The host discusses the distinction between populism and conservatism, the brain-killing stupidity of our election, and the role of ideologues. He reflects on his earlier discussion with Tom Nichols and clarifies key points. The podcast also explores the importance of making clear distinctions, the disappointment with the Claremont Institute, and the power of persuasion in politics.
01:24:48
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Populism, when taken to extremes, can be detrimental to conservative principles and values.
Politicians and commentators who change their positions based on political expediency should be viewed skeptically, as their transformations may be driven by desperation rather than genuine conviction.
Individuals should hold a principled stance on abortion based on personal convictions and beliefs, rather than aligning their position with what is politically advantageous.
Deep dives
The Role of Populism in Conservatism
The podcast episode discusses the difference between populism and conservatism. The speaker emphasizes that while a little bit of populism can be healthy for conservatism, taking populism to extremes can be detrimental to conservative principles and values. Populism, which prioritizes passion over reason, is seen as inherently anti-intellectual. The speaker points out that they have been advocating for this distinction for 20 years. They also mention that Mike Pence recently gave a speech highlighting the difference between populism and conservatism.
The Challenge of Politically Motivated Transformations
The episode delves into the issue of politicians and commentators who change their positions based on political expediency. The speaker states that it is good when individuals who have been wrong start saying right things, but cautions against blindly accepting their transformations as genuine. They suggest that such transformations may be seen as more of a desperation play rather than a genuine change of conviction. The speaker believes that intellectual consistency is important to maintain credibility, and cites instances where politicians and commentators switch positions without adequately explaining their reasoning.
The Complexities of Abortion Politics
The podcast explores the complicated nature of abortion politics within the conservative movement. The speaker acknowledges that abortion is a divisive issue among pro-lifers and pro-choicers. They argue that the position on abortion should not be solely based on what is politically advantageous, but rather on personal convictions and beliefs. The speaker criticizes the notion that a position on abortion must align with what is best for a political party, and emphasizes that individuals should not be afraid to hold a principled stance on the issue, regardless of its potential impact on politics.
Disillusionment with Claremont Institute
The Claremont Institute, which was originally founded to promote ideals about statesmanship, has become a disappointment. The Institute now panders to a specific set of passions rather than upholding its original purpose. Some of the individuals associated with the Institute have displayed bigotry and thuggish behavior, casting doubt on the randomness of these occurrences. This raises concerns about the incestuousness within the conservative movement and the influence it can have on political thinking.
The Role of Intellectuals in Politics
Intellectuals have a responsibility to speak truthfully and honestly, both as commentators and as political players. While there may be a temptation for intellectuals to think they have more power than they actually do, it is important to approach politics with a level of humility and integrity. From a political standpoint, it is not productive to be a 'cheap date' by blindly supporting a party or candidate without holding them accountable. Intellectuals should strive to influence and shape their own party by advocating for their beliefs and working towards moderation and centrism.
Jonah’s in a distracted state of mind on today’s Ruminant, but that can’t stop him from rambling at a wholly unnecessary length. Springing haphazardly between subjects, he offers thoughts on the distinction between populism and conservatism, the brain-killing stupidity of our election, and the role ideologues should play in society. He also reflects on his discussion with Tom Nichols about the state of the right from earlier in the week, and clarifies a few key points. In these troubled times, you can’t keep a good pundit down.