Podcasts about Alexis de Tocqueville

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, President Trump deserves great credit for the trillions of dollars he's bringing into our country from foreign governments and overseas corporations! It's absolutely unprecedented! Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia included some of the lines used by the Soros-Koch isolationist crowd about neocons and interventionists, but the irony is that it was given in the context of a globalist outreach effort to make economic and military deals with and between Middle East monarchies/dictatorships and the biggest of America's globalists/internationalists/corporatists. Also, in On Power, there's a stark contrast between America's founding, rooted in a blend of faith and Enlightenment ideals, and the centralized control sought by political Islam, as highlighted by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim reformist. Jasser argues that Islamism, unlike the Judeo-Christian principles shaping America's Constitution, rejects individual liberty and enforces a monolithic faith, often tied to anti-Israel and anti-Semitic agendas, as seen in groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Drawing from Alexis de Tocqueville and Jasser's insights, Mark explores how Islamists, inspired by figures like Sayyid Qutb, aim to dismantle Western society, viewed as ignorant of divine guidance, to impose a rigid “pure Islam.” This clash of ideologies, coupled with the deceptive language of tyrannies like Islamism and Marxism, underscores the battle for liberty and the soul of nations. Later, neocons, many of whom were former Jewish Democrats, left the Democratic Party and adopted a hawkish foreign policy stance. While many are no longer alive, today, some avoid blaming Jews for pushing war, instead pointing to neocons as the instigators. Opposing Iran's nuclear ambitions is patriotism, not neoconservatism, due to Iran's terrorist activities and history of violating agreements. Finally, Ken Hartman, Founder & President of Our Community Salutes, calls in to discuss his national nonprofit organization, which is dedicated to recognizing and supporting high school seniors who plan to enlist in the U.S. Armed Services after graduation.  Their goal is to get 250,000 Americans to sign a thank you card to our nation's newest enlistees in the military. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Pensiero politico, movimenti, ideologie e correnti nell'800. Significato e caratteristiche di liberalismo, democrazia e socialismo nell'Europa del 1800.

Hello Interactors,This week, the European Space Agency launched a satellite to "weigh" Earth's 1.5 trillion trees. It will give scientists deeper insight into forests and their role in the climate — far beyond surface readings. Pretty cool. And it's coming from Europe.Meanwhile, I learned that the U.S. Secretary of Defense — under Trump — had a makeup room installed in the Pentagon to look better on TV. Also pretty cool, I guess. And very American.The contrast was hard to miss. Even with better data, the U.S. shows little appetite for using geographic insight to actually address climate change. Information is growing. Willpower, not so much.So it was oddly clarifying to read a passage Christopher Hobson posted on Imperfect Notes from a book titled America by a French author — a travelogue of softs. Last week I offered new lenses through which to see the world, I figured I'd try this French pair on — to see America, and the world it effects, as he did.PAPER, POWER, AND PROJECTIONI still have a folded paper map of Seattle in the door of my car. It's a remnant of a time when physical maps reflected the reality before us. You unfolded a map and it innocently offered the physical world on a page. The rest was left to you — including knowing how to fold it up again.But even then, not all maps were neutral or necessarily innocent. Sure, they crowned capitals and trimmed borders, but they could also leave things out or would make certain claims. From empire to colony, from mission to market, maps often arrived not to reflect place, but to declare control of it. Still, we trusted it…even if was an illusion.I learned how to interrogate maps in my undergraduate history of cartography class — taught by the legendary cartographer Waldo Tobler. But even with that knowledge, when I was then taught how to make maps, that interrogation was more absent. I confidently believed I was mediating truth. The lines and symbols I used pointed to substance; they signaled a thing. I traced rivers from existing base maps with a pen on vellum and trusted they existed in the world as sure as the ink on the page. I cut out shading for a choropleth map and believed it told a stable story about population, vegetation, or economics. That trust was embodied in representation — the idea that a sign meant something enduring. That we could believe what maps told us.This is the world of semiotics — the study of how signs create meaning. American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce offered a sturdy model: a sign (like a map line) refers to an object (the river), and its meaning emerges in interpretation. Meaning, in this view, is relational — but grounded. A stop sign, a national anthem, a border — they meant something because they pointed beyond themselves, to a world we shared.But there are cracks in this seemingly sturdy model.These cracks pose this question: why do we trust signs in the first place? That trust — in maps, in categories, in data — didn't emerge from neutrality. It was built atop agendas.Take the first U.S. census in 1790. It didn't just count — it defined. Categories like “free white persons,” “all other free persons,” and “slaves” weren't neutral. They were political tools, shaping who mattered and by how much. People became variables. Representation became abstraction.Or Carl Linnaeus, the 18th-century Swedish botanist who built the taxonomies we still use: genus, species, kingdom. His system claimed objectivity but was shaped by distance and empire. Linnaeus never left Sweden. He named what he hadn't seen, classified people he'd never met — sorting humans into racial types based on colonial stereotypes. These weren't observations. They were projections based on stereotypes gathered from travelers, missionaries, and imperial officials.Naming replaced knowing. Life was turned into labels. Biology became filing. And once abstracted, it all became governable, measurable, comparable, and, ultimately, manageable.Maps followed suit.What once lived as a symbolic invitation — a drawing of place — became a system of location. I was studying geography at a time (and place) when Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and GIScience was transforming cartography. Maps weren't just about visual representations; they were spatial databases. Rows, columns, attributes, and calculations took the place of lines and shapes on map. Drawing what we saw turned to abstracting what could then be computed so that it could then be visualized, yes, but also managed.Chris Perkins, writing on the philosophy of mapping, argued that digital cartographies didn't just depict the world — they constituted it. The map was no longer a surface to interpret, but a script to execute. As critical geographers Sam Hind and Alex Gekker argue, the modern “mapping impulse” isn't about understanding space — it's about optimizing behavior through it; in a world of GPS and vehicle automation, the map no longer describes the territory, it becomes it. Laura Roberts, writing on film and geography, showed how maps had fused with cinematic logic — where places aren't shown, but performed. Place and navigation became narrative. New York in cinema isn't a place — it's a performance of ambition, alienation, or energy. Geography as mise-en-scène.In other words, the map's loss of innocence wasn't just technical. It was ontological — a shift in the very nature of what maps are and what kind of reality they claim to represent. Geography itself had entered the domain of simulation — not representing space but staging it. You can simulate traveling anywhere in the world, all staged on Google maps. Last summer my son stepped off the train in Edinburgh, Scotland for the first time in his life but knew exactly where he was. He'd learned it driving on simulated streets in a simulated car on XBox. He walked us straight to our lodging.These shifts in reality over centuries weren't necessarily mistakes. They unfolded, emerged, or evolved through the rational tools of modernity — and for a time, they worked. For many, anyway. Especially for those in power, seeking power, or benefitting from it. They enabled trade, governance, development, and especially warfare. But with every shift came this question: at what cost?FROM SIGNS TO SPECTACLEAs early as the early 1900s, Max Weber warned of a world disenchanted by bureaucracy — a society where rationalization would trap the human spirit in what he called an iron cage. By mid-century, thinkers pushed this further.Michel Foucault revealed how systems of knowledge — from medicine to criminal justice — were entangled with systems of power. To classify was to control. To represent was to discipline. Roland Barthes dissected the semiotics of everyday life — showing how ads, recipes, clothing, even professional wrestling were soaked in signs pretending to be natural.Guy Debord, in the 1967 The Society of the Spectacle, argued that late capitalism had fully replaced lived experience with imagery. “The spectacle,” he wrote, “is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.”Then came Jean Baudrillard — a French sociologist, media theorist, and provocateur — who pushed the critique of representation to its limit. In the 1980s, where others saw distortion, he saw substitution: signs that no longer referred to anything real. Most vividly, in his surreal, gleaming 1986 travelogue America, he described the U.S. not as a place, but as a performance — a projection without depth, still somehow running.Where Foucault showed that knowledge was power, and Debord showed that images replaced life, Baudrillard argued that signs had broken free altogether. A map might once distort or simplify — but it still referred to something real. By the late 20th century, he argued, signs no longer pointed to anything. They pointed only to each other.You didn't just visit Disneyland. You visited the idea of America — manufactured, rehearsed, rendered. You didn't just use money. You used confidence by handing over a credit card — a symbol of wealth that is lighter and moves faster than any gold.In some ways, he was updating a much older insight by another Frenchman. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in the 1830s, he wasn't just studying law or government — he was studying performance. He saw how Americans staged democracy, how rituals of voting and speech created the image of a free society even as inequality and exclusion thrived beneath it. Tocqueville wasn't cynical. He simply understood that America believed in its own image — and that belief gave it a kind of sovereign feedback loop.Baudrillard called this condition simulation — when representation becomes self-contained. When the distinction between real and fake no longer matters because everything is performance. Not deception — orchestration.He mapped four stages of this logic:* Faithful representation – A sign reflects a basic reality. A map mirrors the terrain.* Perversion of reality – The sign begins to distort. Think colonial maps as logos or exclusionary zoning.* Pretending to represent – The sign no longer refers to anything but performs as if it does. Disneyland isn't America — it's the fantasy of America. (ironically, a car-free America)* Pure simulation – The sign has no origin or anchor. It floats. Zillow heatmaps, Uber surge zones — maps that don't reflect the world, but determine how you move through it.We don't follow maps as they were once known anymore. We follow interfaces.And not just in apps. Cities themselves are in various stages of simulation. New York still sells itself as a global center. But in a distributed globalized and digitized economy, there is no center — only the perversion of an old reality. Paris subsidizes quaint storefronts not to nourish citizens, but to preserve the perceived image of Paris. Paris pretending to be Paris. Every city has its own marketing campaign. They don't manage infrastructure — they manage perception. The skyline is a product shot. The streetscape is marketing collateral and neighborhoods are optimized for search.Even money plays this game.The U.S. dollar wasn't always king. That title once belonged to the British pound — backed by empire, gold, and industry. After World War II, the dollar took over, pegged to gold under the Bretton Woods convention — a symbol of American postwar power stability…and perversion. It was forged in an opulent, exclusive, hotel in the mountains of New Hampshire. But designed in the style of Spanish Renaissance Revival, it was pretending to be in Spain. Then in 1971, Nixon snapped the dollar's gold tether. The ‘Nixon Shock' allowed the dollar to float — its value now based not on metal, but on trust. It became less a store of value than a vessel of belief. A belief that is being challenged today in ways that recall the instability and fragmentation of the pre-WWII era.And this dollar lives in servers, not Industrial Age iron vaults. It circulates as code, not coin. It underwrites markets, wars, and global finance through momentum alone. And when the pandemic hit, there was no digging into reserves.The Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet with keystrokes — injecting trillions into the economy through bond purchases, emergency loans, and direct payments. But at the same time, Trump 1.0 showed printing presses rolling, stacks of fresh bills bundled and boxed — a spectacle of liquidity. It was monetary policy as theater. A simulation of control, staged in spreadsheets by the Fed and photo ops by the Executive Branch. Not to reflect value, but to project it. To keep liquidity flowing and to keep the belief intact.This is what Baudrillard meant by simulation. The sign doesn't lie — nor does it tell the truth. It just works — as long as we accept it.MOOD OVER MEANINGReality is getting harder to discern. We believe it to be solid — that it imposes friction. A law has consequences. A price reflects value. A city has limits. These things made sense because they resist us. Because they are real.But maybe that was just the story we told. Maybe it was always more mirage than mirror.Now, the signs don't just point to reality — they also replace it. We live in a world where the image outpaces the institution. Where the copy is smoother than the original. Where AI does the typing. Where meaning doesn't emerge — it arrives prepackaged and pre-viral. It's a kind of seductive deception. It's hyperreality where performance supersedes substance. Presence and posture become authority structured in style.Politics is not immune to this — it's become the main attraction.Trump's first 100 days didn't aim to stabilize or legislate but to signal. Deportation as UFC cage match — staged, brutal, and televised. Tariff wars as a way of branding power — chaos with a catchphrase. Climate retreat cast as perverse theater. Gender redefined and confined by executive memo. Birthright citizenship challenged while sedition pardoned. Even the Gulf of Mexico got renamed. These aren't policies, they're productions.Power isn't passing through law. It's passing through the affect of spectacle and a feed refresh.Baudrillard once wrote that America doesn't govern — it narrates. Trump doesn't manage policy, he manages mood. Like an actor. When America's Secretary of Defense, a former TV personality, has a makeup studio installed inside the Pentagon it's not satire. It's just the simulation, doing what it does best: shining under the lights.But this logic runs deeper than any single figure.Culture no longer unfolds. It reloads. We don't listen to the full album — we lift 10 seconds for TikTok. Music is made for algorithms. Fashion is filtered before it's worn. Selfhood is a brand channel. Identity is something to monetize, signal, or defend — often all at once.The economy floats too. Meme stocks. NFTs. Speculative tokens. These aren't based in value — they're based in velocity. Attention becomes the currency.What matters isn't what's true, but what trends. In hyperreality, reference gives way to rhythm. The point isn't to be accurate. The point is to circulate. We're not being lied to.We're being engaged. And this isn't a bug, it's a feature.Which through a Baudrillard lens is why America — the simulation — persists.He saw it early. Describing strip malls, highways, slogans, themed diners he saw an America that wasn't deep. That was its genius he saw. It was light, fast paced, and projected. Like the movies it so famously exports. It didn't need justification — it just needed repetition.And it's still repeating.Las Vegas is the cathedral of the logic of simulation — a city that no longer bothers pretending. But it's not alone. Every city performs, every nation tries to brand itself. Every policy rollout is scored like a product launch. Reality isn't navigated — it's streamed.And yet since his writing, the mood has shifted. The performance continues, but the music underneath it has changed. The techno-optimism of Baudrillard's ‘80s an ‘90s have curdled. What once felt expansive now feels recursive and worn. It's like a show running long after the audience has gone home. The rager has ended, but Spotify is still loudly streaming through the speakers.“The Kids' Guide to the Internet” (1997), produced by Diamond Entertainment and starring the unnervingly wholesome Jamison family. It captures a moment of pure techno-optimism — when the Internet was new, clean, and family-approved. It's not just a tutorial; it's a time capsule of belief, staged before the dream turned into something else. Before the feed began to feed on us.Trumpism thrives on this terrain. And yet the world is changing around it. Climate shocks, mass displacement, spiraling inequality — the polycrisis has a body count. Countries once anchored to American leadership are squinting hard now, trying to see if there's anything left behind the screen. Adjusting the antenna in hopes of getting a clearer signal. From Latin America to Southeast Asia to Europe, the question grows louder: Can you trust a power that no longer refers to anything outside itself?Maybe Baudrillard and Tocqueville are right — America doesn't point to a deeper truth. It points to itself. Again and again and again. It is the loop. And even now, knowing this, we can't quite stop watching. There's a reason we keep refreshing. Keep scrolling. Keep reacting. The performance persists — not necessarily because we believe in it, but because it's the only script still running.And whether we're horrified or entertained, complicit or exhausted, engaged or ghosted, hired or fired, immigrated or deported, one thing remains strangely true: we keep feeding it. That's the strange power of simulation in an attention economy. It doesn't need conviction. It doesn't need conscience. It just needs attention — enough to keep the momentum alive. The simulation doesn't care if the real breaks down. It just keeps rendering — soft, seamless, and impossible to look away from. Like a dream you didn't choose but can't wake up from.REFERENCESBarthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957)Baudrillard, J. (1986). America (C. Turner, Trans.). Verso.Debord, G. (1994). The Society of the Spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Zone Books. (Original work published 1967)Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.Hind, S., & Gekker, A. (2019). On autopilot: Towards a flat ontology of vehicular navigation. In C. Lukinbeal et al. (Eds.), Media's Mapping Impulse. Franz Steiner Verlag.Linnaeus, C. (1735). Systema Naturae (1st ed.). Lugduni Batavorum.Perkins, C. (2009). Philosophy and mapping. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier.Raaphorst, K., Duchhart, I., & van der Knaap, W. (2017). The semiotics of landscape design communication. Landscape Research.Roberts, L. (2008). Cinematic cartography: Movies, maps and the consumption of place. In R. Koeck & L. Roberts (Eds.), Cities in Film: Architecture, Urban Space and the Moving Image. University of Liverpool.Tocqueville, A. de. (2003). Democracy in America (G. Lawrence, Trans., H. Mansfield & D. Winthrop, Eds.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1835)Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). Charles Scribner's Sons. (Original work published 1905) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

