Model Citizen
Model Citizen
Nov 20, 2020
Reactionary Conservative Thought after Trump
Play • 1 hr 37 min

Donald Trump may be going away, but the coalition, movement, and intellectual tendencies that grew up around him aren't. For many, Trump seemed to herald a new dawn for reactionary conservative nationalism political thought aligned against pluralism, social justice and even liberal democracy itself. In a fascinating series of essays for Niskanen and the Bulwark, political theorist Laura Field has been probing to the philosophical underpinnings of the emerging illiberal right more insightfully than just about anyone. 

In this episode, we discuss the underlying assumptions animating thinkers like Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermuele, Yoram Hazony and Attorney General Bill Barr, among others. Why do they think liberal democracy is self-undermining? Why are they hostile to multicultural liberal pluralism. How do they think they know that liberalism leaves us empty, alienated and estranged from a profound human need for deep social connection? Are these guys like Captain Ahab on a deranged and futile hunt to destroy meaninglessness? We talk about all that and lots more, including whether left-wing postmodern thought is destroying liberal education. (Hint: It isn't.)

Laura field is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center and has taught political theory and the history of political thought as faculty at Rhodes College, Georgetown and American University, where she is currently a scholar in residence.

Readings

Meet the Reocons by Laura Field

What the Reactionary Right Gets Dead Wrong about Liberal Democracy by Laura Field

Love and Loyalty in the "Liberalocracy" by Laura Field

Dear Republicans: Welcome to the New Establishment by Laura Field

Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen

Moby-Dick; or, the Whale by Herman Melville

Credits

Host: Will Wilkinson (@willwilkinson)

Audio engineer: Ray Ingegneri

Music: Dig Deep by RW Smith

Model Citizen is a production of the Niskanen Center  (@niskanencenter)

To support this podcast or any of the Niskanen Center's programs, visit: https://niskanencenter.org/donate

Short Circuit
Short Circuit
Institute for Justice
Short Circuit 159: The Sub-Rational Basis Test
When a judge asks you a question, it’s best to give an answer. We briefly discuss an oral argument that IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer had last week on South Carolina’s civil forfeiture laws, and listen to some non-answers his opposing counsel gave. Then it’s on to the Fifth Circuit where the court wrestles with a COVID-19 order shutting down Louisiana’s bars, and the Seventh Circuit where both the plaintiff and defendant have some unconventional positions on standing. If you’re playing Short Circuit bingo this episode has got you covered: “Lochner,” “rational basis,” “civil forfeiture,” “Twitter Laureate,” and “subtreasury.” Transcript: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Short-Circuit-159.pdf South Carolina Civil Forfeiture, https://ij.org/case/south-carolina-civil-forfeiture/ Big Tyme Investments, LLC v. Edwards, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-30537-CV0.pdf Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc., http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D01-14/C:20-3249:J:Hamilton:con:T:fnOp:N:2644794:S:0 A Tale of Two Cases and Two Pandemics, https://ij.org/cje-post/a-tale-of-two-cases-and-two-pandemics/ Rob Frommer, https://ij.org/staff/rfrommer/ Josh Windham, https://ij.org/staff/joshua-windham/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org
32 min
Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast
Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast
Legal Talk Network
Imminent Lawless Action
In 1919, The US Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States established the rule that if words create a "clear and present danger" to incite criminal activity or violence, the government has the right to prevent and punish that speech. For nearly fifty years, through wars and the Red Scare, that rule was applied largely without question. Then, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a white supremacist in Ohio, convicted for an inflammatory speech at a Klan rally, challenged his conviction saying it violated his First Amendment rights...and the Court agreed. A new test was born which has lasted for now more than 50 years. But, having been formulated in an era of much more limited media, does it still hold up today? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores how the First Amendment has handled inflammatory speech, from Schenck to the current Brandenburg standard and all the way up to today. With the help of Professors David Cunningham and Richard Wilson, Ken digs into what makes the “imminent lawless action” test of Brandenburg such an important turning point in First Amendment law but also investigates whether the proliferation of online communication necessitates a renewed look at the standards set out in a “simpler” time. Professor David Cunningham is professor and Chair of Sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Richard Wilson is the Gladstein Distinguished Chair of Human Rights and Professor of Law and Anthropology at UConn School of Law.
34 min
More episodes
Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu