Theory of Change Podcast With Matthew Sheffield

Episode SummaryJD Vance, Donald Trump’s running mate, is a newcomer on the political scene, and as such, a lot of people don’t know very much about his ideas. That’s concerning because Vance identifies with a reactionary far-right tradition that is explicitly and fundamentally at odds with American democracy. Donald Trump, by contrast, has no core ideology and no core beliefs. His main goal at all times and all places is to advance his own personal interests, and that is literally it. Vance isn’t like that. He comes from an authoritarian, reactionary tradition that explicitly rejects conservatism, liberalism, and democracy. Trump wants absolute power, and Vance wants him to have it to destroy what he believes to be a decadent and corrupt society.On today’s episode, we’re going to be talking about some of the core ideas of this very old tradition (which both predates and includes fascism) and what it has in store for the United States, regardless of the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.Our guest on today’s episode is Matt McManus, he is the author of a book called The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back The Tide of Egalitarian Modernity, and a lecturer in political science at the University of Michigan.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Flux is a community-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content▪ Arguing with hardcore Trumpers is impossible, because reactionaries do not actually believe in logic▪ Libertarian oligarchs are trying to take over San Francisco — and the country▪ The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ and the long history of right-wing re-branding▪ How a little-known cable channel for Roman Catholics is radicalizing the faithful▪ Ronna McDaniel and the twilight of fictitious Republicans▪ Democrats became more conservative as Republican became reactionary authoritarians, will Kamala Harris reverse this?▪ ‘Post left’ content creators are getting massively wealthy by promoting far-right ideologiesAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:29 — Distinguishing between conservatism and reactionism06:34 — Why telling the difference between conservatism and reactionism can be difficult10:53 — How the Cold War kept reactionaries in check within the Republican party18:06 — How neoconservatives prepared Republicans for Trumpism22:40 — Opposing "decadence" unites right-of-center philosophies26:08 — Redefining "elite" is core to the reactionary project33:41 — Why epistemic nihilism collapses into totalitarianism40:17 — Anti-intellectualism and right-wing philosophy46:45 — The paradoxes of left- and right-wing intellectualism53:29 — JD Vance's deep connections to reactionary philosophers59:14 — Why there are atheist and Jewish Christian nationalists01:04:44 — As the right overtly embraces authoritarianism, the left can reclaim freedom01:12:50 — The rise of the Nietzchean rightAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So we have a lot to talk about here today. The political philosophy episodes are always one of my favorites, I have to confess, as my audience may already realize. But nonetheless, so JD Vance, we're kind of organizing the discussion here of reactionism and reactionary politics around him because I think he is very obviously the most prominent reactionary figure now in the United States.So, but most people don't know a lot about what he thinks because I mean, he's a poor public speaker and, he's mostly known for kind of his bizarre interactions with people and writing a book.That's kind of the framework that I want to put this in. And then we'll come back to Vance later.But the idea first I want to explore is that conservatism and reactionism are not the same political philosophies. They're very obviously adjacent and contiguous but they're very different from each other. And you have written quite a bit about reactionism and conservatism.So let's maybe start the discussion off with that. What, what are the fundamental differences between conservatism and reaction in your opinion?MATT McMANUS: Sure, well I think the important thing to note right from the get go, is that the political right broadly, is a vast and extremely diverse area of political ideologies. It includes everything from, fascists to moderate conservatives like Mitt Romney and arguably quite a few liberals would identify on the political right as well, people like F.A. Hayek, et cetera, et cetera. So at the core of being right wing, I think is Hayek's idea that you believe that there are recognizably superior persons within society and that those recognizably superior persons are entitled to more. Right? More wealth, more power, more status on generally aligned with.This is a kind of moral view that we have recognizably superior persons in positions of authority on positions of status. Everything will go better for everyone else because you want power and you want status and you want wealth to accrue in the hands of those who are best exercised, wielded. But Who happens to be a recognizably superior person, how you make these kind of determinations.That's where a lot of the enormous nuance and variation on the political right comes from. Now, one of the things that [00:04:00] distinguishes conservatives from reactionaries is generally speaking, conservatives tend to think that the traditional hierarchies and authority structures that have been present in society for a very long period of times are the ones that we should put our faith in.For a variety of different reasons, but let's just point to, like, the Burkean tradition, right? A good Burkean would say, and this is putting it a bit simply, the reason we should put our faith in authority structures and hierarchies that have endured over a long period of time is because if they've endured for a long period of time, then they seem to be working reasonably well.Right? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now, that doesn't mean we can't tinker around the edges with things, but the main goal of a conservative is to change what must be changed in order to conserve what we can. And in the contemporary American scene right now, you still see a variety of different people on the right who hold this view.George Will comes to mind. He wrote a big book called The Conservative Sensibility, where He kind of fused Burkean and more classical liberal ideas to say, look, in the United States, we're fundamentally a classical liberal country. The founders were classical liberals. So the job of a kind of conservative in the America is to conserve and to advance classical liberal principles and institutions like those that the founders created.But that's not the outlook that many of America's reactionaries hold today. Many American reactionaries are fundamentally opposed to the liberal worldview for Again, a wide variety of different reasons, and this includes people like Vance, who's drank deep of the well of post liberal and anti liberal thought, and the goal of these figures is, in the words of Glenn Elmer's, to not conserve anything, right?Conservatism is no longer enough, as the title of one of Elmer's essays went, because fundamentally, liberalism has been a destructive force, it's wiped out everything that's of value in the United States, and so what we need to do If you're a reactionary, of course is to advance a much more militant and even revolutionary or counter revolutionary program to try to set things right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, there, there are significant [00:06:00] differences and you've described them well that yeah, conservatives, a conservative in the American sense. And, broadly speaking, maybe the.Global sense at this point now is, is somebody who wants to conserve liberalism as it is, or maybe perhaps just recently was that's what a conservative is. And a reactionary is somebody who says, liberalism is wrong, and in many cases, democracy is wrong as well. And and we'll get further into that in the discussion here today. But so with with Vance he has a lot of connections to all of these emergent reactionaries.Why telling the difference between conservatism and reactionism can be difficultSHEFFIELD: And it's been kind of just both fascinating and dispiriting how a lot of political professionals, including people who are Democratic Party strategists and communicators and professional national journalists, they don't seem to understand this difference between conservatism and reactionism. Now, why, why, why do you think that is?McMANUS: Well, I think there are a number of different reasons, right? One is that the American right for a very long time has presented itself as fundamentally a conservative movement. Right. Committed to at least market liberalism a fair degree of individual freedom and certainly the promotion of democracy around the globe.Think back to the advent of Reaganism, right, where a lot of those kinds of tropes were put together. Now, if you're a critic of the American, right, that's more longstanding. Like myself, you might question the sincerity of a lot of those convictions, but that's at least the way that it's been presented.And this kind of overtly reactionary, anti-liberal kind of muscularly counter revolutionary outlook. Comes quite a shock to a variety of different pundits, including many right wing pundits, people like Jonah Goldberg who were surprised, by what seems to have come out of the Republican party.Now I would argue again, that if you look deeper into the history of American conservatism, people like Rick Perlstein would say All these kinds of ingredients for a counter revolutionary program were always [00:08:00] there, right? If you go back to something like Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, right?Goldwater probably lost that election in no small part, not just because he was soft on civil rights and even opposed to civil rights but because he said things like, radicalism in defense of liberty or extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, right? It's not really a very conservative attitude endorsing these kinds of extremist views.But, generally speaking this tended to be a rhetorically quiescent element of the right until comparatively recently, definitely it was less transparent before 2016 when Trump gave license to a lot of these people to become a lot more vocal.SHEFFIELD: Yeah well, and, and it was both rebranding exercise as well on the part of the people that were saying, well, we're in favor of liberalism. I mean, for instance, obviously William F. Buckley, he presented as, That being his brand of, well, I'm just trying to conserve what we have in this country.And but at the same time he was saying that he was also being in favor of segregation writing editorials saying that, well, actually segregation is good because black people are just not capable of governing themselves and, and being part of the economy. So this is for their own good.Sorry, guys, you just, you're just SJWs are wrong. You need to leave it as it is. And, and, and he wrote aMcMANUS: to give another example during the, at the height of the AIDS epidemic William F. Buckley recommended that homosexuals, his term be tattooed above the buttocks, right? With a big warning label, right? And that kind of humor, let's call it that wouldn't be out of place in something like the contemporary Trump movement with this kind of vulgarity and it's just rote and callous dismissal of human life.So again, I think if you look back, further and look more carefully at some of these figures we kind of view the past of American conservatism with rose colored glasses if we don't recognize that a lot of the seeds of Trumpism were very firmly planted well before he came onto the scenes.SHEFFIELD: yeah. [00:10:00] And, and then also the fact that, I mean, the, the entire movement, which began calling itself conservatism. I mean, they, they didn't call themselves conservative. Like, that's an important point, which, because most political professionals, journalistic professionals don't know anything about it.History they don't realize that Buckley and these other people, I mean, they were the point of what they were doing was to stop. The new deal was to roll back social security was to roll back, labor unions and minimum wage. Like that was always the goal, like, and they've never stopped having those goals.And so, Yeah, it's just, it's pretty disgraceful, frankly, that a lot of, of people who pretend to be experts and put themselves forward as experts don't know any of this stuff. Pretty disgraceful, I think.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely, right?How the Cold War kept reactionaries in check within the Republican partyMcMANUS: So, once upon a time the American right, certainly the intellectual American right, used to be described as a three legged stool, right? So, One leg of that stool was militant anti communism which eventually transformed into this idea that America should have a kind of militant and muscular international relations policy in the 1990s and early 2000s when communism for the most part disappeared.The second leg of the stool was the, evangelical Christian movement which always had a very, very, very pronounced kind of white nationalist undercurrent to it with its opposition to things like civil rights alongside, of course, more conventional kinds of oppositions to things like abortion or gay marriage.And then the third leg of that stool were American libertarians, certainly right libertarians at the very least who, as you mentioned, were committed to rolling back the new deal or even going further than rolling back the new deal, going all the way back to invert something like The criticisms of the Lochner precedent from early in the 20th century, and as a lot of people have pointed out, the three legs of the stool were never exactly the same size, and the stool itself was always kind of shaky since it's not immediately clear.What economic libertarianism or economic liberalism [00:12:00] has to do with support for white evangelism let alone the idea that America should use its military and cultural might to try to impose its value system, whatever that happens to be around the globe. Again, what I would argue is that the Shared through line of all these doctrines or all these elements of the classical American right was this conviction that there are superior people and superior countries for that matter on their entitled to greater status, greater agency, and they were hostile to a liberalism, which suggested otherwise.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I think that probably one of the other reasons that this distinction is harder for a lot of people to grasp is that these early branders and influencers for, for reactionism like Buckley they, they did explicitly market their ideas in the language of liberalism Because Nazism had so, overwhelmingly discredited fascism and authoritarianism as political philosophies in the recent memory of the people they were trying to convict.McMANUS: Absolutely. Right. So David Austin Walsh has written a very good book about this, so I'm going to draw pretty heavily from that. So arguably the kind of unifying philosophy that was characteristic of the National Review crowd for a long time was Frank Reier's fusionism, right? For those in your audience who aren't familiar with it fusionism refers to this idea that we should combine a commitment to classical liberal liberties certainly economic liberties with this commitment to Judeo Christian virtues and Judeo Christian norms.Now, again, this fusion of a commitment to a kind of social conservatism with a kind of liberalism, certainly an economic liberalism was uncomfortable, even in Meyer's work and there are enormous debates amongst the National Review crowd about which axes of this fusionist synthesis they should emphasize, right, because People quite rightly pointed out that if you're committed to things like liberal values, there seems to be something [00:14:00] contradictory in calling for banning pornography, for example.And if you're an economic liberal, there seems to be something very unusual about allying yourself with people who say things like, we should ban pornography, or we should ban gambling, or whatever it happens to be. But I would argue,SHEFFIELD: at school. Yeah.McMANUS: yeah, exactly. I would argue following a lot of historians, that this is where the third leg of the stool came in despite all of these various differences and some of these debates were really quite intense and bluntly nasty if you look at the Meyer Kirk debate, for example, they were not nice to each other, a lot of them were papered over because the one thing the American right could do Absolutely agree on was that communism, socialism understood very expansively were bad things and extremely threatening.Oftentimes they lump the New Deal in with that since or the great society programs of Johnson. And there's nothing like an enemy to kind of bring strange bedfellows together and allow a synthesis intellectually like, fusionism to function. As a kind of ad hoc philosophy for a long period of time.And some people have pointed out that one of the reasons why the splits on the American right became more transparent as time went on is because without a international adversary like the Soviet Union to kind of band everyone together instead the American right started turning on more domestic enemies which of course leads to more existential questions about just what American conservatism is supposed to be and which elements of American society don't really belong.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I, I would think that that also, that sort of foreign policy component. Is probably what kept the other two from going off the complete deep end and embracing their inherent radicalism because you know it was it was run by the military industrial complex and their and, and their advocates within the, the, the Republican party that, by definition, they need a stable society and, the, as much as militaries in many countries, our forces for right wing authoritarianism, they also in many countries [00:16:00] do have an inherent apolitical mission and, and, and very often do in fact, are, are, are.Can be a force for some sort of moderation within between different warring factions.McMANUS: Absolutely. And I mean, there's no denying this, right? There are plenty of people within the Reagan administration, people like Buchanan or Sam Francis, who were a lot more hostile to liberalism and arguably even American democracy than they let on. But there was an awareness on the part of many of the Reaganites that in an existential battle with world communism, where communism had Quite a bit of appeal to many in the third world.It was extremely important to position oneself as a defender of freedom, a defender of democracy, a defender of national self determination in some circumstances, right? And again, a lot of that disappeared with the end of communism and, depending on when you want to date it, the late 1980s, early 1990s, right?As a kind of world historical force. Again, nothing really unites like a good enemy especially internationally. Without that it just leads you to turn inwards and reflect upon one's internal differences in a much more existentially, stringent kind of way.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and have to actually start developing your, your real ideas and your real values, which apparently have been pretty monstrous.McMANUS: Exactly. So, in his new book when the clock broke, John Gans talks a lot about Pat Buchanan's early runs in the 1990s and you can read Buchanan's books. He anticipates a lot of the kind of philosophy, if you want to call it that, of Trumpism that later emerges.But one of the reasons that Buchanan felt that there was this opportunity to run on a more stridently right wing kind of program in the 1990s, at least according to Gans is precisely because he felt, look, Communism is gone and the biggest untapped electorate in America, as he put it, is to the right of Ronald Reagan.And now that we don't necessarily have to worry about trying to appeal to all the left wingers and appeal to all the people outside of the United States who might be concerned about us pivoting too far to the right it's time to tap that resource. So it's a very interesting thesis. And again, [00:18:00] who knows what would have happened?If the Soviet Union hadn't fallen, definitely we wouldn't have seen something like Trumpism right now.How neoconservatives prepared Republicans for TrumpismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think so. There's there is an irony also in the, the the rise of, of reactionism or or fascism, whatever you want to call in the United States. It's, it is in many ways, kind of the The indirect creation of neoconservatism and it's very ironic because the neoconservatives were the very first people who were expelled once the Trump people took over the Republican Party, and, the,McMANUS: him for it, that's for sure.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and and so, but the neoconservatives, as much as they hate Trump and hate this kind of fascistic form of politics that he's created this reactionary viewpoint in a lot of ways, they were the predecessors for it. And you talk about that in, in in your book. So let's discuss that further.If you don't mind.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. I still think that the definitive book on the relationship between, say, the Bush administration, second Bush administration and the Trump administration has yet to be written. But, As you point out, many of the neoconservatives who kind of reached the apex of their influence and their power during the Bush administration deeply resented the Trump administration sidelining them and just pushing them out and tried to present Trump as some kind of aberration from what the Republican party once stood for.I think about somebody like David Frum, right? Who basically writes op ed after op ed in the Atlantic, make exactly this case week in and week out. I would argue that that is a misconstrual of the real history. So. Look, neoconservatism emerged as a kind of distinct strand of conservatism that began to gain real influence in the 1980s in the American sorry, in the Reagan administration.There's no doubt that many neoconservatives transitioned from the left, even from communism. If you think about somebody like Irving Kristol, who was once a Trotskyite towards a kind of classical liberalism with the Some conservative values. But this has led many people to misdiagnose neoconservatism as fundamentally a form of [00:20:00] liberalism in the clothes of a kind of re conservative outlook.I don't think that that's true. I think that if you look deeper into the text of many leading neoconservatives, it's very clear that they hold Conservative views about a wide array of issues, Irving Kristol himself had a variety of different social conservative outlooks on things like homosexuality, or you can take something like the project for the new American century that released a important document in the 2000s that was actually quite upset at the fact that America had won the Cold War.Now, this can seem odd. But what's articulated in this doctrine, sorry, document is this deep fear that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States is going to adopt an isolationist path, demilitarize, and this is going to lead to what on the right is typically called decadence, right? Americans are just going to focus on mindless consumerism.Choosing which refrigerator to put into their kitchen, and they're not going to dedicate themselves to bigger and more grand projects of the sorts that the neoconservatives found extremely attractive and extremely exciting and necessary in order to retain America's influence in the world. And Not surprisingly when the 2000 sorry, the 2001 terror attack took place many of them said, well, here's our moment.We have a new enemy. We have a grand imperial project that we can use to elevate society above this kind of decadent libertine liberal outlook that they've associated with things like the Clinton administration. And, think about somebody like Karl Rove who in a New York Times interview in the mid 2000s it's allegedly Karl Rove, I should say said things like all of you people in the fact based community will sit there and say that, what we're doing is wrong or it's not based on the facts but we're an empire now and we create our own reality.Oh, sorry, not the fact based community, the reality based community. We create our own reality now and all of you are just going to sit there and bear witness to what we do and chronicle it. That's very much a kind of Trumpy outlook, right? This idea that decadent libertinism and permissiveness is going to lead to the decline of American society.What we need instead are things and [00:22:00] projects that are big and exciting and vital to elevate the masses above the stupor that they inexorably fall into. And combined with that is this ambivalence and even hostility towards the reality based community or the fact based community for pointing out that a lot of these grand projects are going to end in disaster, which is, of course, what eventually happened with the Bush administration because they're not interested in those kind of things.They're interested in the excitement and the grandeur that they associate with these ideas and, of course, very much like Trumpism, neoconservatism, Found out that the reality of its program when implemented was a lot more banal and a lot more disastrous than they'd ever anticipated. And that's probably why the movement went the way of the dinosaurs and deserved it.Opposing "decadence" unites right-of-center philosophiesSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and this idea of decadence I mean, that is, really kind of, it is a, it is a fundamental belief across all right wing philosophies with this, in addition to being, the superior people, what makes people superior is their lack of decadence. And, their and, and, and this harkens back, even if the people saying it don't realize it, it harkens back, to the the, the, the ancient Greek ideal of Arete or As it's commonly rendered as virtue.And like the, the people who are excellent, people will not be excellent unless they are forced to be excellent by external circumstances or by the government forcing them into better behavior or better thinking, or, something has to force people to be better because otherwise they're horrible and stupid.