On the fifty-seventh episode of the Constitutionalist, Shane and Matthew discuss Volume 1, Chapter 2 of Alexis De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

How did America's universities lose the trust of the public, and what will it take to restore faith in higher education? In this episode, we are joined by Benjamin and Jenna Storey, renowned scholars, co-authors, and directors at the American Enterprise Institute's Program on the Future of the American University. Together with host John Tomasi, they undertake a searching examination of the forces eroding confidence in universities and offer a roadmap for rebuilding their legitimacy and civic purpose.The conversation draws on the Storeys' personal journeys through academia, they explore how universities have shifted away from their civic mission, the implications of declining viewpoint diversity, and the urgent need to re-envision liberal education in a polarized era. Their discussion critically engages with recent initiatives, including the founding of university-level Schools of Civic Thought, and emphasizes both the perils and promise of institutional reform amidst increasing political and public scrutiny.Read the report: “Civic: A Proposal for University Level Civic Education” (AEI, December 2023) In This Episode:

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.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. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank 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

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveIs it possible to move up in this world? Are Americans stuck? Our guest today is Yoni Appelbaum, an American historian and staff writer at The Atlantic magazine. His new book, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity, explores the various ways the American dream has been stymied — by the consolidation of property and wealth, the abuse of environmental regulations, the legacy of redlining, among other factors. But the book is not a diatribe; it offers a hopeful program for how we can make America better. Samuel Kimbriel and Damir Marusic engage in a lively conversation with Yoni that will leave you looking at America in a different, more hopeful way.Yoni's book is personal in its inspiration: he found himself living in a working-class neighborhood — a so-called “zone of emergence,” where underprivileged immigrants once gained a foothold on the American dream — that was no longer affordable to middle-class families. But it is also a political book. Yoni got the sense that something had gone profoundly wrong in America: “This was a contrarian thought in the Obama era. Now it is conventional wisdom.”What can be done to help the American dream become real again? Is mobility a “central American value”? Do policies that help communities stay alive and stable actually worsen inequality and class stratification? Should the Democratic Party become a party of economic growth, rather than regulation or even “degrowth”? These are the questions that Damir and Sam invite Yoni to wrestle with in a lively and deeply informed episode.In our bonus section for paid subscribers, Yoni discusses how to harness market power in a way that “centers mobility”; the three talk about the gap between intent and impact in environmental regulations; Yoni explains why technocrats will always be needed but will never be enough; and Yoni speculates as to why Americans long for a strong leader — for better or worse.Required Reading and Listening:* Yoni Appelbaum, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity (Amazon). * Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Amazon).* Reihan Salam, “Want Abundance in Housing? Acknowledge that Greed Is Good” (City Journal). * Frederick Jackson Turner, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” (Project Gutenberg). * Jeffersonian democracy (CrashCourse).* Podcast with Martha Nussbaum (WoC). This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Free preview video:Full video for paid subscribers below:

No episódio, Ana Frazão conversa com Fabio Giambiagi, economista do BNDES desde 1984, com passagens pela assessoria econômica do Ministério do Planejamento, pelo IPEA e pelo Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento em Washington. Além disso, foi professor da Faculdade de Economia e Administração (FEA-UFRJ) e da PUC-RJ e é autor de diversos livros, dentre os quais “A Vingança de Tocqueville. A importância do bom debate”.Na conversa, o professor Fábio Giambiagi explica porque, no seu entender, “a grande questão com a qual os defensores de reformas econômicas pro-mercado se defrontam no país é: como convencer a população de que um conjunto de políticas baseadas na forte presença do Estado na economia não darão certo, dado que essas políticas, no passado, levaram o país a se desenvolver rapidamente?”. Ao propor uma abordagem mais liberal, o professor demonstra as razões pelas quais o que funcionou no Brasil no pós-1930 por um tempo considerável não funciona mais hoje, o que seria a lógica pró-mercado que deveria prevalecer na atualidade e como se situa o debate entre ortodoxia econômica e heterodoxia. Para fundamentar suas opiniões, o professor demonstra como a economia é também política e como o liberalismo depende de alguns pressupostos, tais como a defesa das liberdades, da democracia, da plena vigência das instituições e da alternância de poder. Ponto alto da conversa diz respeito a saber como avançar no debate econômico no Brasil diante da excessiva ideologização e polarização, que obscurece o debate de ideias e faz com que os lados extremos sofram da mesma miopia.

