light many questions about free speech and LGBTQ+ rights, is the bill oppressing gender expression or does it give parents the basic right to raise their children?In today's episode, Jim and Dan talk about how the mask mandates are still a topic of great interest, what Jen Psaki has to say about Florida's Parental Rights in Education Bill, and why Elon Musk no longer owns the largest stake in Twitter.Enjoy!In This Episode02:53 - What to look forward to in future episodes of the Pod Bless America Podcast06:45 - How the mask mandates are still a topic of great interest12:15 - Jen Psaki to leave White House for MSNBC15:07 - What Jen Psaki has to say about Florida's Parental Rights in Education Bill21:30 - Jim's trip to Florida for the Walt Disney World Marathon Weekend in 202324:52 - Psaki's interpretation of the Parental Rights in Education Bill30:41 - How Nicolle Wallace accuses Ron DeSantis and Glenn Youngkin of dehumanizing people as a political strategy37:07 - Why Elon Musk no longer owns the largest stake in Twitter54:05- The story of Taylor Lorenz and Libs of TikTokFavorite Quotes24:53 - "California, New York, everybody should reverse course and say, hey, come on back. If you want a bunch of teachers teaching your six-year-old about sex and sexual identity, and you know what, telling your six-year-old son that he can be a girl, come on back. We got the teachers for you. They're all here waiting. You know who's not going to come back, every single person who lives in Florida" - Jim Larkin and Dan Wilkinson Jr.33:19 - "If these kids feel like they want to be transgender, that is an issue for the parents to take care of. Those kids can go and those parents can nurture them and they can love them and they can bring them up and tell them, look, you are okay. But you know who can't do that? The teachers. The teachers are not allowed to take your kid and say, you can be like this it's okay. And you know what? We're not gonna tell your parents." - Jim LarkinFollow the Pod Bless America Podcast on GETTREngage with Pod Bless America PodcastEmail: jim@pbapodcast.comEmail: dan@pbapodcast.comFacebookListen to more episodes of the Pod Bless America PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle Podcasts

The way most people think about religion and politics is only loosely linked to empirical reality argues Ryan Burge in his new book, 20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America. He explores the data and challenges common myths frequently circulated in social media. Burge is an assistant professor of political science and graduate coordinator at Eastern Illinois University. He teaches in a variety of areas, including American institutions, political behavior, and research methods. His research focuses largely on the interaction between religion and political behavior, especially in the American context. Burge is author of The Nones, and is a pastor in the American Baptist Church. Ryan Burge website: http://ryanburge.net/ 20 Myths bout Religion and Politics in America: https://www.amazon.com/Myths-about-Religion-Politics-America/dp/1506482015/ The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going: https://www.amazon.com/Nones-Where-They-Came-Going/dp/1506465854/ #RyanBurge #Nones #religion #politics #religionandpolitics

Dr. Ryan Burge, author, “20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America” 20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America

In this episode, we welcome Ryan Burge back to the show. Ryan is a pastor, writer, PhD Political Science professor, and a podcast alum (Ep. 264). In his previous interview, we discussed his first book called The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, And Where They Are Going. In this interview, we dig into his new book called 20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America. In this interview, we cover common myths in the US surrounding thoughts on abortion inside the church, why people “leave the faith”, how churchgoers break down politically, why the religiously unaffiliated cohort is growing, and much more. Let's get into it… Episode notes and links HERE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode we had on one of the great minds in America, Dr. Emmitt Riley III. Dr. Riley is Director and Associate Professor of Africana Studies at DePauw  University. He is also the President Elect of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. We talked about black politics in America as it pertains to the importance of the black vote, political messaging,  the importance of HBCUs, history of politics, and much more. This is a very informative episode so get ready! Dr. Riley is also the Co-author of Racial Attitudes in America Today: One Nation Still Divided. See the link below to pre-order. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003147473/racial-attitudes-america-today-clarissa-peterson-emmitt-riley-iiiFollow on IGhttp://www.instagram.com/drriley_3rd

This weeks episode:This week, Ryan and Brian are talking with Dr. Ryan Burge. Dr. Burge was on the podcast back in season 1 discussing his book "The Nones". In this week's episode, he's discussing his new book "20 Myths about Religion and Politics In America." They discuss some of the myths Dr. Burge highlights in the book and why addressing these myths is important for the church. They also discuss how to have difficult conversations around some of these topics. Links:https://www.amazon.com/Myths-about-Religion-Politics-America/dp/1506482015/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?crid=PIGQDAR8PK25&keywords=20+myths+about+religion+and+politics+in+america&qid=1645495524&sprefix=20+myths+about+religion%2Caps%2C87&sr=8-2-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyNzc3VjlYVkpNSU5MJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUExMDI4NTYzM1Y0UkZaVFFOOVI1OSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjc5NDQ4SkdTMjZNWVQ2NlI3JndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ== (20 Myths about Religion and Politics in America: Burge, Ryan P.: 9781506482019: Amazon.com: Books) http://ryanburge.net/ (Ryan Burge, PhD – Ryan Burge, Political Science) https://twitter.com/ryanburge (Ryan Burge

“This is America”: Race Gender and Politics in America's Musical Landscape by Katie Rios (Lexington Books, 2021) examines an eclectic mix of different artists and cultural products, from Laurie Anderson and Childish Gambino to Hamilton. The artists Rios studies confront problems of race and gender that have deep roots in American history, often by championing social movements that have recently swept the nation such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter. While a musicologist by training, Rios is concerned with more than the sonic signifiers of political dissent and resistance. She finds a shared language of cultural and political critique in a wide array of music, videos, dance, visual arts, and theater. Kristen M. Turner is a lecturer in the music and honors departments at North Carolina State University. Her research centers on race and class in American popular entertainment at the turn of the twentieth century. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/popular-culture

Mentioned in this Episode: Dr. Nestle's Daily Bloghttps://www.foodpolitics.com/ Dr. Nestle's Bookshttps://www.foodpolitics.com/books/ The Dietary Guidelines for Americanshttps://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf Argavan Nilforoush's solo episode on the Dietary Guidelines for Americanshttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-go-episode-38-the-dietary-guidelines-for/id1580301084?i=1000546816946  For more on Dr. Nestle, you can follow her on Twitter @marionnestle and through her website https://www.foodpolitics.com/about/. For more on Argavan Nilforoush, be sure to follow her on Instagram @babystepsnutrition, on Facebook: Baby Steps Nutrition Podcast page, on Twitter @argavanRDN, on LinkedIn @ArgavanNilforoush and through her websitewww.babystepsnutrition.com.