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. And this anxiety about potential decadence understood, and I should say in a, in a, Huge variety of different ways is pretty common across a wide array of right wing views and most right wing intellectuals will proffer theories of decadence and decline in one way or another. And they'll also, of course, offer solutions.And this can be true even of what we might call more moderate [00:24:00] conservatives, people like say Edmund Burke, right? Many people associate with the defense of things like again, moderate conservatism Capitalism this idea that we can engage in incremental change but we shouldn't kind of rock the boat too much.Much of which is true, but I think if you look deeper in his book there's a lot of anxieties about barbers, for example, getting too much power in political society because what they do is just mundane and banal and a barber doesn't need political power. And associated with that is the idea that What one needs in order to elevate a society and to attach people to systems of authority is to ascribe what he calls sublime qualities onto one's rulers and to the projects that those rulers engage in.And what's very interesting about Burke is he never says that the rulers actually need to possess these sublime qualities and of themselves is, of course, what? Constitutes the sublime is in the eye of the beholder. What's just important is that you project those kinds of ideals onto them. And that's something that somebody like Donald Trump would understand extremely well, right?In his book, the art of the deal Trump says that he engages in what he calls truthful hyperbole which is a bit of a contradiction in terms, but very Trumpy in that way. And he says, look most people don't really think very big. But they. Do really admire and want to follow people who do think big.They want to believe that they are part of something that is the biggest and the most exciting and the most extravagant And of course trump has applied exactly the same kind of attitude towards his politics Always presenting whatever he's doing as some kind of sublime renewal of the country always associating himself with these kind of sublime qualities is the only person who can fix the country and of course serving as the The night of revenge for those who followed him on.Again, there's a longstanding history of that in all permutations of right wing thought, and every conservative is going to associate this need for sublime figures and authority figures in particular and sublime projects with antidotes [00:26:00] for the decadence that they see creeping in society as the masses and their vulgarity gain too much power.Redefining "elite" is core to the reactionary projectSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And related to that though. And it's ironic because. As much as, as the philosophy, as the ideas of philosophy, the rhetoric are anti fundamentally anti democratic and authoritarian. They also are often treated and labeled as populist in a lot of the mainstream press because in fact, they do use.And borrow, steal, whatever you want to say, they do in fact borrow a lot of of rhetoric and tropes from social democratic communistic traditions, critiques, and that was something that that Sam Francis did. I think he was the one that kind of. really injected a lot of that into the mainstream Republican discourse.Yeah, but, but there were other figures as well. I, Joe McCarthy obviously is probably the most prominent early exemplar of that. But let's, yeah, let's, what's, what's the I guess, yeah, let's maybe talk about first the, what you see as some of the most. Prominent examples of that in the history of this idea of these borrowings.And then maybe discuss, what why people in the contemporary press are so unable to understand that this is not populism.McMANUS: Sure. Well, I mean, anxieties about populism in democracy go all the way back to ancient Greece, right? Many of the ancient Greek philosophers were deeply concerned with the demagoguery they associated with loose figures like Alcibiades, right? Who would say whatever they need to, to rile the people up to get what it is they want.And of course the term populism comes from the Latin popularis which, was Express the kind of concerns in the Roman Republic about those who sided with the plebeians against the partitions. And a lot of this eventually contributed to the various civil wars that rocked the Republic in its late period.But in the contemporary era, right, people like Jan Mueller in his book, What is Populism says that populism shouldn't be [00:28:00] understood as being necessarily a left wing or a right wing phenomena. It's more kind of rhetorical You And strategic style of politics where you set a pure and unadulterated people against a decadent and undeserving elite who have been in charge for far too long and usually present yourself as the figure that can Remove this decadence and replace the elite and set the country or set the Organ, you know the company or whatever it happens to be back on the right course And there are left wing populists in the world.There's no doubt about it. Think about people like Alamo, in mexico, right? Some people have even tried to make the case that somebody like bernie sanders falls into this paradigm Although i'd reject that since sanders has always insisted that this movement is very much focused on the we rather than the I But, in terms of the right it's important to note that, the political right worldwide initially emerged in part as a movement that was hostile to democracy and any kind of attempt to appeal to the people.Because there was concerns that appealing to the people for support would cede a degree of political authority and political legitimacy to democratic projects, but starting around the 19th century. The most savvy conservative politicians and most savvy reactionary politicians realized that there was really no going back to the ancien regimes of Europe where Lords and Kings could more or less just do whatever they want.And the people just had to deal with it, right? The people have become a permanent constituent feature of modern political regimes as they, they started to look very cleverly in many cases for ways to mobilize mass support for conservative projects. And they were very successful at it. As we. See today, right now, one of the things that characterizes right wing populism ever and against left wing populism is left wing populism will typically present itself as agitating on behalf of people who have always and everywhere been benign political authority, social status, wealth, [00:30:00] Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.The dispossessed or the marginalized right wing populism usually moves in a much more nostalgic register, typically presenting itself as restoring to the people a degree of status, authority, and greatness that was once theirs and has been taken from them or corroded by the presence of liberal elites The swinish multitude and anyone else who's got a shot at power and status that they didn't really deserve.And Trump was of course, a case in point with that, right? His premier slogan is make America great again. And so what he's really doing is tapping into this right populist sense that people have gotten a leg up who don't deserve it. This is in no small part, the fault of liberal elites allied with the most undeserving people in society.Yeah. This is exactly what Charlie Kirk, for example, argues in his book, Right Wing Revolution. And Trump is going to restore to the people the status and authority over and above the undeserving that was wrongly taken for them. And of course, he is the only vessel that is capable of enacting this kind of restoration.And Populism doesn't necessarily have to become anti democratic although it very frequently does but it's almost invariably anti liberal in the sense that populists resent the checks on state authority and on the leader's authority that, any liberal would think is essential to a well functioning democratic regime.And partly because there is this hostility to liberal checks and balances it's very frequently the case, as Zach Beauchamp puts it in his book On the reactionary tradition that populist movements will eventually swallow the democratic element of their program and just transform into outright authoritarian regimesSHEFFIELD: Hmm. Yeah, and I think another difference between, people who apply that label to themselves on the left and right, is that for the right when they claim to be the elites that they are attacking are not economic. are intellectual elites. Like that's, so in other words, like for them, the, the, [00:32:00] the bet noire is the, the university professor like yourself or the, or the, fashion stylist in New York or the the, the feminist Instagram.model. But those are the real elite in society in, in, in this rhetoric.McMANUS: Yeah, and they're very transparent about that, right? Just to give an example, in Ron DeSantis new book or not new book his last book Fire to a Failed Presidential Run he tried to present himself as fighting against the elites. But he makes it very clear in the book that an elite does not necessarily mean somebody who's reached the commanding heights of society.Clarence Thomas Billionaires, they aren't necessarily elites. An elite is somebody who shares in the worldview of liberalism, which means that if you're a school teacher in West Virginia earning 35, 000 a year, but you want to talk about black like matters, from this DeSantis perspective, you're a part of the elite.But the Koch brothers and Supreme Court judges aren't because they side with him, right? Now this is of course absurd by any metric, but again, this relates back to Mueller's point about populism. Populism isn't necessarily about trying to develop a consistent or logically plausible framework for understanding political reality.It's rhetorical and strategic, right? And DeSantis doesn't want to attack and Trump does not want to attack the billionaire class. He wants to attack liberals. So it makes a lot of sense to them to frame elite status in this way, rather than going after what I would think are the real elites in society, which are, plutocrats.The very rich Fortune 500 companies, that kind of thing.Why epistemic nihilism collapses into totalitarianismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly.And related to that is that this is, very much an, an epistemic revolution in a lot of ways to reactionary take complete takeover of the Republican Party such that.These borrowings that we're talking about here, they, they really are basically taking [00:34:00] from a tradition, which is very incoherent, but the only real thing that it has is that you, the individual person are always correct in that they, the unnamed, they, the, the people who control institutions or whatever, they are lying to you, they are controlling you.And so as such. It's a as the graph we're showing on the screen shows that, these are our beliefs as you move further and further away from any sort of institutional trust that they are features of Marxism. They are features of liberalism, religious democracy, conservatism, libertarianism and then basically it kind of flips around to the other side there that once you do not trust any other institutions, then it.Only the individual grade leader can come in and save you and save the society, which of course ends up in reaction aism and fascism and, and Marxist totalitarianism.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. I think there's a lot to be said about that. Right. So, Let's just talk a little bit about right wing populism as an example. So John Gans points out in his really good book, again when the clock broke that there's a kind of oddity in some of the aesthetic tropes that you can find in Trumpism, at least a surface oddity where a lot of times Trump's followers will like to.Characterize him as something like a gangster or a tough guy. You go to a Trump rally, you'll see him, on Scarface t shirts or Godfather t shirts, et cetera, et cetera. And Gantz points out that a lot of commentators have been bewildered by that. Cause they'll say, well, aren't you the party of law and order?Aren't you supposed to believe in things like Checks and balances on authority and, that includes, the authority of criminals, but of course, the clarity of politicians and yes, points out that that's a pretty silly way of understanding right wing populism. The appeal of people like Vito Corleone Or Scarface, right?It's precisely that they represent a different kind of authority to the one that, say, liberals would reverence. Procedural and institutional authority. It represents this very masculine kind of [00:36:00] authority figure. Who's not bound or checked by any kind of restrictions. But Shows a degree of loyalty to those who have followed him.Doesn't really show a great deal of loyalty to everyone else. And is willing to do whatever it takes to advance those who follow him, the in group over and against the out group who are conceived as enemies. And this of course has an enormous amount of appeal to people. The MAGA and the political spectrum.And it always has and there's deep rooted reasons for that. But there are antecedents and the political right as well. If you look at say the fascist movements of the early 20th century, and we can debate whether Trump is a fascist or not. One of the things that was consistently criticized by fascist intellectuals was the kind of slow.ponderous, dull, decadent and nebbish quality, the nebbish quality that they associated with the talk shop of liberal parliamentarianism. And they said a leader will cut through all that and just get what done, what needs to be done while eliminating everyone that stands in his way and of course, reward those who's loyally followed him.And it's important to understand that there's always been something appealing Particularly to right wingers about this idea, although it's not exclusive to the right. And that's why it's unsurprising that somebody like Trump would be associated with gangsters today. And sometimes proudly associated with gangsters, even by his own followers.Because they embody exactly that kind of unconstrained, masculine ideal.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, And, and, and it's also not just about pa affecting the power of the, the persecuted the heron folk. But it's also that. That the, that when you move from when you, when your epistemology is entirely individualist oriented, eventually, it comes to that. Well, my authority figure is the source of reason and truth and that what he says is not is everything it is, the, the the, the idea of the, the, the great chain of being [00:38:00] divine command theory, that all of these, Things are all interrelated that, that nihilism collapses into totalitarianism.McMANUS: Yeah, without a doubt. And sometimes they can be very expressive about this. As I was saying before we went on air, if you want, just read Charlie Kirk's new book, Right Wing Revolution. And I don't remember coming into Reading anything by Charlie Kirk if you're looking for deep insight into most subject matters, but if you want to understand how MAGA operates it's not a bad source, but in the most telling chapter of that book he says, look and he's speaking to his conservative readers, you might be beset by uncertainties at any given point but you must militantly, and this is his term, police those uncertainties away and chase an absolute conviction that you are right wherever possible.And if you're not sure what that absolute conviction be, just look at what the left understood very broadly says, and you can know for sure that they are wrong and he says, what we need to do is chase a right, wrong, good or evil Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader kind of approach to every issue possible.And he does, it says. We should do that precisely because it's easier to market such a worldview than one that is defined by the nuanced kinds of epistemologies that you're talking about. And of course, this is very coincident with what somebody like Trump wants. Trump is the kind of guy who would sit there and very clearly say, happily tell you who do you believe me or your lying eyes and try to convince you that your lying eyes aren't to be trusted.But he is right. And there are a lot of different reasons why these kinds of epistemic outlooks can be appealing to people. One of them, I think, going back to people like Eric Fromm or Adorno is just that it's not, a lot of people aren't happy about being uncertain in the world, right?Uncertainty can lead to confusion, it can lead to anxiety, and sometimes it's nice to chase certainty. But I think it's a very dangerous temptation to give into those impulses because the world is invariably far more complicated than we'll ever be able to understand and trying to reductively simplify it.And I think that that's [00:40:00] one of the reasons why Trumpism is as childish and immature as it isSHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is and, and, and related to that is that the the, the Trump, since as the Republican party has become, almost entirely reactionary and certainly in the powerMcMANUS: Trumpified,SHEFFIELD: a hundred percent. Yeah. That's right?Yeah.Anti-intellectualism and right-wing philosophySHEFFIELD: As this has, has happened, there has been just this overwhelming brain drain among Republican operatives, among Republican, I mean, they don't even Like they don't even try to have policy platforms anymore.Like in, in 2020 famously, they had no platform at all. And then in 2024, they just kind of put a couple of wishlist items on a, on a, on a roughly, what was it like a five, eight, five. Page paper or something like that. It was very, very, very small, much, much smaller than, and then, and you see that with when Trump was in office, that he had problems getting people to work for him who had any sort of qualifications.And, and even Republicans didn't want to work for him because they thought that he was, just stupid and, and they couldn't ever achieve anything meaningful to them. And I can say this myself that, I was friends at that time with somebody who, because, you know, as, as. I think I don't know if you would know, I'm trying to remember if I, if I told you or not, but like, I used to be a right wing activist myself.So, yeah, so, so, when Trump first came into office, I was friends with somebody who was one of his top speech writers and he offered me a job in the Trump White House. And I thought about it for a second only because I thought, well, there's going to be a lot of really stupid people in there.So maybe there should be at least, one or two adults in the room. But in the end I couldn't, I couldn't justify it to myself morally because I thought, well, to whatever extent I would have any. Influence, I would also be counting and seeing all kinds of horrible [00:42:00] ideas and whatnot and policies And so therefore I I couldn't do it and but that's it is a It's a conundrum that you're that you're seeing not just in the in the policy making realm but also in the in the media realm as well that the the very very well financed and Sort of remnant Yeah liberal reactionism, if you will, that, that prevailed before Trump, the neoconservative hierarchy, they still exist, but they have no influence on the party.And it's almost, I don't know. It's like you read these people a lot. Like, do they. They know they don't have influence, but do you think that they think that they're ever getting it back?McMANUS: It's a good question. So I think in order to start answering your question, we have to understand what the relationship between intellectuals and the writers, right? So many people have commented on how the political right has this kind of anti intellectualist quality to it going all the way back to people like Edmund Burke, right? But, there's deep rooted theoretical and practical reasons why the right would have this wariness and even hostility to intellectuals, which stamps movement like MAGA.I think two of the clearest figures that make express where this anti intellectual impulse comes from are Joseph de Maistre and Yoram Hazony. Right. So for those of your listeners who don't know Joseph de Maistre is usually considered to be the godfather of the reactionary tradition, a fierce critic of the French revolution and a fierce critic of enlightenment reason.And he's very express about why he's a critic of enlightenment reason. Because he says, look enlightenment reason or what is ignorantly called philosophy is fundamentally, and this is his term, a destructive force, right? When people are. Told to use their own reason to assess what society is doing to ask themselves what kind of political authorities that they want.Then what we wind up with is an endless series of debates, discussions, and deliberations about who should be in charge and why that will go nowhere and that are toxic [00:44:00] to the establishment of any kind of lasting authority. And so he says very bluntly that we need to treat existent authorities like dogmas, right?Adopt an almost religious attitude of fidelity towards them not question the foundations of our political order all that substantially. And he pointed out in other works, like the St. Petersburg Dialogues, if that doesn't work, well, the hangman or the executioner will, should always be available to kind of overawe anybody who might be asking too many questions about the order.Now flash forward to the present day. You have Intellectuals like Yoram Hozoni, who make very similar points, albeit less dramatically, let's call it that because Hozoni says, look one of the things that characterizes liberalism and the left is this endless propensity to want to engage in critical reasoning and Hozoni says there's always, there always should be a place for critical reasoning, but critical reasoning can be very destructive, right, because it leads people to ask Endless questions, one after another, about why we should have this authority, what were the actual facts of our history other reasons to be skeptical of the long standing traditions that we have.And he says, after a certain point, asking these questions, one after another, after another is either a waste of time or positively dangerous. Which is why, at a certain point, you just have to stop and take things on faith. Which again, has this pronouncedly anti intellectualist attitude. And, you see this expressed policy wise in a lot of the hostility that the right shows towards things like, say, critical race theory or critical theory more generally, right?Because they don't want people asking this endless series of questions about their society, its history the role of slavery in American life and its enduring impact because that leads to uncomfortable questions about whether existing authority structures and hierarchies should exist. have the kind of legitimacy that the right wants to ascribe to them.Now, I want to be very clear, there are enormously interesting and profound right wing intellectuals out there. Going from Edmund Burke to people like Casoni or Patrick Deneen and of course, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, the rest of the canon, right? But the right, by and large, has been a lot more [00:46:00] wary of the role intellectuals should play in society than liberals or the left, who tend to welcome or even encourage theSHEFFIELD: Yeah.McMANUS: of people's critical faculties, since many people in the liberal tradition or on the left really like this idea that we should have an endless debate about things like first principles, authority structures, hierarchies.Think about somebody like John Stuart Mill, for example, the emblematic left wing liberal, right? Who said, we should encourage free speech in part because we can never be sure whether our own ideas are the right one. And even if we are pretty sure that our ideas are the right ones, there's always something to learn from combating the other side.Society should be an endless and critical debate about just these kinds of things. That's a much more liberal attitude. And of course, it's much more conducive to somebody like my taste, somebody like me and my taste.The paradoxes of left- and right-wing intellectualismSHEFFIELD: Mm hmm. Yeah, and it's also that, that core difference, though, that you just talked about, it is kind of a flaw, I think, in a lot of left wing attempts to scrutinize right wing politics in that they project. That love of intellectual debate and such that and they don't understand that, like, and I see this on on some podcasts and articles or whatever, where they will go and analyze these.People like Patrick, the Dean or whoever, and impute all kinds of influence to them when in fact they don't actually have almost any influence on Donald Trump or the people who work for him.They'reMcMANUS: Donald Trump is not flipping through why liberalism failed late at night and being like, yeah,SHEFFIELD: This guy has a point. No, they're, they're not. And like, but to the extent that they have any influence, it is. The reverse of how things work on the left with regard to intellectuals that for the right you have until influence if you rationalize the ideas of the leader, whereas it works the other way around on the left that, what, what the leaders, at least.Supposed to be doing on the left is that they are, sort of effectuating the ideas of, of, of the people who created the [00:48:00] ideas. Whereas on the right, the ideas are ex post facto, they are rationalizations for the desires of theMcMANUS: yeah. And sometimes progressive intellectuals can be quite vain for this reason, right? Just to pick on my own side a little bit. I mean, I'm a very left wing guy. John Maynard Keynes famously once said that a lot of politicians that scribble insights late at night are the slaves to some distant and long dead economist or philosopher or whatever it happens to be.And, if you want to go more radical still think about something like of organic intellectuals who gradually overcome the hegemony of capitalism on replace it with a more emancipatory culture. Now again, these arguments are more in my taste because I do think that intellectuals have a role to play in society, but it can be very substantially overstated.But there's no doubt that the left is And liberals are considerably more receptive to intellectuals playing a pronounced role in society than the right is. Although I want to stress again the right certainly post 18th century has recognized the need to have an intellectual cadre of its own to combat the seemingly ever growing, at least in its eyes cabal of left wing intellectuals that are kind of nebulously probing holes in authority structures and hierarchies within society and need to be confronted on that terrain if necessary.I mean, even look at somebody sorry, just like, Thomas Sowell who's emblematic in that respect, right? I wrote a big review of Thomas Sowell for Jacobin Magazine, some people might be interested in. But one of Thomas's biggest books is a book called Intellectuals in Society which is a book about why intellectuals should play no role in society.Now, of course, He's almost invariably singles out liberal and left intellectuals for the destructive role that they play and chastises them for engaging an interdisciplinary sweep where not that's not warranted before he goes on to talk about everything from the economics to history, to military strategy, to politics, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.But, this kind of. I'll be paradoxical stance on the part of a right wing intellectual simultaneously chastising the [00:50:00] influence of intellectuals in society while recognising that he needs to exist precisely to combat left and liberal intellectuals is very characteristic of the right. Yeah,SHEFFIELD: And there's also a paradox, even as. Let's say philosophically that the left is more open to the ideas of, or to intellectualism. They are less willing to actually support financially things like think tanks. So like, for instance, if you look at on the right, there's just this multiplicity of, of advocacy organizations that they may not be necessarily coming out with policy papers, but at least they're making, the vague noises about policy.And there, and there are, Probably in D. C. alone, probably like at least a