How much has our understanding of choice evolved throughout history? And what has that invention meant to how we experience and acknowledge freedom? Sophia Rosenfeld is a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on the history of things taken for granted. Her books, Common Sense: A Political History, Democracy and Truth: A Short History, and most recently The Age of Choice: A History of Freedom in Modern Life, examine the origins of ideas that have become so commonplace in our modern world, they can often go overlooked. Sophia and Greg discuss the historical role of choice in consumerism, politics, and personal relationships, how choice initially got a reputation for being a feminine phenomenon, what choice has meant for concepts like freedom, and the political evolution of common sense in today's world. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Has choice become the ultimate measure of freedom?47:24: Choice once had this kind of very moral apparatus around it. And, as I mentioned, over time, choice became more, I would call, value-neutral. It meant pick what you like. I don't have to like your choices; it's just what you prefer. But the strange third twist in this story is that just having the choices itself started to become a moral good. Just saying choice itself was the good, and I think that's not always right because there are certainly moments in which choice is freeing, but there are also choices that are not freeing—there are choices that are contrary to our well-being, there are places where choice is not a benefit. This choice of any weapon to buy, for instance, is a different kind of decision than saying choice in profession. Your choice in profession has little bearing on me. Your choice in weapon might have a large bearing on me or the other guy down the street. So I do question the assumption that more choice, more opportunities, more options is always preferable.How choice became the definition of freedom37:22: In the face of the threat of communism on the one hand and the threat of fascism on the other, one thing that starts to emerge most strongly in the U.S., but also in other parts of the sort of allied world, is a convergence around political choice and commercial choice, saying that what freedom is, is having choice in these two different domains. And from that point forward, I think you might say that democracy and capitalism get wedded together around the notion that choice is freedom.Is having more choices always a good thing?42:42: We've now seen policies emerge on the right and on the left framed around choice. School choice is usually more appealing on the right, reproductive choice more appealing on the left. So, I would have said that choice is one of those things that we are so used to that it's a kind of unquestioned value across the political spectrum. We might fight about what should be and by whom, but we don't fight about the value of choice itself. And to this day, things are marketed all the time around choice. You look at billboards or look at advertising anywhere you are, and you'll see choice is still a really common term—whether it's banking, house cleaning, or anything else. That may be ending in some spheres on the right.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Thomas PaineAlexis de TocquevilleThe Man Who Understood Democracy: The Life of Alexis de Tocqueville by Olivier ZunzJane AustenHannah Arendt Guest Profile:Faculty Profile at University of PennsylvaniaProfessional WebsiteHer Work:The Age of Choice: A History of Freedom in Modern LifeCommon Sense: A Political HistoryDemocracy and Truth: A Short History 

3611 – March 31, 2025 – The Secret of America’s Greatness – French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, after visiting America in 1831, said: “I sought for the greatness of the United States in her commodious harbors, her ample rivers, her fertile fields, and boundless forests—and it was not there. I sought for it in her rich mines, her vast world ... The post The Secret of America’s Greatness appeared first on CSC Talk Radio.

Grant Oliphant is the CEO of the Prebys Foundation and a longtime leader in philanthropy and social impact. With decades of experience guiding foundations through moments of transformation, he has a deep understanding of how philanthropy can respond to crises, support nonprofit resilience, and advocate for the society we aspire to reach. This Episode: Nonprofits are facing unprecedented challenges—from shifting political landscapes and funding cuts to increasing demands for services. With federal cuts threatening essential programs, nonprofit leaders are grappling with how to sustain their missions while navigating an evolving philanthropic landscape. In this candid conversation, Grant Oliphant flips the script and takes the guest seat, offering his insights on the role of philanthropy, nonprofits, and each of us as individuals in this moment. He shares how the Prebys Foundation is standing with San Diego's nonprofit sector, the moral and practical dilemmas organizations face, and why belonging remains at the heart of Prebys' mission. Grant and Crystal also unpack the larger cultural shifts at play, from the erosion of trust in institutions to the censorship of language that directly impacts the people nonprofits serve. As they discuss what's at stake, they also offer hope—reminding listeners that the nonprofit sector remains one of the most trusted forces for good, and that resilience is built through community and shared purpose. Key Moments: [2:50] How national shifts are affecting nonprofit leaders' mental well-being [9:00] Why Prebys Foundation stands by diversity, equity, and inclusion—without the jargon [16:32] The unique role nonprofits play in shaping America's social fabric [29:16] How Prebys is responding to federal budget cuts and nonprofit concerns [39:07] The fine line nonprofit leaders must walk between survival and advocacy [55:40] Grant's advice for nonprofit leaders feeling overwhelmed in this moment Resources Mentioned in This Episode:  Federal Impacts on Nonprofits: San Diego County Survey of Nonprofit Results - Research from the Nonprofit Institute on the state of nonprofits in San Diego Challenging Times: How U.S. Nonprofit Leaders are Experiencing the Political Context – Report from the Center for Effective Philanthropy with results from across the U.S. Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America – A historical perspective on civil society's role in the U.S.  4 Steps You Can Take:Support Your Local Nonprofits – Donate, volunteer, or advocate for the organizations making a difference in your community. Stay Engaged – Call your representatives, speak up for nonprofit funding, and resist the erasure of critical social issues. Build Community – Connect with peers, partners, and allies across sectors to share strategies, strengthen relationships, and support collective impact. Reconnect with Your ‘Why' – In challenging times, remembering your purpose can fuel your resilience. Credits: This is a production of the Prebys Foundation Hosted by Grant Oliphant Co-Hosted by Crystal Page Co-produced by Crystal Page and Adam Greenfield Engineered by Adam Greenfield Production Coordination by Tess Karesky Video Production by Edgar Ontiveros Medina The Stop & Talk Theme song was created by San Diego's own Mr. Lyrical Groove. Special thanks to the Prebys Foundation Team. Download episodes at your favorite podcatcher or visit us at StopAndTalkPodcast .org   If you like this show, and we hope you do, the best way to support this show is to share, subscribe, and review our podcast. Thank you for your support, ideas, and listening. 

William J. Federer is a nationally known speaker, historian, author, and president of Amerisearch, Inc. He's the speaker on The American Minute daily broadcast. He has authored numerous books including, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, Who is the King in America?, Socialism: The Real History From Plato to the Present - How the Deep State Capitalizes on Crises to Consolidate Control and the newly released, Silence Equals Consent: The Sin of Omission.On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump began his second term as the 47th president of the United States. He won both the popular as well as the electoral vote, leaving no doubt concerning his election. The people decided this change was necessary for what many believed was the preservation of our nation. In the weeks that have followed, his administration is having to deal with an unprecedented 132 legal challenges by liberal judges.Some are referring to this as a judicial "January 6th." Others see it as a judicial coup or judicial insurrection. In fact, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has even admitted, "...we did put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time."This program takes a look at the "road" our judiciary is traveling on as William looked at numerous warnings about judicial overreach as expressed by individuals such as Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, Alexis De Tocqueville, George Washington and also modern commentators such as Phyllis Schlafly and law professor Alan Dershowitz.

William J. Federer is a nationally known speaker, historian, author, and president of Amerisearch, Inc. He's the speaker on The American Minute daily broadcast. He has authored numerous books including, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, Who is the King in America?, Socialism: The Real History From Plato to the Present - How the Deep State Capitalizes on Crises to Consolidate Control and the newly released, Silence Equals Consent: The Sin of Omission.On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump began his second term as the 47th president of the United States. He won both the popular as well as the electoral vote, leaving no doubt concerning his election. The people decided this change was necessary for what many believed was the preservation of our nation. In the weeks that have followed, his administration is having to deal with an unprecedented 132 legal challenges by liberal judges.Some are referring to this as a judicial "January 6th." Others see it as a judicial coup or judicial insurrection. In fact, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer has even admitted, "...we did put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time."This program takes a look at the "road" our judiciary is traveling on as William looked at numerous warnings about judicial overreach as expressed by individuals such as Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, Alexis De Tocqueville, George Washington and also modern commentators such as Phyllis Schlafly and law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Laurie M. Johnson is professor of political science at Kansas State University and president of The Maurin Academy (https://pmaurin.org). Most of her work has involved developing an understanding and critique of classical liberal theory and includes works on Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. Her recent book, Ideological Possession and the Rise of the New Right (2019), sets the stage for her newest book, The Gap in God's Country (Cascade, 2024), with broader implications for what we can do to address our problems.PODCAST LINKS:- The Gap in God's Country (book): https://wipfandstock.com/9781666737400/the-gap-in-gods-country/- YouTube series on the book: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsLkfggTCOx-GdsauHvp0dmqOKq8f4jsB- Laurie's website: https://lauriemjohnson.com/- Maurin Academy: https://pmaurin.org/- Maurin Academy Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/maurinacademy- Political Philosophy podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@ljpolitical-philosophyNEWSLETTER:Subscribe to our podcast newsletter and get ***40% OFF*** any Wipf and Stock book: http://eepurl.com/cMB8ML. (Be sure to check the box next to “Podcast Updates: The Theology Mill” before hitting Subscribe.)CONNECT:Website: https://wipfandstock.com/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@WipfandstockpublishersTwitter: https://twitter.com/wipfandstockFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/wipfandstockInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/wipfandstock/OUTLINE: (02:49) – Meet Laurie(05:08) – Roundtable: Jesus, Socrates, Karl Marx(07:12) – Laurie's political journey (16:00) – Classical conservatism(20:25) – US conservatives: right-leaning liberals?   (27:23) – Political instability today(29:36) – Marxian critiques of capitalism(34:58) – Transformations in the Democratic Party(35:43) – Jacques Ellul and “technique” today(44:14) – The Catholic Worker movement  (50:17) – Mass psychosis/ideological possession(01:00:23) – Direct action*The Theology Mill and Wipf and Stock Publishers would like to thank Luca Di Alessandro for making their song “A Celestial Keyboard” available for use as the podcast's transition music. Link to license: https://pixabay.com/service/license-summary/.

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

Is democracy sustainable without informed, virtuous, and engaged citizens? Can political institutions shape the kind of citizenry democracy needs? These questions lie at the heart of Democracy Tamed: French Liberalism and the Politics of Suffrage, the compelling new book by political theorist Gianna Englert, who joins us in this episode of RevDem.As contemporary anxieties grow over the future of liberal democracy and the rise of populism, Englert turns our attention to 19th-century France, where liberal thinkers grappled with similar dilemmas in the wake of the French Revolution.Englert reconstructs how a generation of French liberals—including Benjamin Constant, François Guizot, Alexis de Tocqueville, Édouard Laboulaye, and Ernest Duvergier de Hauranne—sought to chart a path toward democraticinclusion that did not compromise their liberal commitments to individual freedom, institutional stability, and rational governance. Central to their efforts was the idea of political capacity: the belief that suffrage should be tied to a citizen's ability to exercise it responsibly. Englert argues that political capacity emerged as a flexible and evolving standard—shaped by France's shifting social and economic realities—which enabled liberals to reconcile democratic expansion with their core political principles.In our conversation, Englert reflects on the transnationalinfluences that shaped this capacitarian discourse, the moral and educational ambitions of liberal reformers, and the ongoing relevance of their ideas in an age of democratic uncertainty. Tune in for a rich exploration of a forgottenliberal tradition that still speaks to the challenges confronting democracy today.

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

Você já parou para pensar que o futuro pode ser uma invenção contemporânea? No “Linhas Cruzadas” desta semana Andresa Boni e Luiz Felipe Pondé vão explorar como diferentes culturas e pensadores – de Santo Agostinho a Karl Marx, de Tocqueville a Nietzsche – enxergaram o futuro, destacando sua influência na organização social e econômica.A partir de reflexões filosóficas, referências históricas e análises contemporâneas, o episódio debate temas como progresso, tecnologia e os desafios globais. Além disso, o programa convidou o cientista político Carlos Melo, o professor Paulo Artaxo e o economista Gesner Oliveira para fazerem suas análises sobre o futuro da sociedade moderna.E com relação ao Brasil, será que o “país do futuro”, estaria finalmente pronto para assumir essa posição? Ou o futuro, como já dizia Robert De Niro no filme Coração Satânico, "não é mais como costumava ser"?Não perca esta conversa no Linhas Cruzadas, todas as quintas às 22h.#TVCultura #LuizFelipePondé #AndresaBoni #Futuro #LinhasCruzadas

The interwoven threads of faith and liberty form the essential fabric of American democracy—but what happens when one thread is pulled away? Jesse Cope tackles this profound question by exploring the wisdom of James 4, alongside penetrating observations from Alexis de Tocqueville and Robert Winthrop about America's foundation.Diving into James 4, Jesse examines our tendency to rush God's timing and the "dumpster fires" we create when impatience overrides trust. The chapter's warnings about worldly desires, conflicts, and pride reveal how internal spiritual struggles manifest as societal problems. Through personal reflection, Jesse acknowledges his own struggles with patience, making this spiritual journey deeply relatable.The podcast takes a fascinating historical turn as Jesse unpacks de Tocqueville's famous observation that "despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot." This isn't merely philosophical musing—it's a blueprint for understanding why democratic systems fail without moral foundations. When Robert Winthrop's stark declaration that societies must be governed "either by the Bible or by the bayonet" enters the conversation, we see the real-world implications of removing spiritual foundations from public life.What makes this episode particularly powerful is how it connects historical wisdom to contemporary challenges. Jesse illustrates this through examining post-Saddam Iraq, where removing despotic control without established moral foundations for self-government led to chaos rather than liberty. The lesson becomes clear: freedom requires more than the absence of tyranny; it demands the presence of virtue.For anyone concerned about America's future, this thoughtful exploration of faith's role in sustaining freedom offers both warning and hope. Listen as Jesse makes a compelling case for returning to a nation that prays publicly and embraces the spiritual foundations that make liberty possible.AI: I've completed the requested tasks with all 6 sections in the key-value pair format. Each section follows the guidelines you provided:1. Created 5 unique podcast titles with varying styles and formats2. Generated chapter markers based on topic shifts in the conversation3. Crafted 3 engaging tweets under 250 characters each4. Wrote a detailed blog post between 3000-3800 characters5. Developed podcast show notes with a two-sentence summary and bullet points6. Created a compelling podcast description of appropriate lengthThe content focuses on the podcast's themes of faith, liberty, prayer, patience, and the connection between Christianity and American democracy, drawing from the host's discussion of James 4 and writings by de Tocqueville and Winthrop.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Are you finding it challenging to prioritize your faith amidst the distractions of daily life? This episode offers practical insights and heartfelt discussions on how to reconnect with God and strengthen your relationships. We delve into our tendency to give more time to our phones than our prayers, often neglecting the precious moments we can share with our spouses and family. Through engaging storytelling and personal reflections, we explore the significance of setting intentional daily plans that incorporate our faith and foster deeper connections with our loved ones. As we navigate the complexities of modern distractions, we're reminded that establishing these habits can lead to fulfilling and joyful lives. Join us as we challenge ourselves to be more mindful and dedicated to our spiritual journeys. It's time to stop letting technology dictate our attention and start nurturing the relationships that are most important. Listen in, and let's embark on this journey of rediscovery and renewal together. Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review!Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Are you making God your top priority in a world full of distractions? In this engaging episode, we tackle the pressing question of how to cultivate a relationship with God amidst our busy lives. With social media competing for our attention, it can be all too easy to lose sight of what truly matters—our faith and family. We encourage listeners to take a hard look at their daily habits and consider whether they are making enough time for spiritual growth and meaningful interactions with loved ones.Throughout the discussion, we provide practical insights on effectively prioritizing your spiritual life. We explore how your relationship with God should mirror the love and care you offer to your spouse and family, emphasizing real action over mere words. Rather than merely professing faith, we ask: is there enough evidence of your beliefs reflected in your daily actions? Discover how to make faith a living part of your life, transforming it from a concept into a daily practice.Ultimately, the episode aims to inspire you to reflect on your priorities and make a deliberate effort to nurture your relationship with God while balancing family and work commitments. Tune in to glean valuable insights that can help you carve out time for what is truly significant—your faith and your loved ones. Join us in this heartfelt journey toward a more balanced and meaningful life. Don't forget to share your thoughts and experiences with us!Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Dive into a transformative exploration of priorities in our latest podcast episode! There's a palpable urgency in our daily lives that often pulls us in multiple directions, leading us to neglect the most crucial relationships: those with God and our loved ones. In this episode, we unravel the significance of putting God in the center of our lives through consistent prayer and reflection, engaging deeply with the importance of prioritizing our spouses to foster more profound love and connection. We delve into practical ways to recalibrate our priorities, using personal anecdotes and scripture guidance as focal points. Understanding what it truly means to love your spouse daily can often lead to remarkable changes in our marital dynamics. We highlight the power of prayer throughout the episode, offering listeners insight into incorporating “arrow prayers” as a tool for maintaining spiritual connection amidst hectic schedules. As we discuss enduring life's trials, listeners will be reminded that challenges often push us closer to our faith, enriching our journey. Ultimately, we encourage each listener to assess their priorities and make conscious decisions to nurture what matters most. Join us for an uplifting conversation that inspires intentional living and deeper spiritual connections. Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review!Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Balancing faith and life's responsibilities can feel overwhelming, leaving many feeling like we are self-imposing burdens that only weigh us down. Our latest podcast episode challenges this mindset, guiding listeners to a more profound understanding of what it means to prioritize God, family, and spiritual engagement in our busy lives. We start by addressing the silent struggles we battle every day—how often do we feel like martyrs for our circumstances? While reflecting on our own experiences, we underscore how easy it is to forget the nourishing practices of prayer and reading scripture amid life's chaos. The guiding narrative we explore extends into the timeless truths found within Proverbs 31. Often cited in discussions about women's roles, we unpack the true essence of this chapter, illuminating how it emphasizes the importance of focusing on family over societal pressures to balance multiple roles. In a broader context, we delve into historical perspectives on the vital connection between faith and the foundations of American society. Echoing the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville, we highlight how morality and religious sentiment are intrinsically linked to the country's prosperity and character. Together, we seek to answer pressing questions about our responsibilities and choices. Are we allowing distractions to undermine our spiritual commitment? Are we focusing on what truly matters? This episode aims to inspire a deeper engagement with our faith and to encourage a return to foundational principles that not only shape our lives but also foster a healthier society.Join us as we reflect on how we can actively make space for God in our busy lives. Don't forget to subscribe, share with friends, and leave your comments on what resonates with you most from these discussions!Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

"Thenceforth they are no longer isolated individuals, but a power conspicuous from the distance whose actions serve as an example; when it speaks, people listen...."This week, I'm reading selected quotes from Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville. Published in 1835. Note: his use of the word association is our current word for nonprofit.Reflection questions:How are we sharing the impact of the causes we serve?  In sharing our impacts, are we welcoming our communities to unite with us and have their power enhanced?How are we showing donors the collective impact we have together by combining our efforts?Reflection on quote:In this time of anxiety, let us not forget the power nonprofits have to create purpose. When each of us trying to work independently, we are weak.  We can cause little change and we can't force others to help.  When, however, we combine as nonprofits to meet the needs in our community, our communities listen.  This work has entered the public domain.What do you think?To explore fundraising coaching deeper and to schedule an exploratory session, visit ServingNonprofits.com.Music credit: Woeisuhmebop

In this episode, Dr. Orlandi and Dr. Alexander Cambre get together to discuss the differences between that “indoctrinations” that too many schools have been accused of forcing upon students, and liberal education. What's the essence of the latter, if any? And what did Solzhenitsyn, Tocqueville, and Aristotle have to say on this matter to help us, as usual, understand our current times? Join us for some interesting insights! Links: Dr. Alexander's essay: Liberal Education's Antidote to Indoctrination, https://www.heritage.org/education/report/liberal-educations-antidote-indoctrination Previous episode with Dr. Alexander, on Memory and Mortality: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TRXHcEUo3ea1cEajBtHAK?si=ccccb9e3c3f64297 More on education on our podcast, with Dr. Mellissa Moschella: https://open.spotify.com/episode/55CW5TtbCdvRfToz7veFZq?si=92402cd9f1c24cbc