hundred of these organizations with a cumulative budget of probably, something like 500 million a year whereas on the left, there's almost nothing in comparison to that, because like, because like to a large degree, I think that, especially this is more true ofMcMANUS: if I could just give you one quick anecdote that makes them. That kind of makes this point.SHEFFIELD: Mm hmm.McMANUS: so, back in the day, I used to write some articles for the intercollegiate Institute, which is a conservative organization. Mostly about Edmund Burke and post modern conservatism. And I just want to say they were very nice to me, right.Despite me making my own orientation clear. One of the reasons I did this was I just wanted to see, like, can I actually present conservative ideas to a conservative audience in a way that they would seem palatable? But you know, I got paid about 400 an article writing for them, which is, Really very good.And considering how poor I was at the time was helpful. I'll just be candid about that. I've written, 50 pieces for Jacobin magazine soon. I probably made about as much for all 50 pieces as I did writing one thing for Intercollegiate Institute, right? So just to give you a sense of the funding dynamics there, right?And again, that's not a knock on Jackman. They've been very happy to support my work. It's just, there's, there's no money for advancing those kinds of policies. [00:52:00]SHEFFIELD: Yeah,McMANUS: to the right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's, it is paradoxical because I do think that the, a lot of progressives. They don't understand what the purpose of universities is that it is not to be a factory or prom promulgator of progressive ideas. They don't understand that. That's not what universities intend to be.And so as such, you should not. Outsource your political popularizing or theorizing to them because they're not going to do it and the people at the top in most universities, in fact, are conservative and because they hobnob with billionaires and oligarchs to grow their endowments and that's, that's how they operate.Like these are conservative institutions inherently.McMANUS: Yeah, I always think it's funny whenever sometimes I like reading conservative media because in conservative media, People like me and my friends are made out to be basically in charge of the entire world, right? We're liberal college professors and apparently we're brainwashing generations of students and to becoming, little postmodern neo Marxist to use the Jordan Peterson term.And when I get back to the real world, I'm like, God, I can't even get people to read the Federalist Papers from beginning to end, despite my sitting there being like, please, please, please, this is your prostitution. We need to read Madison to understand it and your grade is dependent upon it.So I'm, I'm begging you. So, sometimes it's quite flattering to imagine myself in this conservative vein being like, Oh yeah, I'm just molding hearts and minds. So, it's, it's kind of funny irony that way.JD Vance's deep connections to reactionary philosophersSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and JD Vance, just to bring him back in here that, he, I think, is. He really is kind of emblematic for much more than almost any other Republican politician of this reactionary sensibility that has become so regnant under Trump. And he has specific. Personal connections to a lot of these reactionary far right thinkers, anti Democrats, monarchists.Can you talk about some of those connections? [00:54:00] Because I mean, gosh, they they need to be known. Like, every person should know this stuff. I feel like because it's so it's so dangerous.McMANUS: Sure. Well, I mean, a lot of people have talked about how. The influences on JD Vance's worldview are very online kind of influences, and there's some truth to that. Listing all of them would take too much time, but just to kind of give a short list, right? He was very influenced by Peter Thiel, who he worked for for a long time, and Thiel is, An eclectic billionaire who likes to think of himself as an intellectual.But one of the kind of through lines to his worldview from the very beginning has been a hostility to democracy. So you can go back and read, I think it's a 2009 essay that Teal wrote called the education of a libertarian where he basically says the prospects for libertarianism in the United States, certainly post Obama are pretty much nil, and he's very transparent that one of the reasons for this is Post, women be gaining the right to vote it's just very unlikely that there's going to be a coalition to support unbridled libertarianism to roll back the New Deal since women, in his opinion, are more likely to support left wing policies.And so, he expresses a Deep hostility to democracy on that basis because he thinks that democracy is just never going to be conducive to libertarianism. And if that's the case in his mind, at least so much the worst for democracy. Now, of course, this is extraordinarily self serving, and some people pointed out, I try to characterize it as ambiguous.I don't think there's much ambiguity about a billionaire thinking that a billionaires should have more power, more influence in society. But there's no doubt that this kind of anti democratic sentiment that's been pervasive throughout all of Pierre Attil's permutations has stamped some of Vance's worldview.Another important person is Curtis Yarvin, our Menchus Nullbug who was also financed, I should say, by Attil, right? It's not clear how, but he's received a lot of money from him. So for those who don't know Really, we're fortunate enough not to know Curtis Yarvin or Mencius Moldbug is the monarchist that you talked about, or the Neomarx monarchist.He started a blog in the late 2000s, essentially arguing that [00:56:00] American society was pervasively left it was dominated by a kind of left cultural hegemony by Associated with liberal elites, they called the cathedral on DH. There was really no way of breaking through this without the formation of a bunch of different dissonant right intellectuals who took the red pill.He was one of the people who coined that phrase saw through the kind of illusions that were promulgated by the left wing procedural and recognize that Democracy and socialism and liberalism were really all species of the same kind of bad thing this movement towards what he considers chaos and the only way to offset that would eventually be to transition to something like a neo monarchy now he has a lot of different things and a lot of different flavors of this idea that he's put forward over decades now.But the basic idea is that somebody like once upon a time it was Steve Jobs. Now, somebody like Elon Musk should take control of the country for the most part Reduce the influence of the people because the masses suck in his term to nil and just do what needs to be done in order to bring economic prosperity and authoritarian order to the state chilling idea, right?It's important to note though, that, Yarvin is so reactionary that he says that he's Not even anti French and American Revolution. He's anti English Civil War. He's a Jacobite, right? So that's how far back he wants to get. Another important influence on somebody like Vance would be Patrick Deneen, who we mentioned before.Patrick Deneen is a University of Notre Dame professor, author of a book Why Liberalism Failed. That is actually quite an interesting book and I think correctly diagnoses certain problems with what's called classical or possessive liberalism. But since then he's released a book called Regime Change that calls for exactly what it sounds like, right?Essentially replacing what he considers to be a decadent neoliberal elite with a conservative aristocracy what he calls aristopopulism that he thinks is going to Be more conducive to passing legislation that'll be for the common good, which in practice is going to mean implementing social conservative policies without the kind of nebbish liberal [00:58:00] restrictions that older conservatives would think are so important given the nature of the American Constitution and American culture.Now there are other influences that gone into JD Vance's worldview. But we'll just stop there. Cause I think that three is enough for your audiences to be subjected to today.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and it's, and it's important to note that like he specifically cites these people by nameMcMANUS: Oh yeah, no, this isn't speculation, right?SHEFFIELD: inferring that these are where he got his ideas from. He says this himself.McMANUS: Yeah, I mean, look, Jarvan back in the day, used to try to be a little bit more covert I think part of that was also a marketing ploy on his part, being dark and mysterious and a dark elf, as he once used to call it, right, kind of operating in the shadows but, These people are not shy about expressing their intellectual influences.If you push them even take somebody like Chris Rufo, who had a dialogue with Yarvin not too long ago, right? And once you recognize that these are the people that they are looking to for inspiration it should be concerning. Although like you, I think it's very easy to overstate the influence.These intellectuals have on shaping the worldview of somebody like say Donald Trump or even shaping what somebody like JD Vance would do once he gets into office, if he gets into office. Let's pray to God he doesn't.Why there are atheist and Jewish Christian nationalistsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and speaking of God, there is the, there's an interesting dichotomy between a lot of these reactionary writers in that position of religion vis a vis themselves. So Yorubin has said repeatedly over the years that he is an atheist and does not believe in religion and any of that stuff.And, but then, but then by contrast, nearly all of these sort of as they're, I guess, currently calling themselves national nationalist right or whatever they want to call it, national conservatism. Almost all of them are Catholic with the one exception of I'm concerning who is a Jewish and, but at the same time he says he's, he's a Christian nationalist who is a Jew by his [01:00:00] own admission.So these atheists and catholics are kind of Inheriting control of the intellectual right such as it is from the neoconservatives who tended to be either Jewish or non religious, like not atheist, but like just specifically non religious.And then the shock troops had always been the evangelicals and the evangelicals never have gotten a shot at the intellectual leadership. And I think there's a lot of reasons for that, but I'm curious what your, what your thoughts are and why not?McMANUS: Well, I think part of the reason is that there's a long history of Catholic reactionary thought that many of these figures can draw upon in a way that there isn't quite as deep a reservoir of evangelical reactionary thought. It's definitely there, right? But it's not as sophisticated or as long standing as, what you find in right wing Catholicism, at least.And I want to stress right wing Catholicism, right? I know a lot of left wing Catholics Catholics and Christians out there who would deeply resent, needless to say, being associated with somebody like Dineen or Adrian Vermeule. But look, in terms of the role that religion is playing on the contemporary right, it's extremely variated, right?Some of these people are, without a doubt, true believers. Think about somebody again, like Patrick Dineen or Adrian Villemula, right? Who's flirted with advocating for integralism, basically the idea that the United States and the American government should be subordinated to, or at least put on a position of equal standing with the Catholic Church which is the arbiter of truth and goodness in the world per se.Probably not Pope Francis's Catholic Church, but a suitably reactionary Catholic Church and the Miller's opinion. But others are just very overt about the fact that they don't personally believe in God but they nonetheless want to advocate for a kind of social conservative Christian or Catholic morality because they feel that this is a necessary to kind of bind society together and.Eliminate disorderly kind of libertinism on also because they think that a commitment to Christian morality will be good in alleviating the decadence that they see as [01:02:00] sweeping society by committing people to hire a more grand kinds of projects, which include, for instance, producing Enormous numbers of Children.And I suppose the third thing that we can point about that's some of the darkest of strands of writing thought out there. Many also endorse return to these kinds of religious principles because they're worried about the demographic decline or the great replacement of white Americans by non white Americans or non white immigrants.And they think that Christian morality can provide an antidote to that. And many are pretty overt about the fact again, that they don't believe, or again, that they question whether there is a God people like say Richard Spencer one of the founders of the term outright characterized himself as a cultural Christian Douglas Murray in the United Kingdom also characterized himself as a cultural Christian.But I think Yoram Hazony had the kind of best. articulation of this outlook where in a number of essays, he says, look, if you're a conservative that doesn't believe in Christianity again, in great Kirk like language, he says you should kind of sideline those concerns and ask yourself whether the country would be better off committing to Christian principles and returning as he understands at least to the traditions associated with that rather than continuing on the liberal path that it's, that has led it to darkness.That's far. And he says, if you do think that that's what we should do, then you should go to church. We should pray. You should essentially parrot the language of religion, even if you yourself aren't a believer. Now, to me, that's a horrific idea. And, I believe I have my own kind of religious views, but a lot of them are centered around authenticity, right?This idea that you should believe because you are wholeheartedly committed to this, the idea of taking a functionalist approach to religion or saying, I'm going to kind of parrot the language of religious belief because it's useful is deeply repugnant to my left liberal outlook. I draw upon people like Charles Taylor here who's a left wing Catholic but you know, it makes a lot of sense if you're a conservative to kind of articulate this kind of vision because you're saying, look, we just need to get as many people on board with this as possible.If you feel [01:04:00] that we need to return to tradition but you sort of don't believe in God, just don't worry too much about the theology of that right now do what needs to be done as it were.SHEFFIELD: Yeah,And Dennis Prager is another example of that, that he, he in fact wrote a column urging non religious conservatives to raise your children as Christian. Because if you don't, then they're going to become liberals. Basically was the was the crux of that column. And it's in it. It's a an interesting admission inadvertent admission on his part, I think, because like, that's that is the kind of the core threat that they feel like that.They're this. Hierarchical authoritarian sensibility cannot survive on its own merits.As the right overtly embraces authoritarianism, the left can reclaim freedomSHEFFIELD: It's so hilarious that, people like Jordan Peterson or whoever are often using the phrase that, that they want a marketplace of ideas, but the reality is that. We, we, their ideas were tried in the marketplace of ideas a hundred years ago and were failed.They're, they were rejected because they do not have philosophic or empirical merit. And so as such, they lost and, and, and people are not interested in subscribing to those ideas because they're unsupportable. But they, they can't see that this is irrational fundamentally.McMANUS: yeah. I mean, to paraphrase my friend Nathan Robinson, who writes for sorry, the editor of current affairs, there's something deeply ironic about some of the loudest and best known people in the world constantly complaining about how their ideas are being silenced and haven't been tried yet. Despite the fact that, they'll go on Joe Rogan and they have podcasts that reach millions of people and many people try them and just don't actually happen to find them all that appealing.Right. Now I want to be clear, right. I don't think that there's anything wrong. From a liberal standpoint with people living a social conservative life, if that's what they so choose to do, right? And I know many people, back at home who find that actually very fulfilling for a wide variety of different reasons.You do you. But you know, I agree with John Stuart Mill that people are very different in terms of [01:06:00] what is good for them, What their personality gels with, what their aspirations are in life and what they were going to find fulfilling. I would not find a socially conservative lifestyle fulfilling in any way, shape or form.And I know because, I was raised Roman Catholic and I tried it for a little while and I found it very boring and spiritually unfulfilling, right? Because I'm just not that kind of personality. And I think our society needs to create space for people to pursue, The vision of the good life that they think is conducive to their well being and to their flourishing within reasonable limits, obviously.Right?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and so long as they don't impinge on other people's ability to do so.McMANUS: You're part of the if your vision of the good life includes being a member of the Klan and lynching people, then no. But, if you want to fast for 40 days and go to Mass five times a week and listen to it only in Latin, then by all means do so, right? Perhaps you find something fulfilling in that, that I'm sorry, perhaps you find something fulfilling in that, that I simply do not or simply have not recognized yet.SHEFFIELD: yeah. And that's what actual freedom looks like. And it's yeah, and there's this, Like, you mentioned Eric from he wrote a whole book called escape from freedom and that, like, that's what a lot of this is, is that the freedom to a reactionary is imposing their opinions on someone else, like, They don't, and Tony Perkins, who is the founder of the Family Research Council, or at least the president, I'm sorry, of the Family Research Council, he had said that if we cannot legislate our opinions in society, we don't have freedom, which is inherently, anti liberal and frankly, anti American.McMANUS: Oh, I completely agree. I mean, Adrian Vimiole is probably the one who's most express about that, where he's Consistently declaimed that his religious liberty is violated. If he's not allowed to pass legislation or people like him aren't allowed to pass legislation, [01:08:00] restricting LGBTQ rights.Now I do think that democratic freedom or social freedom. If you want to call it that is a kind of freedom, right? So to a certain extent, he's not wrong. And I think as liberals, we should acknowledge that. Right. But the question then becomes is what is more important to a society committed to liberty AGM Vimula is right to pass religious legislation that is going to restrict people's basic liberties to love who they want or people's liberty to love who they want, right.Without interfering with anyone else. And I think that's a very, very easy question to answer. Right. Because, Vermouli can very easily live the kind of social conservative lifestyle that he wants within a liberal society, while complaining about how he can't pass legislation to discriminate on the basis of his prejudices.But LGBTQ persons would not be able to live in a Vermoulian society and love the kind of people that they love. And it's not a hard question for me, which is, are those societies more committed to freedom at all?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and, and that's been interesting to see the Democratic Party actually finally starting to make that argument under Kamala Harris as the candidate that, that freedom, this is the first time in decades. That that had been a theme at a democratic political convention. And it's, it's a welcome development in my opinion.McMANUS: It is, right? And look I have my problems with Kamala Harris. I'm a born, I'm a Bernie guy. But I do welcome this transition to a kind of rhetoric of joy and optimism that you've seen in her campaign. I mean, part of this is, I think is that Biden, just because of his age did himself a disservice by constantly focusing on the threat that Trump posed to democracy.Cause it really kind of cast this atmosphere of doom, gloom and decline around the Democratic party that, because Biden was so old was not really a great. Look, let's just call it that but I think that fundamentally Americans, and this is a point that my good friend Alexandre Lefebvre makes in his Liberalism as a Way of Life are committed to a kind of comprehensive liberal worldview.They find sustenance and meaning in being liberal, [01:10:00] and liberalism can be a very joyous philosophy in many ways it's a glass half full kind of outlook in many cases, although it's not naive about human nature. And that's why I think many people, certainly after decades of Trumpism find this rhetoric of joy resonant.Because I think that, people want to look forward to the future and they want to think that their tomorrow is going to be better than today. And when they are constantly confronted by politicians that say everything is bad and everything is trash and everything needs to be changed it can become a bit of a downer and become a bit exhausting after a certain point Probably the most emblematic moment for me, at least with the N.C. campaign is when Barack Obama went up and gave a speech and he talked about Trump and he's like, Trump shtick is getting a bit old, isn't it? And as somebody who's been writing about Trump now for the better part of a decade and has two books out on postmodern conservatism I can say I'm pretty much done talking about it and then move on to something else.Right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and, and ultimately the, the reorientation toward freedom and, and joy like that is political parties and ideologies do best when they, when their message aligns with their core. Emotional and psychological argument so that, what it boils down to is that hope is progressive and despair and nihilism is reactionary and Biden kind of disrupted that by not by departing.McMANUS: Oh, without a doubt. Right. The reason, the moment I thought, I mean, I've done have a crystal ball, but I figured that Biden was going to win in 2020 was When Trump was attacking him, I think it was in the first debate over Hunter Biden and Biden just sat there and he's like, my son struggles a lot, he's all right.And I'm proud of him for doing that. I thought to myself, the country right now, not even America, but the world is going through a horrible pandemic. Many of us are very anxious about what the future I was living in Canada at that point and my grandmother who was 86 was like, I've never seen anything like this before.Right. And there was something that was ordinary and [01:12:00] comforting about this kind of outlook because he just seemed like a normal guy who was proud of his son, a little bit worried that was going around. And he hit a note that really worked with the message that the democratic party needed to hit at that point which is that things are bad right now.But they're going to be okay and we're going to get through this, right? And that was a fine message in 2020 but it's 2024 now and comfort, comfort coupled with doom and gloom and apocalyptic anxieties about democracy. Even though I share a lot of those anxieties isn't what we should be going for.People, I think, want something to look forward to. They want to believe in politics again. And I don't know if the Harris campaign is going to be successful in pulling that off, right? There's still two months before we get the election but they seem to be doing a pretty good job. So far, right.And again, though I have deep reservations about the Harris candidacy that stem from my own leftism certainly I prefer to be in office to Donald Trump. So,SHEFFIELD: Yeah,McMANUS: I want to see happen.The rise of the Nietzchean rightSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and just wrapping it up here like this, this idea of hope and despair and sort of the, the mutual collaboration between atheist reactionaries and, and Christian authoritarians. Lot of this it goes, it derives from, or at least is, is, sensible to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, and who was, of course, famously not religious himself.But, a lot of people, I, I, who don't, who haven't actually readMcMANUS: Don't, don't tell that shockingly to the expansive number of right wing Christians, so called who seem to find a great deal of value. I wrote an article about this for the Institute for Christian Socialism, but it's truly baffling to me that people like Jordan Peterson or Charlie Kirk or Jonah Goldberg will all cite Nietzsche extraordinarily positively while calling themselves Christian thinkers or at least beholden to a kind of Christian ethic, seemingly unaware of the fact that Nietzsche despised Christianity, characterized himself as the Antichrist.Partly ironically, partly sincerely and also famously once said that it was socialism and liberalism and democracy that they're [01:14:00] the clearest descendants of the Christian worldview albeit secularized in the contemporary era. Anyway, sorry, just go on, just a bone that I always have to pick.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, Well, and it's like the, but the fundamental point for Nietzsche as a non religious reactionary was that religion was the only thing. That what, or at least religious hierarchy was the only thing that was standing between, the emaciated denuded slop of liberal democracy and the great imagined past, which he believed that humanity had departed from and that that ultimately is why I think that, so many non religious reactionaries are, have decided, well, I think these doctrines are nonsense, but I'm going to get behind these guys because at least It, to paraphrase the dude, at least it's an ideology.McMANUS: Yeah, that's funny. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, look the rise of what I and others have called the Nietzschean right Certainly intellectually is a very intriguing development in American circles although as one wit put it a lot of American conservatives seem to have traded not reading Locke, but talking a lot about Locke for not reading Nietzsche and talking a lot about Nietzsche.I think that the American Nietzschean right right now Fundamentally doesn't really take on board a lot of Nietzsche's distinctive ideas, actually. And this relates back to my earlier point about people like Peterson or about people like Kirk or even for that matter, people like Douglas Murray, right?Who will draw on certain Nietzschean tropes about resentment without taking a lot of the more interesting material on board. But fundamentally, what they are intrigued by is this Nietzschean insistence that people are fundamentally different and they are different in a way that makes them unequal.Right? Some people are more worthwhile and more valuable than others on. That's very conducive to a wide array of night right wing thinkers who will want to Divide the world up according to IQ or divide the world [01:16:00] up according to a racial hierarchy or divide the world between men and women with men put on top or all of the above, right?Many of the people who are sympathetic to the one are sympathetic to the other two as well, right? And we can go on and on and on. And deeply funny because rather like how Nietzsche would have been appalled at how fascists banalized his ideas in this kind of populist way. There's no doubt that he would have found it both very funny and deeply frustrating that his work was so profoundly banalized by a lot of what the Nietzschean right in America right now is doing.But perhaps that's the inevitable legacy or the inevitable endpoint of any intellectual who comes up with a sufficiently interesting set of ideas. Eventually they're going to wind up with proponents and disciples who are just. caricatures of what those ideas once stood for. And I think that's what you see right now.