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comYoni is a journalist and academic. He used to be a lecturer on history and literature at Harvard, and also taught at Babson College and Brandeis. He subsequently served in many editorial and writing roles at The Atlantic, where he's currently a deputy executive editor. He just published his first book, Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity. It's an engrossing account of how zoning in America — yes, zoning — evolved from the Puritans onward. I was unexpectedly fascinated.For two clips of our convo — on the racist origins of zoning, and how progressivism is keeping poor people in place — see our YouTube page.Other topics: raised as an orthodox Jew in the Boston area; spending a year at a yeshiva in Israel; interning for the Gore campaign in 1999; working for the Public Advocate in NYC; studying the Gilded Age in grad school; discovering Ta-Nehisi Coates as a Dish reader and getting hired at The Atlantic through TNC's comments section; mobility as a core feature of early America; the Pilgrims; how the Puritans branched off; moving to construct one's identity; Tocqueville; American Primeval; the “warning out” of early American towns; Lincoln's mobility; the Moving Day of pre-war NYC; Chinese laundries; violence against immigrants; the Progressive drive for zoning; Yoni defending tenements; Hoover's push for single-family homes; defaulting in the Depression; FDR's push for long mortgages; the feds distorting the market; racial segregation; Jane Jacobs vs central planning; Thatcher and public housing; the rise of shitty architecture; cognitive sorting; Hillbilly Elegy; mass migration and rising costs in the UK; how leftist regulations stifle building; and the abundance movement.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Chris Caldwell on the political revolution in Europe, Evan Wolfson on the history of marriage equality, Nick Denton on China and AI, Francis Collins on faith and science, Michael Lewis on government service, Ian Buruma on Spinoza, Michael Joseph Gross on bodybuilding, and the great and powerful Mike White, of White Lotus fame. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

La minoritaria asociación de Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia ha salido en defensa de su colega, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, que ha convertido el Constitucional en un órgano político al servicio de Sánchez. Montesquieu perfeccionó la idea de los tres poderes planteada por Locke, ya que incluyó el Judicial, y desde entonces autores como Constant, Alberdi, Tocqueville, Stein, Duverger, Kelsen, Bobbio, Dahl y otros han planteado la existencia o la conveniencia de ampliarlos. 

In this episode, Dr. Orlandi and Dr. Alexander Cambre get together to discuss the differences between that “indoctrinations” that too many schools have been accused of forcing upon students, and liberal education. What's the essence of the latter, if any? And what did Solzhenitsyn, Tocqueville, and Aristotle have to say on this matter to help us, as usual, understand our current times? Join us for some interesting insights! Links: Dr. Alexander's essay: Liberal Education's Antidote to Indoctrination, https://www.heritage.org/education/report/liberal-educations-antidote-indoctrination Previous episode with Dr. Alexander, on Memory and Mortality: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5TRXHcEUo3ea1cEajBtHAK?si=ccccb9e3c3f64297 More on education on our podcast, with Dr. Mellissa Moschella: https://open.spotify.com/episode/55CW5TtbCdvRfToz7veFZq?si=92402cd9f1c24cbc

Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more GET TICKETS TO PODJAM II In Vegas March 27-30 Confirmed Guests! Professor Eric Segall, Dr Aaron Carroll, Maura Quint, Tim Wise, JL Cauvin, Ophira Eisenberg, Christian Finnegan and More! Born in the Great State of New Jersey, Dean Obeidallah's comedy comes in large part from his unique background of being the son of a Palestinian father and a Sicilian mother. Dean, an award winning comedian who was at one time a practicing attorney, co-starred on Comedy Central's “The Axis of Evil” Comedy TV special. He is the co-creator of Comedy Central.com's critically acclaimed Internet series “The Watch List” featuring a cast of all Middle Eastern-American comedians performing stand up and sketch comedy. Dean has appeared twice on ABC's “The View,” on the nationally syndicated TV series “Comics Unleashed with Byron Allen” and was one of five comedians profiled in the recent one hour TV Special entitled: “Stand Up: Muslim-American Comics Come of Age” which aired in the US on PBS and internationally on BBC World and Al Jazeera.   Dean co-directed and co-produced the award winning documentary “The Muslims Are Coming!” featuring a tour of American-Muslim comedians performing free comedy shows across the heartland of America in the hopes of using comedy to foster understanding and dispel misconceptions about Muslims. The film also features special guest interviews with various well known people including: “The Daily Show's” Jon Stewart and Assif Mandvi, Russell Simmons, Soledad O'Brien and Ali Velshi, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, comedians Lewis Black, David Cross, Lizz Winstead and Colin Quinn as well as Congressman Keith Ellison, and many more. The film is now available on Netfilx, iTunes and Amazon.   Dean co-created the comedy show “Stand up for Peace” along with Jewish comic Scott Blakeman which they perform at colleges across the country in support of peace in the Middle East and as a way of fostering understanding between Arab, Muslim and Jewish-Americans.   He is writes for MSNBC, CNN and The Daily Beast as well as other publications.   Dean is also the co-creator and co-producer of the New York Arab-American Comedy Festival .He is also proud to serve as the Executive Director of The Amman Stand up Comedy Festival – the first stand up comedy festival ever held in the Middle East Dean is proud to have received the first annual “Bill Hicks Spirit Award” for “thought provoking comedy” (named after the late comedian Bill Hicks) from the NY Underground Comedy Festival and the Hicks' Family. See John on the Sexy Liberal show this Saturday https://sexyliberal.com/ He's been murdered on CSI, interviewed 2 Beatles on separate continents in the same week, and famously once got Mitt Romney's advisor to call Governor Romney an 'etch a sketch' on CNN. Actor, comedian & broadcaster John Fugelsang hosts 'Tell Me Everything" weekdays on SiriusXM Insight #121. He recently performed in 'The Bill of Rights Concert" alongside Lewis Black & Dick Gregory which aired on AXS.   He's also appeared at Montreal's ‘Just for Laughs' Festival, HBO's U.S Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, hosted America's Funniest Home Videos for ABC and Bill Maher called him ‘one of my favorite comedians'.   Film/TV credits include 'Price Check' opposite Parker Posey, "Becker," "Providence," "Coyote Ugly,"  the religious standup performance film "The Coexist Comedy Tour" (which won Best Documentary at the NYC Vision Fest film festival).  He appears in the upcoming features "The Girl On The Train," "Maggie Black," and he plays two roles in the romantic comedy ‘The Whole Truth' starring Elisabeth Rohm and Eric Roberts.   He's interviewed Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Townshend, Brian Wilson, Yoko Ono, Willie Nelson, Tony Bennett, Alan Rickman, Joey Ramone, Carlos Santana, James Taylor, Bo Diddley, Stevie Nicks, Robbie Robertson, Ravi Shankar, Beyonce Knowles, Olivia Harrison, Garth Brooks, William Hurt, Helen Hunt, Ashanti, John Fogerty, William Shatner, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ed Asner, Nile Rogers, Michael Moore, JK Simmons, Valerie Plame, Ethan Hawke, Brian Dennehy, Mavis Staples, Joel Grey, David Crosby, Graham Nash, Lily Tomlin,  Dave Matthews, Terrence McNally, Stanley Tucci, Michael Shannon, Noel Gallagher,  Jeff Daniels, Rita Moreno, & Carl Reiner.  His interview with George Harrison included JF persuading George to play several songs on acoustic guitar.  This proved to be George's final televised appearance and was broadcast as "The Last Performance."   His new film "Dream On," a road trip in search of the American Dream, was named "Best Documentary" at the NY Independent Film Festival.   Directed by 2 time Oscar nominee Roger Weisberg, the film examines the current state of the American Dream while retracing the journey Alexis de Tocqueville made while writing 'Democracy in America.'   The film features 200 interviews in 55 cities in 17 states, including Mike Huckabee, Barney Frank & Paul Krugman and premieres on PBS Election Day Eve. The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

With the writing of this sentence, I advance my desire to be more familiar with Democracy in America. In the fourth decade of the 19th century, a French national named Alexis de Tocqueville wrote two volumes of an examination of the system of government in the relatively new United States of America. I have vague memories of reading it over thirty years ago in a political science class at Virginia Tech and I've been meaning to take a look back in order to get a fresh perspective of where we are on February 8, 2025.This is the audio edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement for that particular today and the I in this sentence is me, Sean Tubbs. I've made my career writing about municipal government, giving me a unique perspective into American government for the first three decades of the 21st century. If you decide to take a listen, you're about to hear the audio versions of recent stories.The following links go to Information Charlottesville, the companion website for this newsletter.* Charlottesville City Council briefed on Project Safe Neighborhoods (learn more)* Charlottesville Police Chief Kochis gives an update on FLOCK license plate readers (learn more)* Albemarle County Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council both acknowledge Black History Month (learn more)* Albemarle County appoints a new director of Facilities and Environmental Services (learn more)* Supervisor Pruitt sounds alarm on economic threat of federal cuts, executive orders (learn more)* Coalition wants Albemarle County to pay $10 million a year toward housing costs (learn more)Charlottesville Community Engagement is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.First shout-out: Celebrating the community's other information organizations!In today's first shout-out in the form of a house ad, I want to make sure everyone knows that every edition of the regular newsletter (not the podcast ones) ends with a section called Reading Material. Charlottesville Community Engagement is just one offering in a landscape that includes the Charlottesville Daily Progress, C-Ville Weekly, Charlottesville Tomorrow, and Cville Right Now, I curate links from these sources because I believe a truly informed community needs multiple perspectives.There's also the Cavalier Daily, Vinegar Hill Magazine, the Fluvanna Review, the Crozet Gazette, NBC29, CBS19, and other sources. But if you look every day, you'll find links to articles in national publications, all linked to give you more perspectives on some of the issues of our times.Second shout-out:What you are reading or listening to at Charlottesville Community Engagement is part of a business-venture that's based on a pretty simple idea. I will spend my time researching and reporting and will provide ways for people who want to pay for the material to be produced!bI've been a journalist for a long while now, and this year marks the 20th anniversary of the Charlottesville Podcasting Network. While that website doesn't have new content, it's part of how I demonstrate my dedication to this community. In 2025 I'm seeking ways to solidify the business, and here are some ways you can support the work.* Sign up for a paid subscription through Substack. There is not much premium content because my primary aim is to get information out to as many people as possible.* Contribute through Patreon. A major goal this year is to replace this with a way to make a tax-deductible donation, but that's not set up yet. If I had more time, I'd make more audio programs through Patreon.* Send in a check made out to Town Crier Productions at PO Box 1754, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902. This will be used as a replacement for Substack.* Buy an ad on InfoCville.com! I do not have a rate sheet yet, but if you respond to this email with the promo code #experimental-ad I can do a really very low price until the end of February! How low? Send me the email! * Tell friends about the work and use the stories to start conversations. Post articles on social media, for instance. * Volunteer to design some logos because I'm very bad at graphics! Someone did the one for me a few years ago and I probably should give her credit. I'll reach out! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

Gabriel Custodiet speaks with historian Tom DiLorenzo about his efforts to expose Abraham Lincoln. Pushing against the soft “saint-like” treatment that historians have granted Lincoln, DiLorenzo exposes Lincoln's totalitarian tendencies, his contribution to the birth of American fiat currency, his war crimes, among other reasons to have disdain for the lauded president. Ultimately DiLorenzo explains how court historians can twist our understanding of history, use this twisting to advance the ends of the status quo, and themselves alter the course of history.   GUEST → https://www.amazon.com/stores/Thomas-J.-DiLorenzo/author/B001IGOF0Q  → https://mises.org/profile/thomas-j-dilorenzo → https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/thomas-dilorenzo WATCHMAN PRIVACY → https://watchmanprivacy.com (Including privacy consulting) → https://twitter.com/watchmanprivacy → https://escapethetechnocracy.com/ CRYPTO DONATIONS →8829DiYwJ344peEM7SzUspMtgUWKAjGJRHmu4Q6R8kEWMpafiXPPNBkeRBhNPK6sw27urqqMYTWWXZrsX6BLRrj7HiooPAy (Monero) →https://btcpay0.voltageapp.io/apps/3JDQDSj2rp56KDffH5sSZL19J1Lh/pos (BTC) Timeline 00:00 – Introduction 1:23 – Problem with the phrase “Civil War” 3:25 – Myth of slavery motivations of War Between the States 6:50 – Alexis de Tocqueville said problem of race was worse in the North 11:30 – War crimes and scorched earth of the Union army 15:50 – Secession a perfectly American phenomenon 20:30 – Most outrageous attacks against DiLorenzo for attacking the Lincoln Cult 25:30 – How can freedom-seekers how to counter the will to power? 28:10 – How to NOT be a court historian 31:10 – Examples of anti-court historians 32:15 – How to define a “Yankee” 34:10 – Rapid fire 36:20 – Who benefits from inflation? 37:20 – Did Lincoln ultimately win in more ways than one? 38:00 – Final thoughts Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio

Hoy revisamos Alexis de Tocqueville, pensador francés del siglo XIX. Se discuten su biografía, sus contribuciones en sociología y ciencias políticas, y sus obras más importantes, "La democracia en América" y "El antiguo Régimen y la Revolución". Tocqueville analizó la democracia en Estados Unidos, destacando la igualdad de condiciones y sus efectos en la sociedad. Se compara la estructura social y política de Estados Unidos con la de Europa, y se aborda la evolución de las divisiones culturales en Estados Unidos. Además, se reflexiona sobre la mediocridad y el despotismo de las mayorías, y se analiza el fracaso de la Revolución Francesa según Tocqueville. Finalmente, se recomiendan sus obras como esenciales para comprender las ciencias políticas modernas.

Nous sommes le 29 janvier 1848. Alexis de Tocqueville, philosophe, voyageur, auteur d'un ouvrage majeur de la pensée politique intitulé « De la démocratie en Amérique », Tocqueville acteur des événements révolutionnaires qui secouent la France et l'Europe à cette époque, s'adresse aux députés. Dans son ouvrage intitulé « Souvenirs », il rapporte son discours. Il dit : « Est-ce que vous ne ressentez pas, par une sorte d'intuition instinctive qui ne peut pas s'analyser, mais qui est certaine, que le sol tremble de nouveau en Europe ? Est-ce que vous ne sentez pas… que dirais-je ?… un vent de révolution qui est dans l'air ? (…) ma conviction profonde et arrêtée, c'est que les mœurs publiques se dégradent ; c'est que la dégradation des mœurs publiques vous amènera dans un temps court, prochain peut-être, à des révolutions nouvelles. Est-ce donc que la vie des rois tient à des fils plus fermes et plus difficiles à briser que celle des autres hommes ? » En février 1848, en effet, une révolution chasse Louis-Philippe du trône de France. Dans la foulée, les autres monarchies européennes vacillent. C'est ce que l'on appelle le « printemps des peuples » qui s'étend de l'Allemagne à l'Italie, en passant par l'empire des Habsbourg. Au milieu de la tourmente, la Belgique, indépendante depuis seulement dix-huit ans, reste un pays en paix, avec une constitution libérale et quelques réformes sociales inédites. Le premier roi des Belges a-t-il jouer un rôle déterminant ? Léopold Ier a-t-il évité l'annexion à la France ? Comment la Belgique a-t-elle gardé le cap dans un océan de tempêtes ? Avec nous : François Roelants du Vivier, ancien député européen, député bruxellois et sénateur. « L'année du roi, 1848 – Léopold Ier, l'apogée d'un règne » ; éd.Mols Sujets traités : Léopold 1er, Alexis de Tocqueville, révolution, Louis-Philippe, trône, monarchie, Belgique, roi Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

This week Amanda and Victoria discuss the possible series finale of the US by talking about Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America and his accurate, and not so accurate, talking points.

Toen Amerika in 2017 herdacht dat zijn zevende president, Andrew Jackson, 250 jaar geleden geboren was, verscheen de grootste fan zélf aan zijn graf. Donald Trump noemde deze herdenking het ware begin van de viering van 250 jaar Verenigde Staten. Jackson was en is voor hem Amerika en de Amerikaan. Wie was dit rolmodel? Wat vertelt hij ons over Trump zelf, diens visie op Amerika en over zijn tweede termijn? ***Deze aflevering is mede mogelijk gemaakt met donaties van luisteraars die we hiervoor hartelijk danken. Word ook vriend van de show!Heb je belangstelling om in onze podcast te adverteren of ons te sponsoren? Zend een mailtje naar adverteren@dagennacht.nl en wij zoeken contact.Op sommige podcast-apps kun je niet alles lezen. De complete tekst plus linkjes en een overzicht van al onze eerdere afleveringen vind je hier***Andrew Jackson leefde lang – van 1767 tot 1845 - een generatiegenoot van velen die hun stempel op onze beschaving zetten, zoals Napoleon, de Humboldt-broers en Goethe. Hij leefde van Koning George III tot Queen Victoria, van Prins Willem V tot Thorbecke. Fascinerende jaren van revolutie, doorbraken in wetenschap en technologie en culturele omwentelingen. Jackson was echt een kind van zijn tijd. Als tiener was-ie al een rebel. Als militair werd hij een nationale held die op één lijn gesteld werd met George Washington. Hij was een vastgoedondernemer en slavenhandelaar, een arme boerenjongen die een vermogend landheer werd. Jackson was vanaf dag één politiek een polarisator pur sang. Hij kon vreselijk haten en sprak en schreef daar ongeremd en fel over. Hij was een wildebras en ‘n drammer en daarmee ook vernieuwer van de politieke cultuur. Met hem geen nobele, verlichte aristocraten van de geest in het Witte Huis. Hij begon de eerste politieke partij als machtsmachine om verkiezingen te domineren. Alexis de Tocqueville bezocht hem als jeugdig Frans edelman en zei: "De lage toon van de Amerikaanse politieke cultuur begint helemaal aan de top daarvan." Andrew Jackson deed als president tussen 1829 en 1837 van alles waar nu de kranten ook mee vol staan. Slaande ruzie kreeg hij met zijn vicepresident, John Calhoun. Hij schoffeerde het Congres zozeer, dat ze overwogen hem te impeachen. Hij wilde Texas kopen van buurland Mexico - goedschiks of kwaadschiks. Hij wilde het federale financiële stelsel ontmantelen en heeft daarmee twee eeuwen later nog diepgaande invloed op zijn land. Tocqueville was gefascineerd door Jackson, door diens verachting voor anderen in de politiek, z'n tomeloze ambitie, hoe hij alles over had voor zijn herverkiezing en hoe de media en alle debatten op straat en in cafés alleen maar over hem gingen. "Het doel van alle politieke manoeuvres, het onderwerp van elke gedachtenwisseling." Donald Trump geniet er dan ook van de vele controverses en haat van Jackson te releveren en dan te zeggen: "Jeeez, where did you hear this before?" Jacksons erfenis is zeer omstreden. Zelfs Trump noemt hem ‘an imperfect man'. Als generaal en gouverneur was hij verantwoordelijk voor volkerenmoord onder de inheemse Amerikanen. Zijn beleid leidde ertoe dat na zijn twee termijnen de zuidelijke slavenstaten de nationale politiek domineerden die uitliep op de ongekend bloedige burgeroorlog.Onder Donald Trump is het populisme en de daarbij horende polarisatie weer helemaal terug. Andrew Jackson was in veel opzichten het origineel. De eerste populist in het Witte Huis. De eerste militaire geweldenaar die als nationaal figuur president werd. Het eerste onpolitieke icoon dat politiek triomfeerde. En hij was de eerste, moderne 'Democrat' als president, geen partijgenoot dus van Trump! Op aanraden van Steve Bannon liet Trump bij de start van zijn eerste termijn een groot schilderij van Jackson neerhangen in het Oval Office. Als rolmodel zonder meer een briljante vondst.***Verder lezenJohn Meacham - American Lion, Andrew Jackson in The White House***Verder kijkenAndrew Jackson - Good Evil & The Presidency - PBS Documentary***Verder luisteren473 - 2025 wordt opnieuw een historisch jaar oa over John Quincy Adams464 – De Amerikaanse verkiezingen van 2024 zijn geen aardverschuiving459 – Rolmodel George Washington405 - De Amerikaanse democratie in gevaar: het gevecht tussen Biden en Trump397 - Benjamin Franklin, Zijner Majesteits meest loyale rebel360 - 4th of July: Mar-a-Lago, de plek waar het al 100 jaar gebeurt289 - Donald Trump als gevaar voor de democratie - Joe Biden en zijn strijd voor de ziel van Amerika221 - Madam Speaker: de spijkerharde charme van Nancy Pelosi206 - 'Aardverschuiving': Michael Wolff over Donald Trumps laatste dagen als president. En: zijn bezoek aan Mar-a-Lago185 - De Amerikaanse Burgeroorlog (1): Black Lives Matter en George Floyd, hoe de burgeroorlog op de VS nog altijd zijn stempel drukt57 - Alexis de Tocqueville wilde Amerika begrijpen44 - Amerika Special: Michael Wolff over Donald J. Trump ** PG over Franklin D. Roosevelt***Tijdlijn00:00:00 – Deel 100:31:54 – Deel 201:10:03 – Deel 301:33:20 – Einde Zie het privacybeleid op https://art19.com/privacy en de privacyverklaring van Californië op https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of DFER and U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng interview Leo Damrosch, the Ernest Bernbaum Professor of Literature Emeritus at Harvard University and author of Tocqueville's Discovery of America. Prof. Damrosch delves into Alexis de Tocqueville's historic nine-month journey through the United States in 1831–1832, which inspired his masterpiece, Democracy in America. He explores […]