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is important to note also, to be fair, that there are, quite a few people who do read their Nietzsche as being in favor of socialism and progressive values in some sense or another, and that they will, and there's an argument to be made, and in fact has been made about that the posthumous writings of his were edited by his sister who was basically a Nazi and she distorted their meaning.So I, I do want to make sure to point that out.McMANUS: Oh yeah, I just want to be clear about this because there's actually people, much like people aren't really aware of some of the inter scene intellectual debates that go on in the American right. There's not a lot of transparency on some of the Quite nebbish and hyper intellectualist debates that go on on the American left.But right now the American left, indeed the worldwide left, is going through a kind of process of denichification. So, if you're like me and, you're a millennial you probably went to college and you would read people like Michel Foucault or Gilles Deleuze for example who were kind of left wing Nietzscheans, right?I mean, Foucault was very overt about that, right? He said in the interview, I am a Nietzschean. And you might've just assumed that Nietzsche is [01:18:00] fundamentally a left wing thinker because he's anti bourgeois. He's got a very punk mentality. And he really advocates for these kind of grand sweeping transformative projects, right?That, you might associate with a certain kind of leftism. But recently there's been a lot of intellectual work done by people like like Daniel Tuts myself, I should add Domenico Lacerto, Malcolm Bull Ron Beaner Nancy Love we've all written books talking about how, well, yes, Nietzsche, was interested in being anti bourgeois.Yes, he was also interested in these big transformative projects but he was also very insistent that an aristocratic society, indeed a radically aristocratic society was the only kind of setting where these kinds of changes could take place. And he was very, very prone to saying things like, Hey, slavery would be a good idea, right?All these kinds of ideas that would be fundamentally hostile to the left. So it's a very interesting conversation that's going on in the left, on the left in American society right now as many people who once upon a time were weird and left wing flavors of Nietzscheanism become increasingly hostile to the guy.And I don't know where that's going to go, but it's certainly, it's not something I would have predicted back in the 2000s.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Yeah, no, it is interesting to see and and I do think that sort of debate also does is why you have seen some people aside from the fact that they can get massively rich from flattering Trumpist fascism, like. Matt Taibbi or some of these other people that they did have kind of this more that they were, they were, they were on the left if they were ever at all, but let's say they were, if they were on the left, it was only because of the anti bourgeois sensibility.And then eventually, once they realized, oh, Donald Trump and his supporters hate America also. And so, hey, we're going to go over there.McMANUS: Yeah, and actually, this is a good place to wrap up because this is why I wrote a book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism that's coming out soon, right, to kind of stress to my fellow leftists and my fellow liberals that there's a deep elective affinity between the two traditions that makes them quite different from what you find on the [01:20:00] right.Now, I just want to be clear, right, Horseshoe Theory, as it's sometimes called I think is a very bad way of looking at the world Partly for the reasons I just mentioned, right? But there is no doubt a certain kind of intellectual, or just a certain kind of personality, that is fundamentally anti liberal and anti bourgeois, and can shift, usually from left to right, although not always, and the one constant that remains in their outlook is this kind of anti liberal mentality, right?Think about somebody like Sourabh Amari, who I had a debate with, in December 2023, right? Similar kind of attitude towards certain things, although I'm very liberal, and he's certainly not. But, you see that in his transition, right?He went from being a kind of hardened leftist interested in Trotsky and Foucault and all these things to a very reactionary Roman Catholic and now he seems to have put the two together, and, he'll write a book about, why we should combine Marx with Age of Immunity and Reactionary Catholicism, and see what we can get, right?And the constant through line, of course, is the kind of anti liberal mentality. So, definitely not possible impossible and there's definitely personalities that are like that. But just to your listeners, Portrait Theory is not a good way of looking at the world. And I think that a lot of centrist commentators rely on this idea that if you go too far left, you eventually end up right, or too far right, you eventually end up left in lieu of serious analysis of what makes these different ideologies discreet.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, I agree. It's, it's, it's less about the ideologies and more about the psychologies is, is how I would put it. But yeah. All right. So, well, you, you have plugged. so, when is your book? Here's this other book, that you were talking about here. When's that coming? Yeah.McMANUS: The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, is coming out late November, right? If people want to check it out, they can pre order it on Amazon or on the Rutledge website and I imagine, for a lot of your listeners there might be a little bit of wariness about the socialist label but one of the things that I point out is that there are many, Constructive and liberal forms of socialism out there, just like there are many forms of emancipatory and egalitarian liberalism out there, and I think it's very worthwhile to put the two traditions into dialogue with one [01:22:00] another, since both are ultimately enlightenment doctrines that are committed to humanism, reason, and liberty, equality, and solidarity for all, and there's a lot to be gained by Dialogue with one another.And frankly, what could be more liberal than that?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and then the other book, which has kind of sort of been the subtext of the discussion of this episode today that you've got, which is already available and has been for a little bit. It's called the political right and equality. turning back the tide of egalitarian modernity. And then on social media, what's your where are you posting that?for people who want to keep touch with you there?McMANUS: Sure. People can add me at Matt Paul prof on Twitter. I'm never going to call it X. And the more Elon Musk's insist that I call it X, the more it's going to be Twitter. I can be spiteful that way. Or people can email me at Matt McMahon is 300 at gmail. com. And I do my best to get in touch with people by email.If they reach out to me.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Sounds good. And I will commend people to do that. So, thanks for joining me today and we'll stay in touch. I look forward to it.McMANUS: Thanks, man. Good conversation.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate everybody joining us for the discussion, and you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show. You can get the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And my special thanks to everybody who is a paid subscribing member, you get full unlimited access to the archives of the program. And I also encourage everybody to go to Flux.community where you can get access to all the other programs and articles that we produce at Flux.I appreciate everybody who is supporting us in that way. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryJD Vance, Donald Trump’s running mate, is a newcomer on the political scene, and as such, a lot of people don’t know very much about his ideas. That’s concerning because Vance identifies with a reactionary far-right tradition that is explicitly and fundamentally at odds with American democracy. Donald Trump, by contrast, has no core ideology and no core beliefs. His main goal at all times and all places is to advance his own personal interests, and that is literally it. Vance isn’t like that. He comes from an authoritarian, reactionary tradition that explicitly rejects conservatism, liberalism, and democracy. Trump wants absolute power, and Vance wants him to have it to destroy what he believes to be a decadent and corrupt society.On today’s episode, we’re going to be talking about some of the core ideas of this very old tradition (which both predates and includes fascism) and what it has in store for the United States, regardless of the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.Our guest on today’s episode is Matt McManus, he is the author of a book called The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back The Tide of Egalitarian Modernity, and a lecturer in political science at the University of Michigan.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Flux is a community-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content▪ Arguing with hardcore Trumpers is impossible, because reactionaries do not actually believe in logic▪ Libertarian oligarchs are trying to take over San Francisco — and the country▪ The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ and the long history of right-wing re-branding▪ How a little-known cable channel for Roman Catholics is radicalizing the faithful▪ Ronna McDaniel and the twilight of fictitious Republicans▪ Democrats became more conservative as Republican became reactionary authoritarians, will Kamala Harris reverse this?▪ ‘Post left’ content creators are getting massively wealthy by promoting far-right ideologiesAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:29 — Distinguishing between conservatism and reactionism06:34 — Why telling the difference between conservatism and reactionism can be difficult10:53 — How the Cold War kept reactionaries in check within the Republican party18:06 — How neoconservatives prepared Republicans for Trumpism22:40 — Opposing "decadence" unites right-of-center philosophies26:08 — Redefining "elite" is core to the reactionary project33:41 — Why epistemic nihilism collapses into totalitarianism40:17 — Anti-intellectualism and right-wing philosophy46:45 — The paradoxes of left- and right-wing intellectualism53:29 — JD Vance's deep connections to reactionary philosophers59:14 — Why there are atheist and Jewish Christian nationalists01:04:44 — As the right overtly embraces authoritarianism, the left can reclaim freedom01:12:50 — The rise of the Nietzchean rightAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So we have a lot to talk about here today. The political philosophy episodes are always one of my favorites, I have to confess, as my audience may already realize. But nonetheless, so JD Vance, we're kind of organizing the discussion here of reactionism and reactionary politics around him because I think he is very obviously the most prominent reactionary figure now in the United States.So, but most people don't know a lot about what he thinks because I mean, he's a poor public speaker and, he's mostly known for kind of his bizarre interactions with people and writing a book.That's kind of the framework that I want to put this in. And then we'll come back to Vance later.But the idea first I want to explore is that conservatism and reactionism are not the same political philosophies. They're very obviously adjacent and contiguous but they're very different from each other. And you have written quite a bit about reactionism and conservatism.So let's maybe start the discussion off with that. What, what are the fundamental differences between conservatism and reaction in your opinion?MATT McMANUS: Sure, well I think the important thing to note right from the get go, is that the political right broadly, is a vast and extremely diverse area of political ideologies. It includes everything from, fascists to moderate conservatives like Mitt Romney and arguably quite a few liberals would identify on the political right as well, people like F.A. Hayek, et cetera, et cetera. So at the core of being right wing, I think is Hayek's idea that you believe that there are recognizably superior persons within society and that those recognizably superior persons are entitled to more. Right? More wealth, more power, more status on generally aligned with.This is a kind of moral view that we have recognizably superior persons in positions of authority on positions of status. Everything will go better for everyone else because you want power and you want status and you want wealth to accrue in the hands of those who are best exercised, wielded. But Who happens to be a recognizably superior person, how you make these kind of determinations.That's where a lot of the enormous nuance and variation on the political right comes from. Now, one of the things that [00:04:00] distinguishes conservatives from reactionaries is generally speaking, conservatives tend to think that the traditional hierarchies and authority structures that have been present in society for a very long period of times are the ones that we should put our faith in.For a variety of different reasons, but let's just point to, like, the Burkean tradition, right? A good Burkean would say, and this is putting it a bit simply, the reason we should put our faith in authority structures and hierarchies that have endured over a long period of time is because if they've endured for a long period of time, then they seem to be working reasonably well.Right? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now, that doesn't mean we can't tinker around the edges with things, but the main goal of a conservative is to change what must be changed in order to conserve what we can. And in the contemporary American scene right now, you still see a variety of different people on the right who hold this view.George Will comes to mind. He wrote a big book called The Conservative Sensibility, where He kind of fused Burkean and more classical liberal ideas to say, look, in the United States, we're fundamentally a classical liberal country. The founders were classical liberals. So the job of a kind of conservative in the America is to conserve and to advance classical liberal principles and institutions like those that the founders created.But that's not the outlook that many of America's reactionaries hold today. Many American reactionaries are fundamentally opposed to the liberal worldview for Again, a wide variety of different reasons, and this includes people like Vance, who's drank deep of the well of post liberal and anti liberal thought, and the goal of these figures is, in the words of Glenn Elmer's, to not conserve anything, right?Conservatism is no longer enough, as the title of one of Elmer's essays went, because fundamentally, liberalism has been a destructive force, it's wiped out everything that's of value in the United States, and so what we need to do If you're a reactionary, of course is to advance a much more militant and even revolutionary or counter revolutionary program to try to set things right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, there, there are significant [00:06:00] differences and you've described them well that yeah, conservatives, a conservative in the American sense. And, broadly speaking, maybe the.Global sense at this point now is, is somebody who wants to conserve liberalism as it is, or maybe perhaps just recently was that's what a conservative is. And a reactionary is somebody who says, liberalism is wrong, and in many cases, democracy is wrong as well. And and we'll get further into that in the discussion here today. But so with with Vance he has a lot of connections to all of these emergent reactionaries.Why telling the difference between conservatism and reactionism can be difficultSHEFFIELD: And it's been kind of just both fascinating and dispiriting how a lot of political professionals, including people who are Democratic Party strategists and communicators and professional national journalists, they don't seem to understand this difference between conservatism and reactionism. Now, why, why, why do you think that is?McMANUS: Well, I think there are a number of different reasons, right? One is that the American right for a very long time has presented itself as fundamentally a conservative movement. Right. Committed to at least market liberalism a fair degree of individual freedom and certainly the promotion of democracy around the globe.Think back to the advent of Reaganism, right, where a lot of those kinds of tropes were put together. Now, if you're a critic of the American, right, that's more longstanding. Like myself, you might question the sincerity of a lot of those convictions, but that's at least the way that it's been presented.And this kind of overtly reactionary, anti-liberal kind of muscularly counter revolutionary outlook. Comes quite a shock to a variety of different pundits, including many right wing pundits, people like Jonah Goldberg who were surprised, by what seems to have come out of the Republican party.Now I would argue again, that if you look deeper into the history of American conservatism, people like Rick Perlstein would say All these kinds of ingredients for a counter revolutionary program were always [00:08:00] there, right? If you go back to something like Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, right?Goldwater probably lost that election in no small part, not just because he was soft on civil rights and even opposed to civil rights but because he said things like, radicalism in defense of liberty or extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, right? It's not really a very conservative attitude endorsing these kinds of extremist views.But, generally speaking this tended to be a rhetorically quiescent element of the right until comparatively recently, definitely it was less transparent before 2016 when Trump gave license to a lot of these people to become a lot more vocal.SHEFFIELD: Yeah well, and, and it was both rebranding exercise as well on the part of the people that were saying, well, we're in favor of liberalism. I mean, for instance, obviously William F. Buckley, he presented as, That being his brand of, well, I'm just trying to conserve what we have in this country.And but at the same time he was saying that he was also being in favor of segregation writing editorials saying that, well, actually segregation is good because black people are just not capable of governing themselves and, and being part of the economy. So this is for their own good.Sorry, guys, you just, you're just SJWs are wrong. You need to leave it as it is. And, and, and he wrote aMcMANUS: to give another example during the, at the height of the AIDS epidemic William F. Buckley recommended that homosexuals, his term be tattooed above the buttocks, right? With a big warning label, right? And that kind of humor, let's call it that wouldn't be out of place in something like the contemporary Trump movement with this kind of vulgarity and it's just rote and callous dismissal of human life.So again, I think if you look back, further and look more carefully at some of these figures we kind of view the past of American conservatism with rose colored glasses if we don't recognize that a lot of the seeds of Trumpism were very firmly planted well before he came onto the scenes.SHEFFIELD: yeah. [00:10:00] And, and then also the fact that, I mean, the, the entire movement, which began calling itself conservatism. I mean, they, they didn't call themselves conservative. Like, that's an important point, which, because most political professionals, journalistic professionals don't know anything about it.History they don't realize that Buckley and these other people, I mean, they were the point of what they were doing was to stop. The new deal was to roll back social security was to roll back, labor unions and minimum wage. Like that was always the goal, like, and they've never stopped having those goals.And so, Yeah, it's just, it's pretty disgraceful, frankly, that a lot of, of people who pretend to be experts and put themselves forward as experts don't know any of this stuff. Pretty disgraceful, I think.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely, right?How the Cold War kept reactionaries in check within the Republican partyMcMANUS: So, once upon a time the American right, certainly the intellectual American right, used to be described as a three legged stool, right? So, One leg of that stool was militant anti communism which eventually transformed into this idea that America should have a kind of militant and muscular international relations policy in the 1990s and early 2000s when communism for the most part disappeared.The second leg of the stool was the, evangelical Christian movement which always had a very, very, very pronounced kind of white nationalist undercurrent to it with its opposition to things like civil rights alongside, of course, more conventional kinds of oppositions to things like abortion or gay marriage.And then the third leg of that stool were American libertarians, certainly right libertarians at the very least who, as you mentioned, were committed to rolling back the new deal or even going further than rolling back the new deal, going all the way back to invert something like The criticisms of the Lochner precedent from early in the 20th century, and as a lot of people have pointed out, the three legs of the stool were never exactly the same size, and the stool itself was always kind of shaky since it's not immediately clear.What economic libertarianism or economic liberalism [00:12:00] has to do with support for white evangelism let alone the idea that America should use its military and cultural might to try to impose its value system, whatever that happens to be around the globe. Again, what I would argue is that the Shared through line of all these doctrines or all these elements of the classical American right was this conviction that there are superior people and superior countries for that matter on their entitled to greater status, greater agency, and they were hostile to a liberalism, which suggested otherwise.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I think that probably one of the other reasons that this distinction is harder for a lot of people to grasp is that these early branders and influencers for, for reactionism like Buckley they, they did explicitly market their ideas in the language of liberalism Because Nazism had so, overwhelmingly discredited fascism and authoritarianism as political philosophies in the recent memory of the people they were trying to convict.McMANUS: Absolutely. Right. So David Austin Walsh has written a very good book about this, so I'm going to draw pretty heavily from that. So arguably the kind of unifying philosophy that was characteristic of the National Review crowd for a long time was Frank Reier's fusionism, right? For those in your audience who aren't familiar with it fusionism refers to this idea that we should combine a commitment to classical liberal liberties certainly economic liberties with this commitment to Judeo Christian virtues and Judeo Christian norms.Now, again, this fusion of a commitment to a kind of social conservatism with a kind of liberalism, certainly an economic liberalism was uncomfortable, even in Meyer's work and there are enormous debates amongst the National Review crowd about which axes of this fusionist synthesis they should emphasize, right, because People quite rightly pointed out that if you're committed to things like liberal values, there seems to be something [00:14:00] contradictory in calling for banning pornography, for example.And if you're an economic liberal, there seems to be something very unusual about allying yourself with people who say things like, we should ban pornography, or we should ban gambling, or whatever it happens to be. But I would argue,SHEFFIELD: at school. Yeah.McMANUS: yeah, exactly. I would argue following a lot of historians, that this is where the third leg of the stool came in despite all of these various differences and some of these debates were really quite intense and bluntly nasty if you look at the Meyer Kirk debate, for example, they were not nice to each other, a lot of them were papered over because the one thing the American right could do Absolutely agree on was that communism, socialism understood very expansively were bad things and extremely threatening.Oftentimes they lump the New Deal in with that since or the great society programs of Johnson. And there's nothing like an enemy to kind of bring strange bedfellows together and allow a synthesis intellectually like, fusionism to function. As a kind of ad hoc philosophy for a long period of time.And some people have pointed out that one of the reasons why the splits on the American right became more transparent as time went on is because without a international adversary like the Soviet Union to kind of band everyone together instead the American right started turning on more domestic enemies which of course leads to more existential questions about just what American conservatism is supposed to be and which elements of American society don't really belong.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I, I would think that that also, that sort of foreign policy component. Is probably what kept the other two from going off the complete deep end and embracing their inherent radicalism because you know it was it was run by the military industrial complex and their and, and their advocates within the, the, the Republican party that, by definition, they need a stable society and, the, as much as militaries in many countries, our forces for right wing authoritarianism, they also in many countries [00:16:00] do have an inherent apolitical mission and, and, and very often do in fact, are, are, are.Can be a force for some sort of moderation within between different warring factions.McMANUS: Absolutely. And I mean, there's no denying this, right? There are plenty of people within the Reagan administration, people like Buchanan or Sam Francis, who were a lot more hostile to liberalism and arguably even American democracy than they let on. But there was an awareness on the part of many of the Reaganites that in an existential battle with world communism, where communism had Quite a bit of appeal to many in the third world.It was extremely important to position oneself as a defender of freedom, a defender of democracy, a defender of national self determination in some circumstances, right? And again, a lot of that disappeared with the end of communism and, depending on when you want to date it, the late 1980s, early 1990s, right?As a kind of world historical force. Again, nothing really unites like a good enemy especially internationally. Without that it just leads you to turn inwards and reflect upon one's internal differences in a much more existentially, stringent kind of way.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and have to actually start developing your, your real ideas and your real values, which apparently have been pretty monstrous.McMANUS: Exactly. So, in his new book when the clock broke, John Gans talks a lot about Pat Buchanan's early runs in the 1990s and you can read Buchanan's books. He anticipates a lot of the kind of philosophy, if you want to call it that, of Trumpism that later emerges.But one of the reasons that Buchanan felt that there was this opportunity to run on a more stridently right wing kind of program in the 1990s, at least according to Gans is precisely because he felt, look, Communism is gone and the biggest untapped electorate in America, as he put it, is to the right of Ronald Reagan.And now that we don't necessarily have to worry about trying to appeal to all the left wingers and appeal to all the people outside of the United States who might be concerned about us pivoting too far to the right it's time to tap that resource. So it's a very interesting thesis. And again, [00:18:00] who knows what would have happened?If the Soviet Union hadn't fallen, definitely we wouldn't have seen something like Trumpism right now.How neoconservatives prepared Republicans for TrumpismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think so. There's there is an irony also in the, the the rise of, of reactionism or or fascism, whatever you want to call in the United States. It's, it is in many ways, kind of the The indirect creation of neoconservatism and it's very ironic because the neoconservatives were the very first people who were expelled once the Trump people took over the Republican Party, and, the,McMANUS: him for it, that's for sure.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and and so, but the neoconservatives, as much as they hate Trump and hate this kind of fascistic form of politics that he's created this reactionary viewpoint in a lot of ways, they were the predecessors for it. And you talk about that in, in in your book. So let's discuss that further.If you don't mind.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. I still think that the definitive book on the relationship between, say, the Bush administration, second Bush administration and the Trump administration has yet to be written. But, As you point out, many of the neoconservatives who kind of reached the apex of their influence and their power during the Bush administration deeply resented the Trump administration sidelining them and just pushing them out and tried to present Trump as some kind of aberration from what the Republican party once stood for.I think about somebody like David Frum, right? Who basically writes op ed after op ed in the Atlantic, make exactly this case week in and week out. I would argue that that is a misconstrual of the real history. So. Look, neoconservatism emerged as a kind of distinct strand of conservatism that began to gain real influence in the 1980s in the American sorry, in the Reagan administration.There's no doubt that many neoconservatives transitioned from the left, even from communism. If you think about somebody like Irving Kristol, who was once a Trotskyite towards a kind of classical liberalism with the Some conservative values. But this has led many people to misdiagnose neoconservatism as fundamentally a form of [00:20:00] liberalism in the clothes of a kind of re conservative outlook.I don't think that that's true. I think that if you look deeper into the text of many leading neoconservatives, it's very clear that they hold Conservative views about a wide array of issues, Irving Kristol himself had a variety of different social conservative outlooks on things like homosexuality, or you can take something like the project for the new American century that released a important document in the 2000s that was actually quite upset at the fact that America had won the Cold War.Now, this can seem odd. But what's articulated in this doctrine, sorry, document is this deep fear that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States is going to adopt an isolationist path, demilitarize, and this is going to lead to what on the right is typically called decadence, right? Americans are just going to focus on mindless consumerism.Choosing which refrigerator to put into their kitchen, and they're not going to dedicate themselves to bigger and more grand projects of the sorts that the neoconservatives found extremely attractive and extremely exciting and necessary in order to retain America's influence in the world. And Not surprisingly when the 2000 sorry, the 2001 terror attack took place many of them said, well, here's our moment.We have a new enemy. We have a grand imperial project that we can use to elevate society above this kind of decadent libertine liberal outlook that they've associated with things like the Clinton administration. And, think about somebody like Karl Rove who in a New York Times interview in the mid 2000s it's allegedly Karl Rove, I should say said things like all of you people in the fact based community will sit there and say that, what we're doing is wrong or it's not based on the facts but we're an empire now and we create our own reality.Oh, sorry, not the fact based community, the reality based community. We create our own reality now and all of you are just going to sit there and bear witness to what we do and chronicle it. That's very much a kind of Trumpy outlook, right? This idea that decadent libertinism and permissiveness is going to lead to the decline of American society.What we need instead are things and [00:22:00] projects that are big and exciting and vital to elevate the masses above the stupor that they inexorably fall into. And combined with that is this ambivalence and even hostility towards the reality based community or the fact based community for pointing out that a lot of these grand projects are going to end in disaster, which is, of course, what eventually happened with the Bush administration because they're not interested in those kind of things.They're interested in the excitement and the grandeur that they associate with these ideas and, of course, very much like Trumpism, neoconservatism, Found out that the reality of its program when implemented was a lot more banal and a lot more disastrous than they'd ever anticipated. And that's probably why the movement went the way of the dinosaurs and deserved it.Opposing "decadence" unites right-of-center philosophiesSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and this idea of decadence I mean, that is, really kind of, it is a, it is a fundamental belief across all right wing philosophies with this, in addition to being, the superior people, what makes people superior is their lack of decadence. And, their and, and, and this harkens back, even if the people saying it don't realize it, it harkens back, to the the, the, the ancient Greek ideal of Arete or As it's commonly rendered as virtue.And like the, the people who are excellent, people will not be excellent unless they are forced to be excellent by external circumstances or by the government forcing them into better behavior or better thinking, or, something has to force people to be better because otherwise they're horrible and stupid.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. And this anxiety about potential decadence understood, and I should say in a, in a, Huge variety of different ways is pretty common across a wide array of right wing views and most right wing intellectuals will proffer theories of decadence and decline in one way or another. And they'll also, of course, offer solutions.And this can be true even of what we might call more moderate [00:24:00] conservatives, people like say Edmund Burke, right? Many people associate with the defense of things like again, moderate conservatism Capitalism this idea that we can engage in incremental change but we shouldn't kind of rock the boat too much.Much of which is true, but I think if you look deeper in his book there's a lot of anxieties about barbers, for example, getting too much power in political society because what they do is just mundane and banal and a barber doesn't need political power. And associated with that is the idea that What one needs in order to elevate a society and to attach people to systems of authority is to ascribe what he calls sublime qualities onto one's rulers and to the projects that those rulers engage in.And what's very interesting about Burke is he never says that the rulers actually need to possess these sublime qualities and of themselves is, of course, what? Constitutes the sublime is in the eye of the beholder. What's just important is that you project those kinds of ideals onto them. And that's something that somebody like Donald Trump would understand extremely well, right?In his book, the art of the deal Trump says that he engages in what he calls truthful hyperbole which is a bit of a contradiction in terms, but very Trumpy in that way. And he says, look most people don't really think very big. But they. Do really admire and want to follow people who do think big.They want to believe that they are part of something that is the biggest and the most exciting and the most extravagant And of course trump has applied exactly the same kind of attitude towards his politics Always presenting whatever he's doing as some kind of sublime renewal of the country always associating himself with these kind of sublime qualities is the only person who can fix the country and of course serving as the The night of revenge for those who followed him on.Again, there's a longstanding history of that in all permutations of right wing thought, and every conservative is going to associate this need for sublime figures and authority figures in particular and sublime projects with antidotes [00:26:00] for the decadence that they see creeping in society as the masses and their vulgarity gain too much power.Redefining "elite" is core to the reactionary projectSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And related to that though. And it's ironic because. As much as, as the philosophy, as the ideas of philosophy, the rhetoric are anti fundamentally anti democratic and authoritarian. They also are often treated and labeled as populist in a lot of the mainstream press because in fact, they do use.And borrow, steal, whatever you want to say, they do in fact borrow a lot of of rhetoric and tropes from social democratic communistic traditions, critiques, and that was something that that Sam Francis did. I think he was the one that kind of. really injected a lot of that into the mainstream Republican discourse.Yeah, but, but there were other figures as well. I, Joe McCarthy obviously is probably the most prominent early exemplar of that. But let's, yeah, let's, what's, what's the I guess, yeah, let's maybe talk about first the, what you see as some of the most. Prominent examples of that in the history of this idea of these borrowings.And then maybe discuss, what why people in the contemporary press are so unable to understand that this is not populism.McMANUS: Sure. Well, I mean, anxieties about populism in democracy go all the way back to ancient Greece, right? Many of the ancient Greek philosophers were deeply concerned with the demagoguery they associated with loose figures like Alcibiades, right? Who would say whatever they need to, to rile the people up to get what it is they want.And of course the term populism comes from the Latin popularis which, was Express the kind of concerns in the Roman Republic about those who sided with the plebeians against the partitions. And a lot of this eventually contributed to the various civil wars that rocked the Republic in its late period.But in the contemporary era, right, people like Jan Mueller in his book, What is Populism says that populism shouldn't be [00:28:00] understood as being necessarily a left wing or a right wing phenomena. It's more kind of rhetorical You And strategic style of politics where you set a pure and unadulterated people against a decadent and undeserving elite who have been in charge for far too long and usually present yourself as the figure that can Remove this decadence and replace the elite and set the country or set the Organ, you know the company or whatever it happens to be back on the right course And there are left wing populists in the world.There's no doubt about it. Think about people like Alamo, in mexico, right? Some people have even tried to make the case that somebody like bernie sanders falls into this paradigm Although i'd reject that since sanders has always insisted that this movement is very much focused on the we rather than the I But, in terms of the right it's important to note that, the political right worldwide initially emerged in part as a movement that was hostile to democracy and any kind of attempt to appeal to the people.Because there was concerns that appealing to the people for support would cede a degree of political authority and political legitimacy to democratic projects, but starting around the 19th century. The most savvy conservative politicians and most savvy reactionary politicians realized that there was really no going back to the ancien regimes of Europe where Lords and Kings could more or less just do whatever they want.And the people just had to deal with it, right? The people have become a permanent constituent feature of modern political regimes as they, they started to look very cleverly in many cases for ways to mobilize mass support for conservative projects. And they were very successful at it. As we. See today, right now, one of the things that characterizes right wing populism ever and against left wing populism is left wing populism will typically present itself as agitating on behalf of people who have always and everywhere been benign political authority, social status, wealth, [00:30:00] Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.The dispossessed or the marginalized right wing populism usually moves in a much more nostalgic register, typically presenting itself as restoring to the people a degree of status, authority, and greatness that was once theirs and has been taken from them or corroded by the presence of liberal elites The swinish multitude and anyone else who's got a shot at power and status that they didn't really deserve.And Trump was of course, a case in point with that, right? His premier slogan is make America great again. And so what he's really doing is tapping into this right populist sense that people have gotten a leg up who don't deserve it. This is in no small part, the fault of liberal elites allied with the most undeserving people in society.Yeah. This is exactly what Charlie Kirk, for example, argues in his book, Right Wing Revolution. And Trump is going to restore to the people the status and authority over and above the undeserving that was wrongly taken for them. And of course, he is the only vessel that is capable of enacting this kind of restoration.And Populism doesn't necessarily have to become anti democratic although it very frequently does but it's almost invariably anti liberal in the sense that populists resent the checks on state authority and on the leader's authority that, any liberal would think is essential to a well functioning democratic regime.And partly because there is this hostility to liberal checks and balances it's very frequently the case, as Zach Beauchamp puts it in his book On the reactionary tradition that populist movements will eventually swallow the democratic element of their program and just transform into outright authoritarian regimesSHEFFIELD: Hmm. Yeah, and I think another difference between, people who apply that label to themselves on the left and right, is that for the right when they claim to be the elites that they are attacking are not economic. are intellectual elites. Like that's, so in other words, like for them, the, the, [00:32:00] the bet noire is the, the university professor like yourself or the, or the, fashion stylist in New York or the the, the feminist Instagram.model. But those are the real elite in society in, in, in this rhetoric.McMANUS: Yeah, and they're very transparent about that, right? Just to give an example, in Ron DeSantis new book or not new book his last book Fire to a Failed Presidential Run he tried to present himself as fighting against the elites. But he makes it very clear in the book that an elite does not necessarily mean somebody who's reached the commanding heights of society.Clarence Thomas Billionaires, they aren't necessarily elites. An elite is somebody who shares in the worldview of liberalism, which means that if you're a school teacher in West Virginia earning 35, 000 a year, but you want to talk about black like matters, from this DeSantis perspective, you're a part of the elite.But the Koch brothers and Supreme Court judges aren't because they side with him, right? Now this is of course absurd by any metric, but again, this relates back to Mueller's point about populism. Populism isn't necessarily about trying to develop a consistent or logically plausible framework for understanding political reality.It's rhetorical and strategic, right? And DeSantis doesn't want to attack and Trump does not want to attack the billionaire class. He wants to attack liberals. So it makes a lot of sense to them to frame elite status in this way, rather than going after what I would think are the real elites in society, which are, plutocrats.The very rich Fortune 500 companies, that kind of thing.Why epistemic nihilism collapses into totalitarianismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly.And related to that is that this is, very much an, an epistemic revolution in a lot of ways to reactionary take complete takeover of the Republican Party such that.These borrowings that we're talking about here, they, they really are basically taking [00:34:00] from a tradition, which is very incoherent, but the only real thing that it has is that you, the individual person are always correct in that they, the unnamed, they, the, the people who control institutions or whatever, they are lying to you, they are controlling you.And so as such. It's a as the graph we're showing on the screen shows that, these are our beliefs as you move further and further away from any sort of institutional trust that they are features of Marxism. They are features of liberalism, religious democracy, conservatism, libertarianism and then basically it kind of flips around to the other side there that once you do not trust any other institutions, then it.Only the individual grade leader can come in and save you and save the society, which of course ends up in reaction aism and fascism and, and Marxist totalitarianism.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. I think there's a lot to be said about that. Right. So, Let's just talk a little bit about right wing populism as an example. So John Gans points out in his really good book, again when the clock broke that there's a kind of oddity in some of the aesthetic tropes that you can find in Trumpism, at least a surface oddity where a lot of times Trump's followers will like to.Characterize him as something like a gangster or a tough guy. You go to a Trump rally, you'll see him, on Scarface t shirts or Godfather t shirts, et cetera, et cetera. And Gantz points out that a lot of commentators have been bewildered by that. Cause they'll say, well, aren't you the party of law and order?Aren't you supposed to believe in things like Checks and balances on authority and, that includes, the authority of criminals, but of course, the clarity of politicians and yes, points out that that's a pretty silly way of understanding right wing populism. The appeal of people like Vito Corleone Or Scarface, right?It's precisely that they represent a different kind of authority to the one that, say, liberals would reverence. Procedural and institutional authority. It represents this very masculine kind of [00:36:00] authority figure. Who's not bound or checked by any kind of restrictions. But Shows a degree of loyalty to those who have followed him.Doesn't really show a great deal of loyalty to everyone else. And is willing to do whatever it takes to advance those who follow him, the in group over and against the out group who are conceived as enemies. And this of course has an enormous amount of appeal to people. The MAGA and the political spectrum.And it always has and there's deep rooted reasons for that. But there are antecedents and the political right as well. If you look at say the fascist movements of the early 20th century, and we can debate whether Trump is a fascist or not. One of the things that was consistently criticized by fascist intellectuals was the kind of slow.ponderous, dull, decadent and nebbish quality, the nebbish quality that they associated with the talk shop of liberal parliamentarianism. And they said a leader will cut through all that and just get what done, what needs to be done while eliminating everyone that stands in his way and of course, reward those who's loyally followed him.And it's important to understand that there's always been something appealing Particularly to right wingers about this idea, although it's not exclusive to the right. And that's why it's unsurprising that somebody like Trump would be associated with gangsters today. And sometimes proudly associated with gangsters, even by his own followers.Because they embody exactly that kind of unconstrained, masculine ideal.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, And, and, and it's also not just about pa affecting the power of the, the persecuted the heron folk. But it's also that. That the, that when you move from when you, when your epistemology is entirely individualist oriented, eventually, it comes to that. Well, my authority figure is the source of reason and truth and that what he says is not is everything it is, the, the the, the idea of the, the, the great chain of being [00:38:00] divine command theory, that all of these, Things are all interrelated that, that nihilism collapses into totalitarianism.McMANUS: Yeah, without a doubt. And sometimes they can be very expressive about this. As I was saying before we went on air, if you want, just read Charlie Kirk's new book, Right Wing Revolution. And I don't remember coming into Reading anything by Charlie Kirk if you're looking for deep insight into most subject matters, but if you want to understand how MAGA operates it's not a bad source, but in the most telling chapter of that book he says, look and he's speaking to his conservative readers, you might be beset by uncertainties at any given point but you must militantly, and this is his term, police those uncertainties away and chase an absolute conviction that you are right wherever possible.And if you're not sure what that absolute conviction be, just look at what the left understood very broadly says, and you can know for sure that they are wrong and he says, what we need to do is chase a right, wrong, good or evil Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader kind of approach to every issue possible.And he does, it says. We should do that precisely because it's easier to market such a worldview than one that is defined by the nuanced kinds of epistemologies that you're talking about. And of course, this is very coincident with what somebody like Trump wants. Trump is the kind of guy who would sit there and very clearly say, happily tell you who do you believe me or your lying eyes and try to convince you that your lying eyes aren't to be trusted.But he is right. And there are a lot of different reasons why these kinds of epistemic outlooks can be appealing to people. One of them, I think, going back to people like Eric Fromm or Adorno is just that it's not, a lot of people aren't happy about being uncertain in the world, right?Uncertainty can lead to confusion, it can lead to anxiety, and sometimes it's nice to chase certainty. But I think it's a very dangerous temptation to give into those impulses because the world is invariably far more complicated than we'll ever be able to understand and trying to reductively simplify it.And I think that that's [00:40:00] one of the reasons why Trumpism is as childish and immature as it isSHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is and, and, and related to that is that the the, the Trump, since as the Republican party has become, almost entirely reactionary and certainly in the powerMcMANUS: Trumpified,SHEFFIELD: a hundred percent. Yeah. That's right?Yeah.Anti-intellectualism and right-wing philosophySHEFFIELD: As this has, has happened, there has been just this overwhelming brain drain among Republican operatives, among Republican, I mean, they don't even Like they don't even try to have policy platforms anymore.Like in, in 2020 famously, they had no platform at all. And then in 2024, they just kind of put a couple of wishlist items on a, on a, on a roughly, what was it like a five, eight, five. Page paper or something like that. It was very, very, very small, much, much smaller than, and then, and you see that with when Trump was in office, that he had problems getting people to work for him who had any sort of qualifications.And, and even Republicans didn't want to work for him because they thought that he was, just stupid and, and they couldn't ever achieve anything meaningful to them. And I can say this myself that, I was friends at that time with somebody who, because, you know, as, as. I think I don't know if you would know, I'm trying to remember if I, if I told you or not, but like, I used to be a right wing activist myself.So, yeah, so, so, when Trump first came into office, I was friends with somebody who was one of his top speech writers and he offered me a job in the Trump White House. And I thought about it for a second only because I thought, well, there's going to be a lot of really stupid people in there.So maybe there should be at least, one or two adults in the room. But in the end I couldn't, I couldn't justify it to myself morally because I thought, well, to whatever extent I would have any. Influence, I would also be counting and seeing all kinds of horrible [00:42:00] ideas and whatnot and policies And so therefore I I couldn't do it and but that's it is a It's a conundrum that you're that you're seeing not just in the in the policy making realm but also in the in the media realm as well that the the very very well financed and Sort of remnant Yeah liberal reactionism, if you will, that, that prevailed before Trump, the neoconservative hierarchy, they still exist, but they have no influence on the party.And it's almost, I don't know. It's like you read these people a lot. Like, do they. They know they don't have influence, but