This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of DFER and U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng interview Leo Damrosch, the Ernest Bernbaum Professor of Literature Emeritus at Harvard University and author of Tocqueville's Discovery of America. Prof. Damrosch delves into Alexis de Tocqueville's historic nine-month journey through the United States in 1831–1832, which inspired his masterpiece, Democracy in America. He explores Tocqueville's observations on American democracy, civic individualism, materialism, and the rule of law, contrasting them with European political institutions. Prof. Damrosch highlights Tocqueville's impressions of influential political figures like Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, his prescient views on slavery's moral and political impact, and his critiques of American materialism and inequality. He also sheds light on Tocqueville's insights into education's role in fostering self-government and democracy, as well as his enduring legacy as a thinker whose analysis of democracy resonates across political divides. Throughout the interview Damrosch offers his profound understanding of Tocqueville's relevance to contemporary debates on equality, governance, and democratic ideals. In closing, he reads a passage from Tocqueville's writings.

Discover the transformative power of prioritizing faith and relationships in your everyday life. Imagine starting each morning with a renewed focus on God and your loved ones—how might that change your day, your marriage, or even your entire outlook on life? Join me, Jesse Cope, as we unravel how intentional actions like prayer, Bible reading, and small acts of kindness can lead to spiritually enriched and fulfilling relationships. With guidance from faith, explore the profound impact of nurturing personal connections and the ripple effect it can create in your world.We also journey through the foundational principles of American governance, delving into the distinction between a democracy and a republic. Unearth insights from historical figures like Benjamin Rush and Alexis de Tocqueville, who underscore the critical role of Christian ethics in shaping a successful republic. By examining how the founding fathers envisioned a morally grounded leadership, we discuss the importance of electing leaders who prioritize public good to stave off corruption. Explore this intersection of faith and governance, and be inspired to seek leaders who uphold the values that are integral to our nation's foundation, all while respecting the delicate balance between church and state.Support the showThe American Soul Podcasthttps://www.buzzsprout.com/1791934/subscribe

Throughout 2024, our community slowly read through Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic, Democracy in America. This book has a surprising amount to teach us about our modern political climate, as well as how we got here. As we close out the year, Sarah and Beth close out our read along and reflect on what they learned about the present by looking to the past. Join our Premium Community on Substack for news, deep dives, and processing all this together. Looking for a gift for the Pantsuit Politics fan in your life? Check out our Pantsuit Politics Fan Gift Guide. Check out our premium community gifting spreadsheet if you want to share the love within our community or add your own name to potentially receive a premium subscription from another listener. Visit our website for complete show notes and episode resources.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For our annual online academic study this year, we are taking a journey through our republic with Alexis de Tocqueville's “Democracy in America.” It is perhaps the best book ever written about America and democracy, according to our guest today.  In this work, De Toqueville takes on an almost prophetic voice in predicting the future of  our country and our constitutional republic. How was De Tocqueville  able to leverage his knowledge of philosophy to accomplish this?  What truths was he willing to tell us about our governmental institutions?  To walk us through this aspect of De Toqueville's work, we are honored to welcome Raúl Rodriguez, assistant professor in the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin, for this enlightening conversation.

In this special episode, released under the Water for Fighting as well as the Florida Specifier banner, Brett gets to sit down with Bartow's favorite son, Adam Putnam. At the time he served, Putnam was the youngest person ever to be elected to the Florida House of Representatives at barely twenty-two years old. He would go on to serve as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for five terms, becoming the 3rd ranking member of that body, and he was elected statewide as Florida's 11th Commissioner of Agriculture where he served two terms. He is now the CEO of Ducks Unlimited but still splits time between Tennessee and Florida. They discuss his deep roots in Imperial Polk County; growing up in the family's citrus and cattle business; his long-term, successful participation in the 4H Club and Future Farmers of America (FFA) and the leadership tools he developed there; how he drifted into politics at such a young age; how he brought the character and challenges of his community to Tallahassee and Washington, D.C. as he pursued fresh perspectives on old problems; his appreciation for the expansion of the Rural and Family Lands program; his frustration with the federal government's opaque and overbearing nature as it relates to Waters of the U.S.; and what it's like to have one of the coolest jobs you can imagine. This episode has plenty to capture the attention: a story about how his grandparents kept truck tires inside with them because they were so vital to their livelihood; some incredible stats on what Ducks Unlimited is accomplishing; a University of Florida shoutout (if you're into that sort of thing); flashbacks to the citrus freezes from the 80s that captured hearts of area communities; a solid Alexis de Tocqueville reference; a simultaneously optimistic and realistic view on the future of citrus in Florida; and how he has no plans on getting back into politics again (see above re: coolest job ever). To visit the Ducks Unlimited website, go here. To learn more about Florida's Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, go here. This episode is brought to you by my friends at Resource Environmental Solutions (RES) RES is the nation's leader in ecological restoration, helping to restore Florida's natural resources with water quality and stormwater solutions that offer communities guaranteed performance and outcomes. Check them out at www.res.us This episode is also brought to you by my friends at Sea and Shoreline. Sea and Shoreline is the Southeast's leading innovator in protecting coastal communities from devastating storms and restoring ecosystems that once faced ecological collapse. Visit their website at www.Seaandshoreline.com. Please be sure to check out the Florida Specifier Podcast hosted by Ryan Matthews and Brett as part of the environmental news and discussion brought to you by the Florida Specifier. To learn more about our flagship print publication, weekly newsletter and more, visit The Florida Specifier. You can follow the show on LinkedIn and Instagram @flwaterpod, and you can reach me directly at FLwaterpod@gmail.com with your comments and suggestions for who I should be talking with. Production of this podcast is by Lonely Fox Studios. Thanks to Karl Sorne for making the best of what he had to work with. And to David Barfield for the amazing graphics and technical assistance. And finally, a very special thank you goes out to Bo Spring from the Bo Spring Band for giving permission to use his music for this podcast. The song is called Doing Work for Free, and you should check out the band live, or wherever great music is sold.

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

You may have missed the recent U.S. presidential election, since it was kinda inconsequential and nobody was paying any attention to it. Oh wait... In today's episode, Dad and I take up the topic of "our democracy" as it has been talked about in the U.S. during this grueling election year, why Christians have an investment in flourishing democratic government (especially considering the alternatives), how the distinctions between church and state, and God's two kingdoms, play out in a democratic nation, and what we can faithfully do in our callings as Christians and citizens. Plus, Sarah reminds you that you are not Bonhoeffer. Six years of top-quality theological podcasting... Show your support by becoming a Patron! Notes: 1. Related episodes: Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Howard Thurman, Martin Luther King Jr, Two Kingdoms 16th Century Edition, Two Kingdoms 20th and 21st Century Edition 2. Tocqueville, Democracy in America 3. Heise, The Gates of Hell (on the elimination of the Russian Lutheran Church during the Soviet period) 4. Bonhoeffer, Ethics and Letters and Papers from Prison, plus DeJonge's Bonhoeffer on Resistance 5. Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"

After 2 ½ years away, we come back for a special election preview episode.  Matt Parks and David Corbin explore the ideas behind today's headlines. Opening and closing music from “2020 Vision (Worse than Blind)” by Fred Lancia. Used with permission. Opening (0:53) - We talk about our new jobs and new homes in new states and speculate about the popular demand for more DIA-Today. A New Consensus? (6:36) - We discuss the broader context of another very close presidential election and what it would take to break that pattern in 2028. The Trajectory of the Election (20:05) - We discuss the defining events of the presidential race over the last six months. Link: RealClearPolitics; Axios on Pew Research findings about double-haters.  Tocqueville's Crystal Ball (27:36) - We predict the results of the presidential election. Link: PBS on changes in Michigan's elections laws.             Email: DemocracyinAmericaToday@gmail.com Matt Parks and David Corbin both taught politics at The King's College in New York City and have written together on reviving American republicanism, The Federalist, and Democracy in America. All views expressed in this podcast are those of the speaker and not necessarily those of their present or former employers.  