do you think that they think that they're ever getting it back?McMANUS: It's a good question. So I think in order to start answering your question, we have to understand what the relationship between intellectuals and the writers, right? So many people have commented on how the political right has this kind of anti intellectualist quality to it going all the way back to people like Edmund Burke, right? But, there's deep rooted theoretical and practical reasons why the right would have this wariness and even hostility to intellectuals, which stamps movement like MAGA.I think two of the clearest figures that make express where this anti intellectual impulse comes from are Joseph de Maistre and Yoram Hazony. Right. So for those of your listeners who don't know Joseph de Maistre is usually considered to be the godfather of the reactionary tradition, a fierce critic of the French revolution and a fierce critic of enlightenment reason.And he's very express about why he's a critic of enlightenment reason. Because he says, look enlightenment reason or what is ignorantly called philosophy is fundamentally, and this is his term, a destructive force, right? When people are. Told to use their own reason to assess what society is doing to ask themselves what kind of political authorities that they want.Then what we wind up with is an endless series of debates, discussions, and deliberations about who should be in charge and why that will go nowhere and that are toxic [00:44:00] to the establishment of any kind of lasting authority. And so he says very bluntly that we need to treat existent authorities like dogmas, right?Adopt an almost religious attitude of fidelity towards them not question the foundations of our political order all that substantially. And he pointed out in other works, like the St. Petersburg Dialogues, if that doesn't work, well, the hangman or the executioner will, should always be available to kind of overawe anybody who might be asking too many questions about the order.Now flash forward to the present day. You have Intellectuals like Yoram Hozoni, who make very similar points, albeit less dramatically, let's call it that because Hozoni says, look one of the things that characterizes liberalism and the left is this endless propensity to want to engage in critical reasoning and Hozoni says there's always, there always should be a place for critical reasoning, but critical reasoning can be very destructive, right, because it leads people to ask Endless questions, one after another, about why we should have this authority, what were the actual facts of our history other reasons to be skeptical of the long standing traditions that we have.And he says, after a certain point, asking these questions, one after another, after another is either a waste of time or positively dangerous. Which is why, at a certain point, you just have to stop and take things on faith. Which again, has this pronouncedly anti intellectualist attitude. And, you see this expressed policy wise in a lot of the hostility that the right shows towards things like, say, critical race theory or critical theory more generally, right?Because they don't want people asking this endless series of questions about their society, its history the role of slavery in American life and its enduring impact because that leads to uncomfortable questions about whether existing authority structures and hierarchies should exist. have the kind of legitimacy that the right wants to ascribe to them.Now, I want to be very clear, there are enormously interesting and profound right wing intellectuals out there. Going from Edmund Burke to people like Casoni or Patrick Deneen and of course, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, the rest of the canon, right? But the right, by and large, has been a lot more [00:46:00] wary of the role intellectuals should play in society than liberals or the left, who tend to welcome or even encourage theSHEFFIELD: Yeah.McMANUS: of people's critical faculties, since many people in the liberal tradition or on the left really like this idea that we should have an endless debate about things like first principles, authority structures, hierarchies.Think about somebody like John Stuart Mill, for example, the emblematic left wing liberal, right? Who said, we should encourage free speech in part because we can never be sure whether our own ideas are the right one. And even if we are pretty sure that our ideas are the right ones, there's always something to learn from combating the other side.Society should be an endless and critical debate about just these kinds of things. That's a much more liberal attitude. And of course, it's much more conducive to somebody like my taste, somebody like me and my taste.The paradoxes of left- and right-wing intellectualismSHEFFIELD: Mm hmm. Yeah, and it's also that, that core difference, though, that you just talked about, it is kind of a flaw, I think, in a lot of left wing attempts to scrutinize right wing politics in that they project. That love of intellectual debate and such that and they don't understand that, like, and I see this on on some podcasts and articles or whatever, where they will go and analyze these.People like Patrick, the Dean or whoever, and impute all kinds of influence to them when in fact they don't actually have almost any influence on Donald Trump or the people who work for him.They'reMcMANUS: Donald Trump is not flipping through why liberalism failed late at night and being like, yeah,SHEFFIELD: This guy has a point. No, they're, they're not. And like, but to the extent that they have any influence, it is. The reverse of how things work on the left with regard to intellectuals that for the right you have until influence if you rationalize the ideas of the leader, whereas it works the other way around on the left that, what, what the leaders, at least.Supposed to be doing on the left is that they are, sort of effectuating the ideas of, of, of the people who created the [00:48:00] ideas. Whereas on the right, the ideas are ex post facto, they are rationalizations for the desires of theMcMANUS: yeah. And sometimes progressive intellectuals can be quite vain for this reason, right? Just to pick on my own side a little bit. I mean, I'm a very left wing guy. John Maynard Keynes famously once said that a lot of politicians that scribble insights late at night are the slaves to some distant and long dead economist or philosopher or whatever it happens to be.And, if you want to go more radical still think about something like of organic intellectuals who gradually overcome the hegemony of capitalism on replace it with a more emancipatory culture. Now again, these arguments are more in my taste because I do think that intellectuals have a role to play in society, but it can be very substantially overstated.But there's no doubt that the left is And liberals are considerably more receptive to intellectuals playing a pronounced role in society than the right is. Although I want to stress again the right certainly post 18th century has recognized the need to have an intellectual cadre of its own to combat the seemingly ever growing, at least in its eyes cabal of left wing intellectuals that are kind of nebulously probing holes in authority structures and hierarchies within society and need to be confronted on that terrain if necessary.I mean, even look at somebody sorry, just like, Thomas Sowell who's emblematic in that respect, right? I wrote a big review of Thomas Sowell for Jacobin Magazine, some people might be interested in. But one of Thomas's biggest books is a book called Intellectuals in Society which is a book about why intellectuals should play no role in society.Now, of course, He's almost invariably singles out liberal and left intellectuals for the destructive role that they play and chastises them for engaging an interdisciplinary sweep where not that's not warranted before he goes on to talk about everything from the economics to history, to military strategy, to politics, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.But, this kind of. I'll be paradoxical stance on the part of a right wing intellectual simultaneously chastising the [00:50:00] influence of intellectuals in society while recognising that he needs to exist precisely to combat left and liberal intellectuals is very characteristic of the right. Yeah,SHEFFIELD: And there's also a paradox, even as. Let's say philosophically that the left is more open to the ideas of, or to intellectualism. They are less willing to actually support financially things like think tanks. So like, for instance, if you look at on the right, there's just this multiplicity of, of advocacy organizations that they may not be necessarily coming out with policy papers, but at least they're making, the vague noises about policy.And there, and there are, Probably in D. C. alone, probably like at least a hundred of these organizations with a cumulative budget of probably, something like 500 million a year whereas on the left, there's almost nothing in comparison to that, because like, because like to a large degree, I think that, especially this is more true ofMcMANUS: if I could just give you one quick anecdote that makes them. That kind of makes this point.SHEFFIELD: Mm hmm.McMANUS: so, back in the day, I used to write some articles for the intercollegiate Institute, which is a conservative organization. Mostly about Edmund Burke and post modern conservatism. And I just want to say they were very nice to me, right.Despite me making my own orientation clear. One of the reasons I did this was I just wanted to see, like, can I actually present conservative ideas to a conservative audience in a way that they would seem palatable? But you know, I got paid about 400 an article writing for them, which is, Really very good.And considering how poor I was at the time was helpful. I'll just be candid about that. I've written, 50 pieces for Jacobin magazine soon. I probably made about as much for all 50 pieces as I did writing one thing for Intercollegiate Institute, right? So just to give you a sense of the funding dynamics there, right?And again, that's not a knock on Jackman. They've been very happy to support my work. It's just, there's, there's no money for advancing those kinds of policies. [00:52:00]SHEFFIELD: Yeah,McMANUS: to the right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's, it is paradoxical because I do think that the, a lot of progressives. They don't understand what the purpose of universities is that it is not to be a factory or prom promulgator of progressive ideas. They don't understand that. That's not what universities intend to be.And so as such, you should not. Outsource your political popularizing or theorizing to them because they're not going to do it and the people at the top in most universities, in fact, are conservative and because they hobnob with billionaires and oligarchs to grow their endowments and that's, that's how they operate.Like these are conservative institutions inherently.McMANUS: Yeah, I always think it's funny whenever sometimes I like reading conservative media because in conservative media, People like me and my friends are made out to be basically in charge of the entire world, right? We're liberal college professors and apparently we're brainwashing generations of students and to becoming, little postmodern neo Marxist to use the Jordan Peterson term.And when I get back to the real world, I'm like, God, I can't even get people to read the Federalist Papers from beginning to end, despite my sitting there being like, please, please, please, this is your prostitution. We need to read Madison to understand it and your grade is dependent upon it.So I'm, I'm begging you. So, sometimes it's quite flattering to imagine myself in this conservative vein being like, Oh yeah, I'm just molding hearts and minds. So, it's, it's kind of funny irony that way.JD Vance's deep connections to reactionary philosophersSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and JD Vance, just to bring him back in here that, he, I think, is. He really is kind of emblematic for much more than almost any other Republican politician of this reactionary sensibility that has become so regnant under Trump. And he has specific. Personal connections to a lot of these reactionary far right thinkers, anti Democrats, monarchists.Can you talk about some of those connections? [00:54:00] Because I mean, gosh, they they need to be known. Like, every person should know this stuff. I feel like because it's so it's so dangerous.McMANUS: Sure. Well, I mean, a lot of people have talked about how. The influences on JD Vance's worldview are very online kind of influences, and there's some truth to that. Listing all of them would take too much time, but just to kind of give a short list, right? He was very influenced by Peter Thiel, who he worked for for a long time, and Thiel is, An eclectic billionaire who likes to think of himself as an intellectual.But one of the kind of through lines to his worldview from the very beginning has been a hostility to democracy. So you can go back and read, I think it's a 2009 essay that Teal wrote called the education of a libertarian where he basically says the prospects for libertarianism in the United States, certainly post Obama are pretty much nil, and he's very transparent that one of the reasons for this is Post, women be gaining the right to vote it's just very unlikely that there's going to be a coalition to support unbridled libertarianism to roll back the New Deal since women, in his opinion, are more likely to support left wing policies.And so, he expresses a Deep hostility to democracy on that basis because he thinks that democracy is just never going to be conducive to libertarianism. And if that's the case in his mind, at least so much the worst for democracy. Now, of course, this is extraordinarily self serving, and some people pointed out, I try to characterize it as ambiguous.I don't think there's much ambiguity about a billionaire thinking that a billionaires should have more power, more influence in society. But there's no doubt that this kind of anti democratic sentiment that's been pervasive throughout all of Pierre Attil's permutations has stamped some of Vance's worldview.Another important person is Curtis Yarvin, our Menchus Nullbug who was also financed, I should say, by Attil, right? It's not clear how, but he's received a lot of money from him. So for those who don't know Really, we're fortunate enough not to know Curtis Yarvin or Mencius Moldbug is the monarchist that you talked about, or the Neomarx monarchist.He started a blog in the late 2000s, essentially arguing that [00:56:00] American society was pervasively left it was dominated by a kind of left cultural hegemony by Associated with liberal elites, they called the cathedral on DH. There was really no way of breaking through this without the formation of a bunch of different dissonant right intellectuals who took the red pill.He was one of the people who coined that phrase saw through the kind of illusions that were promulgated by the left wing procedural and recognize that Democracy and socialism and liberalism were really all species of the same kind of bad thing this movement towards what he considers chaos and the only way to offset that would eventually be to transition to something like a neo monarchy now he has a lot of different things and a lot of different flavors of this idea that he's put forward over decades now.But the basic idea is that somebody like once upon a time it was Steve Jobs. Now, somebody like Elon Musk should take control of the country for the most part Reduce the influence of the people because the masses suck in his term to nil and just do what needs to be done in order to bring economic prosperity and authoritarian order to the state chilling idea, right?It's important to note though, that, Yarvin is so reactionary that he says that he's Not even anti French and American Revolution. He's anti English Civil War. He's a Jacobite, right? So that's how far back he wants to get. Another important influence on somebody like Vance would be Patrick Deneen, who we mentioned before.Patrick Deneen is a University of Notre Dame professor, author of a book Why Liberalism Failed. That is actually quite an interesting book and I think correctly diagnoses certain problems with what's called classical or possessive liberalism. But since then he's released a book called Regime Change that calls for exactly what it sounds like, right?Essentially replacing what he considers to be a decadent neoliberal elite with a conservative aristocracy what he calls aristopopulism that he thinks is going to Be more conducive to passing legislation that'll be for the common good, which in practice is going to mean implementing social conservative policies without the kind of nebbish liberal [00:58:00] restrictions that older conservatives would think are so important given the nature of the American Constitution and American culture.Now there are other influences that gone into JD Vance's worldview. But we'll just stop there. Cause I think that three is enough for your audiences to be subjected to today.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and it's, and it's important to note that like he specifically cites these people by nameMcMANUS: Oh yeah, no, this isn't speculation, right?SHEFFIELD: inferring that these are where he got his ideas from. He says this himself.McMANUS: Yeah, I mean, look, Jarvan back in the day, used to try to be a little bit more covert I think part of that was also a marketing ploy on his part, being dark and mysterious and a dark elf, as he once used to call it, right, kind of operating in the shadows but, These people are not shy about expressing their intellectual influences.If you push them even take somebody like Chris Rufo, who had a dialogue with Yarvin not too long ago, right? And once you recognize that these are the people that they are looking to for inspiration it should be concerning. Although like you, I think it's very easy to overstate the influence.These intellectuals have on shaping the worldview of somebody like say Donald Trump or even shaping what somebody like JD Vance would do once he gets into office, if he gets into office. Let's pray to God he doesn't.Why there are atheist and Jewish Christian nationalistsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and speaking of God, there is the, there's an interesting dichotomy between a lot of these reactionary writers in that position of religion vis a vis themselves. So Yorubin has said repeatedly over the years that he is an atheist and does not believe in religion and any of that stuff.And, but then, but then by contrast, nearly all of these sort of as they're, I guess, currently calling themselves national nationalist right or whatever they want to call it, national conservatism. Almost all of them are Catholic with the one exception of I'm concerning who is a Jewish and, but at the same time he says he's, he's a Christian nationalist who is a Jew by his [01:00:00] own admission.So these atheists and catholics are kind of Inheriting control of the intellectual right such as it is from the neoconservatives who tended to be either Jewish or non religious, like not atheist, but like just specifically non religious.And then the shock troops had always been the evangelicals and the evangelicals never have gotten a shot at the intellectual leadership. And I think there's a lot of reasons for that, but I'm curious what your, what your thoughts are and why not?McMANUS: Well, I think part of the reason is that there's a long history of Catholic reactionary thought that many of these figures can draw upon in a way that there isn't quite as deep a reservoir of evangelical reactionary thought. It's definitely there, right? But it's not as sophisticated or as long standing as, what you find in right wing Catholicism, at least.And I want to stress right wing Catholicism, right? I know a lot of left wing Catholics Catholics and Christians out there who would deeply resent, needless to say, being associated with somebody like Dineen or Adrian Vermeule. But look, in terms of the role that religion is playing on the contemporary right, it's extremely variated, right?Some of these people are, without a doubt, true believers. Think about somebody again, like Patrick Dineen or Adrian Villemula, right? Who's flirted with advocating for integralism, basically the idea that the United States and the American government should be subordinated to, or at least put on a position of equal standing with the Catholic Church which is the arbiter of truth and goodness in the world per se.Probably not Pope Francis's Catholic Church, but a suitably reactionary Catholic Church and the Miller's opinion. But others are just very overt about the fact that they don't personally believe in God but they nonetheless want to advocate for a kind of social conservative Christian or Catholic morality because they feel that this is a necessary to kind of bind society together and.Eliminate disorderly kind of libertinism on also because they think that a commitment to Christian morality will be good in alleviating the decadence that they see as [01:02:00] sweeping society by committing people to hire a more grand kinds of projects, which include, for instance, producing Enormous numbers of Children.And I suppose the third thing that we can point about that's some of the darkest of strands of writing thought out there. Many also endorse return to these kinds of religious principles because they're worried about the demographic decline or the great replacement of white Americans by non white Americans or non white immigrants.And they think that Christian morality can provide an antidote to that. And many are pretty overt about the fact again, that they don't believe, or again, that they question whether there is a God people like say Richard Spencer one of the founders of the term outright characterized himself as a cultural Christian Douglas Murray in the United Kingdom also characterized himself as a cultural Christian.But I think Yoram Hazony had the kind of best. articulation of this outlook where in a number of essays, he says, look, if you're a conservative that doesn't believe in Christianity again, in great Kirk like language, he says you should kind of sideline those concerns and ask yourself whether the country would be better off committing to Christian principles and returning as he understands at least to the traditions associated with that rather than continuing on the liberal path that it's, that has led it to darkness.That's far. And he says, if you do think that that's what we should do, then you should go to church. We should pray. You should essentially parrot the language of religion, even if you yourself aren't a believer. Now, to me, that's a horrific idea. And, I believe I have my own kind of religious views, but a lot of them are centered around authenticity, right?This idea that you should believe because you are wholeheartedly committed to this, the idea of taking a functionalist approach to religion or saying, I'm going to kind of parrot the language of religious belief because it's useful is deeply repugnant to my left liberal outlook. I draw upon people like Charles Taylor here who's a left wing Catholic but you know, it makes a lot of sense if you're a conservative to kind of articulate this kind of vision because you're saying, look, we just need to get as many people on board with this as possible.If you feel [01:04:00] that we need to return to tradition but you sort of don't believe in God, just don't worry too much about the theology of that right now do what needs to be done as it were.SHEFFIELD: Yeah,And Dennis Prager is another example of that, that he, he in fact wrote a column urging non religious conservatives to raise your children as Christian. Because if you don't, then they're going to become liberals. Basically was the was the crux of that column. And it's in it. It's a an interesting admission inadvertent admission on his part, I think, because like, that's that is the kind of the core threat that they feel like that.They're this. Hierarchical authoritarian sensibility cannot survive on its own merits.As the right overtly embraces authoritarianism, the left can reclaim freedomSHEFFIELD: It's so hilarious that, people like Jordan Peterson or whoever are often using the phrase that, that they want a marketplace of ideas, but the reality is that. We, we, their ideas were tried in the marketplace of ideas a hundred years ago and were failed.They're, they were rejected because they do not have philosophic or empirical merit. And so as such, they lost and, and, and people are not interested in subscribing to those ideas because they're unsupportable. But they, they can't see that this is irrational fundamentally.McMANUS: yeah. I mean, to paraphrase my friend Nathan Robinson, who writes for sorry, the editor of current affairs, there's something deeply ironic about some of the loudest and best known people in the world constantly complaining about how their ideas are being silenced and haven't been tried yet. Despite the fact that, they'll go on Joe Rogan and they have podcasts that reach millions of people and many people try them and just don't actually happen to find them all that appealing.Right. Now I want to be clear, right. I don't think that there's anything wrong. From a liberal standpoint with people living a social conservative life, if that's what they so choose to do, right? And I know many people, back at home who find that actually very fulfilling for a wide variety of different reasons.You do you. But you know, I agree with John Stuart Mill that people are very different in terms of [01:06:00] what is good for them, What their personality gels with, what their aspirations are in life and what they were going to find fulfilling. I would not find a socially conservative lifestyle fulfilling in any way, shape or form.And I know because, I was raised Roman Catholic and I tried it for a little while and I found it very boring and spiritually unfulfilling, right? Because I'm just not that kind of personality. And I think our society needs to create space for people to pursue, The vision of the good life that they think is conducive to their well being and to their flourishing within reasonable limits, obviously.Right?