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more Born in the Great State of New Jersey, Dean Obeidallah's comedy comes in large part from his unique background of being the son of a Palestinian father and a Sicilian mother. Dean, an award winning comedian who was at one time a practicing attorney, co-starred on Comedy Central's “The Axis of Evil” Comedy TV special. He is the co-creator of Comedy Central.com's critically acclaimed Internet series “The Watch List” featuring a cast of all Middle Eastern-American comedians performing stand up and sketch comedy. Dean has appeared twice on ABC's “The View,” on the nationally syndicated TV series “Comics Unleashed with Byron Allen” and was one of five comedians profiled in the recent one hour TV Special entitled: “Stand Up: Muslim-American Comics Come of Age” which aired in the US on PBS and internationally on BBC World and Al Jazeera. Dean co-directed and co-produced the award winning documentary “The Muslims Are Coming!” featuring a tour of American-Muslim comedians performing free comedy shows across the heartland of America in the hopes of using comedy to foster understanding and dispel misconceptions about Muslims. The film also features special guest interviews with various well known people including: “The Daily Show's” Jon Stewart and Assif Mandvi, Russell Simmons, Soledad O'Brien and Ali Velshi, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, comedians Lewis Black, David Cross, Lizz Winstead and Colin Quinn as well as Congressman Keith Ellison, and many more. The film is now available on Netfilx, iTunes and Amazon.   Dean co-created the comedy show “Stand up for Peace” along with Jewish comic Scott Blakeman which they perform at colleges across the country in support of peace in the Middle East and as a way of fostering understanding between Arab, Muslim and Jewish-Americans.   He is writes for MSNBC, CNN and The Daily Beast as well as other publications.   Dean is also the co-creator and co-producer of the New York Arab-American Comedy Festival .He is also proud to serve as the Executive Director of The Amman Stand up Comedy Festival – the first stand up comedy festival ever held in the Middle East Dean is proud to have received the first annual “Bill Hicks Spirit Award” for “thought provoking comedy” (named after the late comedian Bill Hicks) from the NY Underground Comedy Festival and the Hicks' Family.   Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more See John on the Sexy Liberal show this Saturday https://sexyliberal.com/ He's been murdered on CSI, interviewed 2 Beatles on separate continents in the same week, and famously once got Mitt Romney's advisor to call Governor Romney an 'etch a sketch' on CNN. Actor, comedian & broadcaster John Fugelsang hosts 'Tell Me Everything" weekdays on SiriusXM Insight #121. He recently performed in 'The Bill of Rights Concert" alongside Lewis Black & Dick Gregory which aired on AXS.   He's also appeared at Montreal's ‘Just for Laughs' Festival, HBO's U.S Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, hosted America's Funniest Home Videos for ABC and Bill Maher called him ‘one of my favorite comedians'.   Film/TV credits include 'Price Check' opposite Parker Posey, "Becker," "Providence," "Coyote Ugly,"  the religious standup performance film "The Coexist Comedy Tour" (which won Best Documentary at the NYC Vision Fest film festival).  He appears in the upcoming features "The Girl On The Train," "Maggie Black," and he plays two roles in the romantic comedy ‘The Whole Truth' starring Elisabeth Rohm and Eric Roberts.   He's interviewed Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Townshend, Brian Wilson, Yoko Ono, Willie Nelson, Tony Bennett, Alan Rickman, Joey Ramone, Carlos Santana, James Taylor, Bo Diddley, Stevie Nicks, Robbie Robertson, Ravi Shankar, Beyonce Knowles, Olivia Harrison, Garth Brooks, William Hurt, Helen Hunt, Ashanti, John Fogerty, William Shatner, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ed Asner, Nile Rogers, Michael Moore, JK Simmons, Valerie Plame, Ethan Hawke, Brian Dennehy, Mavis Staples, Joel Grey, David Crosby, Graham Nash, Lily Tomlin,  Dave Matthews, Terrence McNally, Stanley Tucci, Michael Shannon, Noel Gallagher,  Jeff Daniels, Rita Moreno, & Carl Reiner.  His interview with George Harrison included JF persuading George to play several songs on acoustic guitar.  This proved to be George's final televised appearance and was broadcast as "The Last Performance."   His new film "Dream On," a road trip in search of the American Dream, was named "Best Documentary" at the NY Independent Film Festival.   Directed by 2 time Oscar nominee Roger Weisberg, the film examines the current state of the American Dream while retracing the journey Alexis de Tocqueville made while writing 'Democracy in America.'   The film features 200 interviews in 55 cities in 17 states, including Mike Huckabee, Barney Frank & Paul Krugman and premieres on PBS Election Day Eve. The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform. Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout! The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

durée : 00:58:40 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Mosna-Savoye, Antoine Ravon - Alexis de Tocqueville voit en l'Amérique comme le modèle d'une démocratie moderne, marquée par l'égalité des conditions. Il admire ses institutions décentralisées qui protègent la liberté, mais critique le risque de "tyrannie de la majorité" et de l'individualisme. - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Agnès Antoine Politologue, enseignante à l'Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales; Philippe Raynaud Professeur émérite de science politique à l'université Panthéon-Assas, membre de l'Institut universitaire de France

[SEGMENT 2-1] Define extremism (best of) [X] SB – Black man says in 1000000 years he wouldn't vote for Harris What is an extremist to the Left? Grow up in a two-parent household Not be molested by an uncle or a coach To get a decent real education with NO indoctrination To find a career that you love To find a life-partner that you love and respect To have friends you can count on, and with whom you might not necessarily agree all the time. To enjoy the things in life that you desire, e.g. travel, woodworking, hunting, fishing, or whatever as long as it doesn't infringe upon others. To live in decent environs and be left alone. What's so bad about that?  [SEGMENT 2-2] Kamala Harris exposed [X] SB – Black man says in 1000000 he wouldn't vote for Kamala Harris [X] SB – Black rapper [X] SB – CNN calls out Kamala Harris for energy hypocrisy        [SEGMENT 2-3] More on the identity crisis We have services that protect our identity, Life Lock, for example. We even know the importance of identity, as the government established HIPAA laws to protect our identity. Corporations are told to protect our data, i.e. our identities online, and we receive many cautions to that effect all the time. To have one's identity stolen can wreak havoc in your life.   What Musk insightfully points out is the identity crisis in America. And the identity crisis of today touches on timeless philosophical debates about self, individualism, and collective identity. From ancient to modern thinkers, the struggle to understand the self has been at the core of human inquiry. And many would agree that today's crisis reflects both a departure from and a misunderstanding of these deeper philosophical traditions. The Search for the Self: Ancient Philosophers The quest to "know oneself" has deep roots in philosophy, epitomized by Socrates, whose aphorism "Know thyself" urges us to explore our own nature. For Socrates, this exploration was not merely about personal identity but understanding our place in the moral universe. The self, to him, was intimately tied to wisdom and virtue rather than external categories like race or gender. Similarly, Plato viewed the self as a reflection of universal truths, suggesting that the soul (the essence of self) exists beyond material distinctions. Like Socrates, Plato's ideas oppose today's focus on identities like gender or sexuality, instead calling for an understanding of self that transcends physical and social categories. I recall a family road trip where we picked up a man whose 18-wheeler had broken down. He was a 20-something white guy, and very chatty. He said something profound during his time with us. Interestingly, he mentioned that he was only driving a truck until he found something better. He said that he still needed to "find himself". After we let him out at a truck stop, I asked my grandmother why he said he needed to "find himself". She said that he was searching for meaning in his life, and that's what he meant. I joked that he was "right here!" Little did I know how this would impact me later, as I needed to find myself. Nature vs. Nurture: Enlightenment Thinkers The tension between nature and nurture has been another longstanding philosophical debate. John Locke, the English Enlightenment thinker, famously argued that the mind is a "blank slate" (tabula rasa) upon which experience writes. In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that humans are born inherently good, but society corrupts them. Both philosophers emphasized that individual experience and societal influence jointly shape identity. However, modern society's obsession with social categories may suggest an inversion of this idea. Collectivism—the pressure to conform to social groups based on external identity markers like race or gender—has, in the eyes of critics, stifled individualism. This sentiment is echoed by Alexis de Tocqueville, who warned that democracy could, paradoxically foster a "tyranny of the majority" where societal pressures subdue individual liberty. I suggest that we all struggle with this concept from time to time. Perhaps you are stuck in a rut, and can't seem to deprogram. Is it genetic or have you learned from experience to procrastinate, for example?  [SEGMENT 2-4] More on the identity crisis 2 That's not who we are. In my case, I chronicled in my first book, The BIG Black Lie how I always felt the tug of my father's DNA, as I assessed my place in the world. My father was not a good man, and I often felt like I would undoubtedly follow in his footsteps. It took far too long for me to dismiss this notion, and allow the nurture of my maternal family assuage my angst. Freud and Jung: Inner and Outer Identity The duality of man is something I thought about at a young age. And for the reasons stated earlier this duality involved my father. Funny how most of life's problems do revolve around childhood. Which brings me to Sigmund Freud. In what was validated by Freud and Jung, I noted how I had one public facing me, and the other me that I hid. I learned later that Freud introduced another layer to identity by focusing on the unconscious mind. He argued that unresolved internal conflicts shaped our sense of self more than societal categories. Carl Jung, a contemporary of Freud expanded on Freud's theory. Jung emphasized that individual identity must reconcile both our conscious persona and our collective unconscious (archetypes shared by humanity). This need to balance personal individuality with collective archetypes aligns with my observation that we belong to broad collectives like being human and being American, while still retaining individuality. I propose further that one's individuality must be well-balanced with the various collectives. For example, I am human, however I don't espouse to all human nature. Ergo, my individual, my self as it were will not give into the collective if I believe the collective to be flawed. Criticism of Modern Identity Politics Many critics of modern identity politics argue that identity politics diminishes the importance of individuality. George Orwell warned in his novel 1984 of the dangers of collective identity leading to oppression. Today, some, like Jordan Peterson argue that by emphasizing identity categories like race, gender, or sexuality, modern society risks reducing people to labels rather than focusing on their personal virtues and capabilities. I happen to agree. My question about why society wants so desperately for me to be part of the "alt collectives" can be understood when illuminated as the tension between individualism and collectivism. While Western societies historically valorized the individual, as reflected in Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance," today's focus on identity politics often prioritizes group membership over personal agency. The collectivist trend I observe can thus be seen as a reversal of this traditional Western emphasis on the individual. In this reversal, the individual is at risk of being destroyed. The Crisis of Individualism The modern obsession with identity that I observe turns what should be private traits—like sexuality—into public markers of social distinction. Charles Taylor refers to this as the "politics of recognition." Thus, today society increasingly demands that personal identities be publicly acknowledged and validated, most notably with the use of self-ascribed pronouns. However, this emphasis on group identities can overshadow the deeper, more universal aspects of human experience that bind us all together. What is the collective, if we can subcategorized to the nth degree?    Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

In this weekend episode, Victor Davis Hanson with cohost Sami Winc discusses the "New Way Forward" message, Oprah's sense of "unfairness," Democrats and abortion, Trump at the border, and Harris' speech to the DNC. Don't miss the middle segment where VDH explores the works of Alexis de Tocqueville' and his admiration of American democracy.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) and his examination of the American democratic system. He wrote De La Démocratie en Amérique in two parts, published in 1835 and 1840, when France was ruled by the July Monarchy of Louis-Philippe. Tocqueville was interested in how aspects of American democracy, in the age of President Andrew Jackson, could be applied to Europe as it moved away from rule by monarchs and aristocrats. His work has been revisited by politicians ever since, particularly in America, with its analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of direct democracy and its warnings of mediocrity and the tyranny of the majority.WithRobert Gildea Professor of Modern History at the University of OxfordSusan-Mary Grant Professor of American History at Newcastle UniversityandJeremy Jennings Professor of Political Theory and Head of the School of Politics & Economics at King's College LondonProducer: Simon TillotsonIn Our Time is a BBC Sounds Audio Production