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and so long as they don't impinge on other people's ability to do so.McMANUS: You're part of the if your vision of the good life includes being a member of the Klan and lynching people, then no. But, if you want to fast for 40 days and go to Mass five times a week and listen to it only in Latin, then by all means do so, right? Perhaps you find something fulfilling in that, that I'm sorry, perhaps you find something fulfilling in that, that I simply do not or simply have not recognized yet.SHEFFIELD: yeah. And that's what actual freedom looks like. And it's yeah, and there's this, Like, you mentioned Eric from he wrote a whole book called escape from freedom and that, like, that's what a lot of this is, is that the freedom to a reactionary is imposing their opinions on someone else, like, They don't, and Tony Perkins, who is the founder of the Family Research Council, or at least the president, I'm sorry, of the Family Research Council, he had said that if we cannot legislate our opinions in society, we don't have freedom, which is inherently, anti liberal and frankly, anti American.McMANUS: Oh, I completely agree. I mean, Adrian Vimiole is probably the one who's most express about that, where he's Consistently declaimed that his religious liberty is violated. If he's not allowed to pass legislation or people like him aren't allowed to pass legislation, [01:08:00] restricting LGBTQ rights.Now I do think that democratic freedom or social freedom. If you want to call it that is a kind of freedom, right? So to a certain extent, he's not wrong. And I think as liberals, we should acknowledge that. Right. But the question then becomes is what is more important to a society committed to liberty AGM Vimula is right to pass religious legislation that is going to restrict people's basic liberties to love who they want or people's liberty to love who they want, right.Without interfering with anyone else. And I think that's a very, very easy question to answer. Right. Because, Vermouli can very easily live the kind of social conservative lifestyle that he wants within a liberal society, while complaining about how he can't pass legislation to discriminate on the basis of his prejudices.But LGBTQ persons would not be able to live in a Vermoulian society and love the kind of people that they love. And it's not a hard question for me, which is, are those societies more committed to freedom at all?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and, and that's been interesting to see the Democratic Party actually finally starting to make that argument under Kamala Harris as the candidate that, that freedom, this is the first time in decades. That that had been a theme at a democratic political convention. And it's, it's a welcome development in my opinion.McMANUS: It is, right? And look I have my problems with Kamala Harris. I'm a born, I'm a Bernie guy. But I do welcome this transition to a kind of rhetoric of joy and optimism that you've seen in her campaign. I mean, part of this is, I think is that Biden, just because of his age did himself a disservice by constantly focusing on the threat that Trump posed to democracy.Cause it really kind of cast this atmosphere of doom, gloom and decline around the Democratic party that, because Biden was so old was not really a great. Look, let's just call it that but I think that fundamentally Americans, and this is a point that my good friend Alexandre Lefebvre makes in his Liberalism as a Way of Life are committed to a kind of comprehensive liberal worldview.They find sustenance and meaning in being liberal, [01:10:00] and liberalism can be a very joyous philosophy in many ways it's a glass half full kind of outlook in many cases, although it's not naive about human nature. And that's why I think many people, certainly after decades of Trumpism find this rhetoric of joy resonant.Because I think that, people want to look forward to the future and they want to think that their tomorrow is going to be better than today. And when they are constantly confronted by politicians that say everything is bad and everything is trash and everything needs to be changed it can become a bit of a downer and become a bit exhausting after a certain point Probably the most emblematic moment for me, at least with the N.C. campaign is when Barack Obama went up and gave a speech and he talked about Trump and he's like, Trump shtick is getting a bit old, isn't it? And as somebody who's been writing about Trump now for the better part of a decade and has two books out on postmodern conservatism I can say I'm pretty much done talking about it and then move on to something else.Right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and, and ultimately the, the reorientation toward freedom and, and joy like that is political parties and ideologies do best when they, when their message aligns with their core. Emotional and psychological argument so that, what it boils down to is that hope is progressive and despair and nihilism is reactionary and Biden kind of disrupted that by not by departing.McMANUS: Oh, without a doubt. Right. The reason, the moment I thought, I mean, I've done have a crystal ball, but I figured that Biden was going to win in 2020 was When Trump was attacking him, I think it was in the first debate over Hunter Biden and Biden just sat there and he's like, my son struggles a lot, he's all right.And I'm proud of him for doing that. I thought to myself, the country right now, not even America, but the world is going through a horrible pandemic. Many of us are very anxious about what the future I was living in Canada at that point and my grandmother who was 86 was like, I've never seen anything like this before.Right. And there was something that was ordinary and [01:12:00] comforting about this kind of outlook because he just seemed like a normal guy who was proud of his son, a little bit worried that was going around. And he hit a note that really worked with the message that the democratic party needed to hit at that point which is that things are bad right now.But they're going to be okay and we're going to get through this, right? And that was a fine message in 2020 but it's 2024 now and comfort, comfort coupled with doom and gloom and apocalyptic anxieties about democracy. Even though I share a lot of those anxieties isn't what we should be going for.People, I think, want something to look forward to. They want to believe in politics again. And I don't know if the Harris campaign is going to be successful in pulling that off, right? There's still two months before we get the election but they seem to be doing a pretty good job. So far, right.And again, though I have deep reservations about the Harris candidacy that stem from my own leftism certainly I prefer to be in office to Donald Trump. So,SHEFFIELD: Yeah,McMANUS: I want to see happen.The rise of the Nietzchean rightSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and just wrapping it up here like this, this idea of hope and despair and sort of the, the mutual collaboration between atheist reactionaries and, and Christian authoritarians. Lot of this it goes, it derives from, or at least is, is, sensible to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, and who was, of course, famously not religious himself.But, a lot of people, I, I, who don't, who haven't actually readMcMANUS: Don't, don't tell that shockingly to the expansive number of right wing Christians, so called who seem to find a great deal of value. I wrote an article about this for the Institute for Christian Socialism, but it's truly baffling to me that people like Jordan Peterson or Charlie Kirk or Jonah Goldberg will all cite Nietzsche extraordinarily positively while calling themselves Christian thinkers or at least beholden to a kind of Christian ethic, seemingly unaware of the fact that Nietzsche despised Christianity, characterized himself as the Antichrist.Partly ironically, partly sincerely and also famously once said that it was socialism and liberalism and democracy that they're [01:14:00] the clearest descendants of the Christian worldview albeit secularized in the contemporary era. Anyway, sorry, just go on, just a bone that I always have to pick.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, Well, and it's like the, but the fundamental point for Nietzsche as a non religious reactionary was that religion was the only thing. That what, or at least religious hierarchy was the only thing that was standing between, the emaciated denuded slop of liberal democracy and the great imagined past, which he believed that humanity had departed from and that that ultimately is why I think that, so many non religious reactionaries are, have decided, well, I think these doctrines are nonsense, but I'm going to get behind these guys because at least It, to paraphrase the dude, at least it's an ideology.McMANUS: Yeah, that's funny. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, look the rise of what I and others have called the Nietzschean right Certainly intellectually is a very intriguing development in American circles although as one wit put it a lot of American conservatives seem to have traded not reading Locke, but talking a lot about Locke for not reading Nietzsche and talking a lot about Nietzsche.I think that the American Nietzschean right right now Fundamentally doesn't really take on board a lot of Nietzsche's distinctive ideas, actually. And this relates back to my earlier point about people like Peterson or about people like Kirk or even for that matter, people like Douglas Murray, right?Who will draw on certain Nietzschean tropes about resentment without taking a lot of the more interesting material on board. But fundamentally, what they are intrigued by is this Nietzschean insistence that people are fundamentally different and they are different in a way that makes them unequal.Right? Some people are more worthwhile and more valuable than others on. That's very conducive to a wide array of night right wing thinkers who will want to Divide the world up according to IQ or divide the world [01:16:00] up according to a racial hierarchy or divide the world between men and women with men put on top or all of the above, right?Many of the people who are sympathetic to the one are sympathetic to the other two as well, right? And we can go on and on and on. And deeply funny because rather like how Nietzsche would have been appalled at how fascists banalized his ideas in this kind of populist way. There's no doubt that he would have found it both very funny and deeply frustrating that his work was so profoundly banalized by a lot of what the Nietzschean right in America right now is doing.But perhaps that's the inevitable legacy or the inevitable endpoint of any intellectual who comes up with a sufficiently interesting set of ideas. Eventually they're going to wind up with proponents and disciples who are just. caricatures of what those ideas once stood for. And I think that's what you see right now.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is important to note also, to be fair, that there are, quite a few people who do read their Nietzsche as being in favor of socialism and progressive values in some sense or another, and that they will, and there's an argument to be made, and in fact has been made about that the posthumous writings of his were edited by his sister who was basically a Nazi and she distorted their meaning.So I, I do want to make sure to point that out.McMANUS: Oh yeah, I just want to be clear about this because there's actually people, much like people aren't really aware of some of the inter scene intellectual debates that go on in the American right. There's not a lot of transparency on some of the Quite nebbish and hyper intellectualist debates that go on on the American left.But right now the American left, indeed the worldwide left, is going through a kind of process of denichification. So, if you're like me and, you're a millennial you probably went to college and you would read people like Michel Foucault or Gilles Deleuze for example who were kind of left wing Nietzscheans, right?I mean, Foucault was very overt about that, right? He said in the interview, I am a Nietzschean. And you might've just assumed that Nietzsche is [01:18:00] fundamentally a left wing thinker because he's anti bourgeois. He's got a very punk mentality. And he really advocates for these kind of grand sweeping transformative projects, right?That, you might associate with a certain kind of leftism. But recently there's been a lot of intellectual work done by people like like Daniel Tuts myself, I should add Domenico Lacerto, Malcolm Bull Ron Beaner Nancy Love we've all written books talking about how, well, yes, Nietzsche, was interested in being anti bourgeois.Yes, he was also interested in these big transformative projects but he was also very insistent that an aristocratic society, indeed a radically aristocratic society was the only kind of setting where these kinds of changes could take place. And he was very, very prone to saying things like, Hey, slavery would be a good idea, right?All these kinds of ideas that would be fundamentally hostile to the left. So it's a very interesting conversation that's going on in the left, on the left in American society right now as many people who once upon a time were weird and left wing flavors of Nietzscheanism become increasingly hostile to the guy.And I don't know where that's going to go, but it's certainly, it's not something I would have predicted back in the 2000s.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Yeah, no, it is interesting to see and and I do think that sort of debate also does is why you have seen some people aside from the fact that they can get massively rich from flattering Trumpist fascism, like. Matt Taibbi or some of these other people that they did have kind of this more that they were, they were, they were on the left if they were ever at all, but let's say they were, if they were on the left, it was only because of the anti bourgeois sensibility.And then eventually, once they realized, oh, Donald Trump and his supporters hate America also. And so, hey, we're going to go over there.McMANUS: Yeah, and actually, this is a good place to wrap up because this is why I wrote a book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism that's coming out soon, right, to kind of stress to my fellow leftists and my fellow liberals that there's a deep elective affinity between the two traditions that makes them quite different from what you find on the [01:20:00] right.Now, I just want to be clear, right, Horseshoe Theory, as it's sometimes called I think is a very bad way of looking at the world Partly for the reasons I just mentioned, right? But there is no doubt a certain kind of intellectual, or just a certain kind of personality, that is fundamentally anti liberal and anti bourgeois, and can shift, usually from left to right, although not always, and the one constant that remains in their outlook is this kind of anti liberal mentality, right?Think about somebody like Sourabh Amari, who I had a debate with, in December 2023, right? Similar kind of attitude towards certain things, although I'm very liberal, and he's certainly not. But, you see that in his transition, right?He went from being a kind of hardened leftist interested in Trotsky and Foucault and all these things to a very reactionary Roman Catholic and now he seems to have put the two together, and, he'll write a book about, why we should combine Marx with Age of Immunity and Reactionary Catholicism, and see what we can get, right?And the constant through line, of course, is the kind of anti liberal mentality. So, definitely not possible impossible and there's definitely personalities that are like that. But just to your listeners, Portrait Theory is not a good way of looking at the world. And I think that a lot of centrist commentators rely on this idea that if you go too far left, you eventually end up right, or too far right, you eventually end up left in lieu of serious analysis of what makes these different ideologies discreet.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, I agree. It's, it's, it's less about the ideologies and more about the psychologies is, is how I would put it. But yeah. All right. So, well, you, you have plugged. so, when is your book? Here's this other book, that you were talking about here. When's that coming? Yeah.McMANUS: The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, is coming out late November, right? If people want to check it out, they can pre order it on Amazon or on the Rutledge website and I imagine, for a lot of your listeners there might be a little bit of wariness about the socialist label but one of the things that I point out is that there are many, Constructive and liberal forms of socialism out there, just like there are many forms of emancipatory and egalitarian liberalism out there, and I think it's very worthwhile to put the two traditions into dialogue with one [01:22:00] another, since both are ultimately enlightenment doctrines that are committed to humanism, reason, and liberty, equality, and solidarity for all, and there's a lot to be gained by Dialogue with one another.And frankly, what could be more liberal than that?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and then the other book, which has kind of sort of been the subtext of the discussion of this episode today that you've got, which is already available and has been for a little bit. It's called the political right and equality. turning back the tide of egalitarian modernity. And then on social media, what's your where are you posting that?for people who want to keep touch with you there?McMANUS: Sure. People can add me at Matt Paul prof on Twitter. I'm never going to call it X. And the more Elon Musk's insist that I call it X, the more it's going to be Twitter. I can be spiteful that way. Or people can email me at Matt McMahon is 300 at gmail. com. And I do my best to get in touch with people by email.If they reach out to me.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Sounds good. And I will commend people to do that. So, thanks for joining me today and we'll stay in touch. I look forward to it.McMANUS: Thanks, man. Good conversation.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate everybody joining us for the discussion, and you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show. You can get the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And my special thanks to everybody who is a paid subscribing member, you get full unlimited access to the archives of the program. And I also encourage everybody to go to Flux.community where you can get access to all the other programs and articles that we produce at Flux.I appreciate everybody who is supporting us in that way. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryAs he nears the end of his third presidential campaign, Donald Trump is falling apart in public view. He’s holding far fewer public events than ever before where he constantly goes off on bizarre and irrelevant tangents and conspiracy theories about everything from sharks and hurricanes to Kamala Harris’s headphones.But most people don’t tune into his rallies. Instead, they hear about them from the mainstream media, which often delivers a highly sanitized version of Trump’s insane rants that makes them seem much more normal than they really are. My friend Parker Molloy calls this pattern of media behavior “sanewashing,” which I think is an accurate description to describe what mainstream journalists have been doing with Trump since he first began running for president in 2015. Whenever Trump retreats from verbatim interviews and focuses only on his rally speeches, his approval ratings go up.Kamala Harris alluded to this problem during the debate she had with Trump a few weeks ago when she urged the audience to attend a Trump campaign rally to hear the insane and incoherent things he says.Unfortunately, sanewashing isn’t something that began with Donald Trump, however. Using public relations strategies and playing upon people’s natural inclination to assume good-faith in others, reactionary Republicans figured out how to hack the liberal epistemology by lying. Long before Trump began conning America, far-right activists realized that there’s no limit to what you can accomplish once you realize you never have to tell the truth. As a result, the American press has been sanitizing Republican radicalism for many decades now: They cleaned up the image of the Tea Party. They refused to question George W. Bush’s Iraq War. They didn’t tell the full story of Newt Gingrich’s fanaticism. And they didn’t fully cover the radicalism of Ronald Reagan and his staff.One person who knows that story better than almost anyone else is Rick Perlstein, our guest on today’s episode. He’s a historian who’s the author of a series of best-selling books about the American right, including Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980. And he’s got another one that’s in the works as well called “The Infernal Triangle: How America Got This Way.”The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Flux is a community-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related ContentThe ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ and the long history of Republican re-brandingHow ‘fictitious Republicans’ like Ronna McDaniel and Hugh Hewitt cover up right-wing extremismAbortion is the first domestic issue where Republicans have actually had to reveal their full motivesRight-wing media is the glue that holds the Republican party togetherWhite nationalists and jihadists are starting to realize they have a lot in commonHow the Senate filibuster protected Republicans from electoral accountability and enabled their radicalizationWhy the Southern Strategy transformed Republicans more than it transformed the SouthAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:47 — Sanewashing is obsolete journalism for a Republican party that no longer exists10:51 — Flashback: How the mainstream media sanitized the Tea Party21:51 — How Republicans and Democrats handle unpopular policies differently25:47 — How Tea Party activists manipulated the media29:09 — William F. Buckley, inventor of sanewashing33:57 — Sanewashing as a hack of liberal epistemology43:23 — The one positive thing about sanewashing48:32 — A dual approach to combating the problems of sanewashingAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So the topic of today that we're going to be discussing here, as I said in the intro, is sanewashing. And friend of the pod, Parker Molloy, I believe, was the coiner of that term, and she defines it as basically that when Trump has his rallies, the mainstream media will sanitize them and not tell the public what he's actually saying, how incoherent and extreme that it is.I think it's a very valid critique, but on the other hand, this is part of a much bigger problem.RICK PERLSTEIN: Yes, I think it's a fantastic word. Maybe it'll become one of those kind of like, like the Miriam Webster or whatever comes up with [00:04:00] the. The word of the year, that would be a really good one. But it is yeah, I mean, if anything, eight years too late, possibly 80 years too late, right? But I think, eight years too late is eight and a half years.Let's say is a pretty good benchmark because, I, was doing political reporting in 2015 and 2016, and I went to New Hampshire. And I went to rallies by, all the candidates and, I kept on writing about Trump and my editor was like, why aren't you writing about someone who could win like Marco Rubio? And there'll be 20 people at the Marco Rubio event and like 2,000 people at the Donald Trump event.And one of the things I did because I take a very literary approach to journalism and wasn't kind of filing, 800 word, kind of dispatches on deadline. I was writing kind of Esquire style magazine articles like, Gary Wills did in the 1960s or Joan Didion or something like that. I transcribed enormous amounts of what Donald Trump was saying. And described enormous amounts of what I was seeing, like looking over the shoulder of someone who was reading the little, town newspaper in some New Hampshire town of 20,000 people and looking at the obituaries and seeing all the 30 year olds and realizing, this must be kind of a place that has a lot of oxy problems and things like that, this dying industrial town.And, he was just saying, insane things, by the way, there's kind of a maybe I should coin the phrase insane washing, which is kind of like the idea that somehow Donald Trump has kind of circled around the drain and is so off the rails in a way that he wasn't before, I think he's definitely suffered.cognitive decline, and his kind of, return to the womb kind of fascism rhetoric is purer than it was, but it was plenty like that in 2015 and 2016. So I would, I quoted at length, him saying, if anyone deserts and when I'm president, they'll get shot in the [00:06:00] battlefield.He told this elaborate story that he told all the time, which I saw covered nowhere, about how General Pershing supposedly solved the terrorism problem in, the Philippines in the 20s whatever, by corralling 50 terrorists shooting 49 of them with bullets soaked in pig's fat, right?Muslim terrorists and leaving one to tell the tale. And of course it's a utter urban legend and no one bothered to either quote that at any length, including the crazy, grammar and stuff. Or even bothered to look it up, which I did only recently and found out that was a common email chain after 9/11.Sanewashing is obsolete journalism for a Republican party that no longer existsPERLSTEIN: The problem is obviously just, no curiosity or any kind of digging into what's happening. There is a genre convention for how a presidential candidate is meant to be reported. And what I talk about just an enormous amount in my writing about this stuff as a historian and a journalist is that the frames are everything, the journalistic conventions are everything, and they're ironclad, and if you want, I can kind of go into my little theory about how this particular Convention came about I theorized with Richard Nixon in 1968, but basically a presidential candidate speech Is should be reducible to five or six take away soundbites about policy positions.And it doesn't matter if Donald Trump, pulls down his pants and poops on the stage. As long as he says something that can somehow be abstracted into five or six policy takeaways, that's how it will be reported in the New York Times, on CNN, and all the rest. And, I mean, you can't separate the dancer from the dance. Form and function. Form and content, I should say. [00:08:00] What is in the speeches is a function of the fact that he's doing this diuretic rant meant to terrify people and present himself as the savior who's going to prevent them from bodily disintegration. And that cannot, that story simply cannot be told and be recognizable as mainstream journalism.SHEFFIELD: Because yeah, you're telling a truth that cannot be said.PERLSTEIN: it just, it's almost like, it's, like duck speak. It just doesn't, it's like, it doesn't fit, duck speak from 1984. They come up with this language that's kind of meant to be descriptive and keep people from having, other thoughts.Duck speak just means like, party rhetoric. It's just a really, just kind of, like Mad Libs. Every article about a presidential speech is going to be Mad Libs. You can kind of fill it in. And therefore that which does not, kind of meet that format will not, it's, yes, it's unrepresentable.SHEFFIELD: Well, yeah. And it's also, and it's not newsy either. Trump says the same policy positions in his speeches, says the same jokes that, like that idiotic—PERLSTEIN: The snake. SHEFFIELD: Yeah. That was a cliché in the nineties like Hannibal Lecter.PERLSTEIN: Yeah. And no one says that when he says the Hannibal thing, he's actually kind of doing a dog whistle that migrants are cannibals.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think so. But, I mean, but the point being though, like when they talk about, and then he said he wants to build a wall and then he said he wants, tariffs or whatever, like those, that's not news at all that he said those things. He says those at every rally. So what you actually have to do if you're going to these rallies, you're going to cover them, is to cover this ambiance, is to cover the impromptus, is to cover the asides, and the insanities.PERLSTEIN: That's right. And the crowd too.SHEFFIELD: This other stuff is not [00:10:00] news.Thanks for reading Flux! This post is public so feel free to share it.SharePERLSTEIN: I mean, one of the things that, when I first started, like the first time I, started covering presidential campaign events in 2004, when I was writing for the village voice, I walk into my first rally in Claremont, New Hampshire, and I'm like, why are these guys all behind a iron?Great. It's like the journalists literally caged themselves. I was like, Why aren't they? Like, it's not that hard to go out into the crowd. you could tell these guys apart, they were the guys, with the, the press khakis, it was 2004. They had cell phones pressed their ear, which was pretty rare.And they only talked to each other . So they weren't actually, yes, they were not actually quote unquote covering the event. They were waiting for their little mad libs to, to, fill in. And that was 2004. Right. And John Kerry or whatever, but you know, it's so they're, covering Donald Trump just like they cover.John Kerry, even though, it's apples and oranges,Flashback: How the mainstream media sanitized the Tea PartySHEFFIELD: It is. It's, and we'll get into this further, but you're working on book right now. And, one of the big portions of the book which you shared with me is how the media did this exact same, washing practice with Glenn Beck and the Tea Party when they came along and and both before and after it kind of collapsed on itself. So, when they first got started, it was, Oh, wow. Look at all these independents. And they're just politically moderate people, look at them. They're just want something different. They're upset. And then, after it all kind of went completely, I mean, revealed itself undeniably for a far right movement, and then Glenn Beck, did his rehabilitation to her. So take us back there.PERLSTEIN: Yeah, it was truly grotesque, and a really important kind of way station to how we got here, right? Subtitle of the book I'm working on is how America got here, and really, I mean, I start with the 2020 South Carolina primary between John McCain and George W. Bush and, kind of, Go to the present, but the beginning of the book, I do this 2009 [00:12:00] to 2010 period, because it's so, it just exemplifies all the crises that, have become unmanageable right now.And the biggest one is, the press. So we get this new president. Barack Obama and some of your younger listeners may have heard telegram by talking about how unbelievably exciting it was. If you were anything other than, a conservative and that this, African American president, there was an enormous wave of progressive.Energy if you look at the polls, it's ridiculous polls, like, 75 percent of the country wanting to raise the minimum wage in 2007. and, like, and like 68 percent of small business owners wanted to raise the minimum wage. I mean, it was a truly a progressive movement.The sky, comes along and, we can kind of skip over, the complications of Obama himself, but it's really true that a lot of the, kind of big foots of the mainstream press, the agenda setting elite political journalists. I tried to find a good acronym for them, but I haven't, but I call them the agenda setting elite political journalists, which basically means, the people with titles like Washington correspondent or, chief, chief chief, capital.Columnist or whatever, the Bigfoots, we're very excited and his election was treated as ending a chapter in American life of racial division. I mean, it was quite astonishing, quite naive but for the purposes of our discussion, it was so over the top that I think the ideology of balance, Which, obviously is their religion, just kind of demanded a countervailing narrative.Right? So they were, they needed the Tea Party. Right? They needed the idea that there was this backlash against Barack Obama to kind of right the scales. Because, unless they do that, they're not, they don't see themselves as professional. They don't see themselves as doing their job. They had [00:14:00] a guilty conscience, right?So when the Tea Party came about, it's really quite extraordinary. One thing I really stress in my book is there was always amazing coverage, but it would come from alternative media. The same alternative media that was telling the truth about Iraq. When, the New York Times was running, White House propaganda at the front page, right?So in the case of the alternative media, it was really fascinating that, you remember the, first kind of clarion call? Of the Tea Party on CNBC. Do you remember that story? This Rick Santelli guy. Right? So how much, I mean, it's just basically, there was this business reporter named Rick Santelli, this kind of douchey kind of frat boy guy.and yeah, Chicago based and Barack Obama had just you know, fulfilled a campaign promise by putting together a very small program to to help people basically subsidized banks to help people get back into their houses when they were foreclosed. It was really kind of one of these win policy solutions, it was cost barely anything.The banks would get a really nice, flow of revenue at a time when they were, ready to go out of business. People would get to go back in their homes, neighborhoods that were kind of falling decrepit because of the subprime prices. And the government would earn their money back.And it was also, like, completely neoliberal. It was really hard to apply for. It was means tested, all that good stuff. It was very mild. And of course on the right it was, greeted as well, literally, in the case of Santelli, he said, this is, I've been to Cuba and this is what they did, so this clown, Santelli, gives up this kind of speech, political speech, on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. And he says, we're going to start a movement, you can see it on YouTube, and we can even call it a tea party. And it really seems like he's kind of dreaming it up from the top of his mind.Right? And then, basically nine days later, these Tea Party rallies all over the country being promoted by Fox News. Well, the first piece [00:16:00] in the New York Times completely plays it straight. It basically says it's like, Tea Party organizers insist, movement is spontaneous, right?So they're already kind of, on the back foot, but they're getting to kind of redeem themselves. And the astonishing thing is these two bloggers on Huffington Post writing for free on their kind of like citizens vector. And one was kind of like a, yeah, spare time. One was like a, like an entrepreneur woman woman in somewheresville.And there was this guy who I've become an acquaintance with who was just struggling with mental illness and trying to put together a journalism career, basically. Just on their own, found publicly available message boards in which the conspirators Who were working with the Koch brothers to start something to kind of, create a grass simulated AstroTurf groundswell against Barack Obama.Or I should say, because obviously there was a lot of resistance to Barack Obama, but to basically kind of meld this into a kind of marketable thing. They literally said before that rant went on that supposedly started the tea party, wait for Santelli. Before kind of hitting, send on your websites, organizing the tea party.So it was literally, they found smoking gun evidence that this was, a conspiracy, that this was all planned, that it was in fact not spontaneous. And yet for like another two years, the word spontaneous and rant and grassroots movement, literally the first New York times article said, well, yeah, I don't there was some work done on a website by a grassroots group called FreedomWorks.a grassroots group. Now you have to laugh. As FreedomWorks is like the AstroTurfKind of silo of the Koch brothers empire, right? Run by run, by who was the guy? Dick Army. For a 700, 000 a year salary out of, a lobbying [00:18:00] shop, on literally on K street.So this was the grassroots movement.SHEFFIELD: And former RepublicanPERLSTEIN: Yes, and former, congressional leader.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.PERLSTEIN: I mean, basically, there was a lot of grassroots activity because, people hate liberalism and, for all the reasons you know. But a lot of it was kind of coordinated by Fox News, right? Which kind of played this kind of convening function.And yet, for years and years and years, well, months and months and months and months, because it really only lasted for two years the narrative that you would read in the New York Times and the Washington Post was that this, it was a grassroots movement. they would, kind of do polls and it would turn out that, 40 percent of the Tea Partiers or something like that would identify as political independents.The Scholar Theta Scotch Bowl actually, kind of did the interviews and found that a lot of people who were calling themselves independents didn't identify as Republicans because they were, Ron Paul libertarians. John Birch Society members, consider the Republican Party, part of the, deep state or whatever.So, like, these, right, so these people were being reported as if they were undecided centrist voters who were anguished about, fiscal responsibility, which was non existent on the part of Barack Obama. the, actual stimulus bill that they were protesting was like the most, they, Joe Biden was basically in charge of making sure all the money was spent responsibly.And they were just like in the classic democratic way, like Boy Scouts kind of dotting their eyes and crossing their keys, but it didn't matter. Most of the initiatives were spectacularly successful.SHEFFIELD: yeah, and I'm sorry, and the actual leftPERLSTEIN: Of course.SHEFFIELD: andPERLSTEIN: And we, well, yeah,SHEFFIELD: Obama.PERLSTEIN: it's like all the,SHEFFIELD: but that's,PERLSTEIN: Yeah. And all the economists, were like, you need, it needs to be at least like 1. 2 billion trillion dollars because you have to replace the money that was sucked out of the economy by these banks. And it was, Rahm Emanuel said it couldn't be above a billion dollars, had eventually turned out to be 700 million.Be that as it may. And then one of the fascinating things, I mean, I tell the whole [00:20:00] story, right, in this book that'll come out, next year, basically. But I think. One way to kind of sum it up is there was a poll in 2011 after all these Tea Party people who are like nuts, I mean, people like Alan West, who literally ran on the fact that he tortured an Iraqi soldier, I mean, as crazy as anything you hear from any kind of Marjorie Taylor Greene, These days, some of these people.I'll say two things about it. In 2011, there was a poll, and the Tea Party, because of these people, and because of what they were doing, trying to shut down the government, were listed as the most hated group of people in America, more so than Muslims and Atheists. Whereas, the same kind of poll, in 2009 was, oh, the Tea Party sounds great.So when people actually, all they knew about the Tea Party was what they saw in the evening news or read in the newspaper they were fine. And then when they actually got into, actually, Got power. Everyone saw they were crazy. And, I found these unbelievably fascinating examples of news reports where the actual copy in the newspaper or the voiceover of kind of the Associated Press syndicated TV news segment would talk about, yeah, they were all, these, middle Americans were spontaneously erupting in protest against the Fiscal irresponsibility, which, by the way, is the one issue that, these kind of bigfoot journalists are most conservative about.They're obsessed about deficits. No actual Americans care about deficits, but the media sure does. Right. That is just a grassroots, spontaneous, logical commonsensical uprising against high deficits. And then the picture of the crowd would have, fight the new world order or America is a Christian nation.Right? So you can kind of seeSHEFFIELD: Yeah.PERLSTEIN: saint washing, right there.How Republicans and Democrats handle unpopular policies differentlyPERLSTEIN: And, I mean, just to not let Barack Obama off the hook, and then when, in 2010, when this often based on, outright [00:22:00] rank, chewing on like lies, that there are going to be death panels in the Obamacare, they win office and take over Congress.So, Barack Obama really only gets, Two years to kind of shoot his shot, right? The next morning when I compare it to Ronald Reagan in the morning, after his shellacking in 1982, he says, we're going to stay the course. Right? And even though the unemployment rate was even higher than it was in 2009, 2010, inflation was terrible, basically deindustrialization was, taking off like a rocket ship.Ronald Reagan said, well, the only reason, my program hasn't worked is we haven't given it enough time. Which was kind of a smart thing to say because of the way economic cycles worked. He knew that like, basically by the time 2000, 1984 ran around, came around, the economy would have recovered.And it did. And that's when he won 49 states, right? But he laid down this marker, stick with me, stay the course. Barack Obama said, well,SHEFFIELD: Yep.PERLSTEIN: I've been going around the country and listening, and people say that they're really disappointed by what I'm going to do, what I'm doing, so I'm going to change. He's sayingSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. And it's like, this is it is, I think a great example of why.PERLSTEIN: his, negotiating partners, right? The ones who tried to shut down the government the next year.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, he did. He did. Yeah. And this is an example of why polling is, can be very problematic for what you're doing. You use it for it. Like polls are useful to in, in a lot of different ways. I used to be a pollster. So like, obviously I like them. But at the same time, they, when you're asking people, what do you want when you're asking them abstract political theory or economic policies, they don't actuallyPERLSTEIN: Right,SHEFFIELD: talking about.A lot of peoplePERLSTEIN: right.SHEFFIELD: And so, like you, even if you ask them. what'sPERLSTEIN: Right.SHEFFIELD: They [00:24:00] don't really actually know, or if they do like, or they might give you an answer, but ideas are all over the map. And so that's why self assessment is usually in sociology. And so. You got to use a battery ofPERLSTEIN: sure.SHEFFIELD: that are not explicitly ideological. And when you do, what you find is that, there's this, in the mainstream media, there's this obsession with the idea of thePERLSTEIN: Right.SHEFFIELD: voter, and that they think that the most of the public is in the middle politically. And it's just not true. It's simply not true. That the reality is that there's a lot of people who are socially, very conservative, like a lot of black Americans are that way. A lot of democratic voting formerly democratic voting white non college educated voters were that way. A lot of his, and. And they, so they have very right wing religious viewpoints, but then on economics, they havePERLSTEIN: Right.SHEFFIELD: wing viewpoints. So are they centrist? Like those people are never called centrist in, in, they're never even talkedaboutPERLSTEIN: it's, always these pre existing media narratives of what the world looks like. When we were talking about how the Christian right reasons, when we had our kind of discussion during the democratic convention, during the Republican convention, and I mean, the democratic convention in Chicago. And you, taught me the philosophy behind the idea of inductive reasoning.And I told you my favorite word, which is eisegesis, right? Which is the opposite of exegesis. Exegesis is what you do when you have a body of information and you try and, use your critical thinking tools to interpret, it and come with conclusions. Eisegesis is the opposite where you have a conclusion and then you use a body of evidence to kind of.Affirm your conversion, your conclusion.How Tea Party activists manipulated the mediaPERLSTEIN: And frankly, there was just a staggering amount of isogesis on the part of the elite media, and they, polled tea partiers.And they're like, what is the [00:26:00] main reason you identify with the tea party? And it was five or six things. And by the way, the, best New York times, most important headline was. Tea Party avoids divisive social issues. Right? Again, this is the one where they have big banners, the things right in front of the camera, which you can see on camera, but they don't talk about in the media.Molin lobby, don't take away our guns and all that stuff, right? Oh, here we go. New York Times published a poll. The day before the 2010 tax day tea party rallies. Oh, and there's another great poll And it's like deciding which polls to report is important. There was only one person I ever saw who Noted this poll and it was in business It was in forums actually of all places that the public thought that taxes were just right in 2009 At a higher level than at any time before the Eisenhower administration.So, what did T, stand for in Tea Party, do you remember? Taxed Enough Already.SHEFFIELD: TaxedPERLSTEIN: no criticism of that. So here's a poll that was published in the New York Times on April 14th, 2010, before the big Tea Party rally. By the way, the immigration rallies that year were much bigger than Tea Party rallies.It asked adherents, what should be the goal of the Tea Party movement? And these are the possible responses, it wasn't open ended. Reduce federal government, cutting budget, lowering taxes, electing their own candidates, creating jobs. Or something else. So the idea that the tea party was,SHEFFIELD: That'sPERLSTEIN: keep our guns from being taken away.Keep immigrants out of the country, all these stuff that you would actually, and actually there was a sociologist, again, alternative media or the best reporting on. The ties to the Koch brothers and, how they kind of came up with the idea of workshopping with the tobacco industry, in the 90s came from scientists, tobacco scientists who were doing work on the tobacco industry and use when, so they, came out with an article in like [00:28:00] public health Quarterly or something that like totally nailed, the coke brothers footprints all over this stuff.Was a sociologist who was a graduate student and a professor now who just went to tea party meetings and he literally showed the leader who was kind of like this, literally came from Numbers USA, the kind of white supremacist immigration group, right,SHEFFIELD: immigration.PERLSTEIN: training them about what to say to journalists and saying, don't criticize Barack Obama, say we're just as mad at Bush, right?Don't have any embarrassing signs. Glenn Beck banned signs when he had his big rally at the Washington Mall, which was on the anniversary of the I Have a Dream speech, right? So, I mean, it was, what if the New York Times instead of saying Washington had said, you have a disciplined cadre of leaders who are explaining to people exactly what they say to the New York Times?Instead, they would reach, reach into their Rolodex and use their, kind of, sources in town. And they would be told, well, of course, this is just a movement of middle Americans who have no interest in divisive social issues but just want, their grandchildren not to have a, big deficit passed on to them. national debt.William F. Buckley, inventor of sanewashingSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, it's true. like, I think that this. And, the right wing keeps doing this to the left and the mainstream media, especially, and they've done this as you've documented and many others have documented over the years. Like, I mean, William F Buckley Jr was, I think, the original sort of promulgator of this idea, like, This was a guy who was, friends with manyPERLSTEIN: Right.SHEFFIELD: Actively wrote in favor of segregation was friends withPERLSTEIN: And said Africans will be ready for self government just as soon as they stop eating each other.SHEFFIELD: yeah, exactly. But at the same time, he would go and, use multi syllable words onPERLSTEIN: Yeah, he would, it would takebeing with him.SHEFFIELD: then he like threatened to punch, he threatened toPERLSTEIN: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Vidal. And that's still. Did not harm [00:30:00] his,PERLSTEIN: Now there was an interesting kind of there was an interesting kind of movement in the early 60s when the John Birch Society really kind of burst out of the scene, kind of the Q anon of the early 60s, crazy conspiracy theorists. Thought that Eisenhower was an agent of the communist conspiracy.And they were just, savaged in the press. So, Buckley was kind of seen as, creepy and scary maybe. But yes, he did a great job of, laundering, kind of these right wing ideas. He was brilliant at it. that's what his, that was his value proposition.That he, was, you could basically just keep on just steadily pushing the center to the right. And I have a lot about that. I have a great spilling tea account of going to A dinner party at his house, and recording the things that they say when they think that no one is listening. But we'll, no spoiler alerts for that one.The other thing is I compare I com i, point out that, time Magazine, would cover the, John Birch Society and say there are one, one goose step away from the formation of Goon squads. Right. So there was this kind of raising of the alarm by a generation that, remembered Hitler, right?And, I compare that in the book to the cover article on Glenn Beck, which showed him kind of blowing a raspberry at the viewer. And it, and it was just crazy. It was just a puff job. It was about what, how great his business acumen was. It was about how funny he is, how he didn't really have a serious ideology.I know no one took him seriously. And meanwhile, literally there were people shooting at cops and there was a guy who shot a cop. And actually, no, I think he he shot a cop on the way to, I think it might've been to Nancy Pelosi's house and his defense lawyer said, well, all he's doing Is responding to what Glenn Beck says on TV.At the same time as time magazine is putting Glenn Beck on the cover and [00:32:00] saying, he's kind of charming and harmless. So if you want to know, what, why, the media and the democratic party wasn't ready for Trump. I mean, this is a pretty pretty good explanation, I think.Yeah.SHEFFIELD: It is. Yeah. And, it's like, I mean, Republicans invented political consulting andPERLSTEIN: Right.SHEFFIELD: reallyAnd then, the tobacco industry kind of pioneeredPERLSTEIN: AstroTurf stuff, yeah, they came up with the phrase the Tea Party.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. but also like the, idea of, well, we don't have to refute your arguments, we justAndPERLSTEIN: there's a debate, creating a debate, creating,SHEFFIELD: yeah,PERLSTEIN: of times saying there's, a debate.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.PERLSTEIN: Yeah, the right says this, the left says this. There's a pretty good obscure book about the history of think tanks by a guy named Jason Stahl, who, S T A H L, whose, job now is starting a union for college football players.But he, demonstrates how the American Enterprise Institute in 60s, literally came up with an idea of saying, if we say that everything is a left right debate, then that will automatically get more right wing ideas into the media. And, they would say the Brookings Institution, which would do these kind of technocratic, kind of crazy scientific public spirited kind of studies were the left pole and the right pole was them and later the Heritage Foundation.SHEFFIELD: the Thing is though, like all this this prison, this fake. Layer of Republican PR. Like I call the people who do it they call, I call them fictitious Republicans. So, people like Ronna McDaniel or HughPERLSTEIN: Professional conservatives.Yeah.SHEFFIELD: TV. Yeah. That, that their goal, they're, they have been in the business of sane washingPERLSTEIN: Right.Sanewashing as a hack of liberal epistemologySHEFFIELD: But it's the thing is though, like these, [00:34:00] practices that they developed of of sanitizing and covering up their motives and not talking about their, their ultimate motivations, their actual full agenda. What it's done is. It actually, it is a hack of the liberal epistemology because right wing worldview is this is a fallen world.We're all, everyone is a sinner. They're awful people. Life sucks. It will never get better. So you might as well get what you can and f**k everyone else. that's, the right wing you worldview. And The left wing worldview is, well, people are good and we shouldn't judge them.We should, think about them full persons and not question their motives. AndPERLSTEIN: We all want the same things.SHEFFIELD: what, yeah, we all want the same things. I think it's an example of entryism though, because that, was a practice that was very commonly done by communists in the cold war, people working for the USSR, that they would come into labor groups or, Democratic party groups and say, well, actually I'm aPERLSTEIN: Right. Yeah, AndSHEFFIELD: toPERLSTEIN: as I point out in Before the Storm, a lot of these guys were literally based their techniques on Stalinists. But, I have a completely different theory about left, right, conservative, liberal that I kind of spell out a little bit in the book, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that liberalism This is also a beef against the left where they say, oh, liberal liberals are the people who, believe in the free market, like they did in the 19th century, right?Liberalism is always just the people who wanna maximize lib liberty, right? Expand the, ambit of the people who are considered fully human. Women used to be vessels of men. Surfs used to be, literally belong to the land where they lived, right? Gay people work pollution, black people were pollution and each generation expands that [00:36:00] circle.And I'm very, it's very unfashionable in academia, but I really have a kind of wiggish view of progress, even though, we have. 50 million people dying in World War II and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. I think the circle of people who are considered fully human has steadily expanded.The latest is, people who are, have gender dysmorphia, which have existed in all societies, but suddenly get to be full citizens. And, but there's always reaction against that. So to me, conservatism, the right reaction is just a kind of natural function of this fact of what I consider kind of a fact, the expansion of human dignity.And the 19th century in Manchester in the 1850s, the kind of economist magazine was liberal because deciding what you can buy and sell individually instead of by the sufferance of the crown was an expansion of human liberty, right? It's not now, but it was then. So anyway, that's the basic rough outlines of it.But it's a little bit in the clouds.SHEFFIELD: Oh, actually I hear your, I think IPERLSTEIN: I'm going to go outside. It's a lovely Chicago day. It's about 70 degrees, and now we're out in the,SHEFFIELD: nice.PERLSTEIN: the veranda. FindSHEFFIELD: Okay. Well, good. So, but just going back to what I was saying though, that, wing PR and, fictitious Republicans invented sane washing.But they did it to hackPERLSTEIN: Totally, agree.SHEFFIELD: thePERLSTEIN: Yes. It's very clever stuff.SHEFFIELD: it's, it is. And what's so frustrating is that, you've got, the democratic party is filled with PhDs is filled with, political scientists filled with people, consultants who have done this forever, and they don't seem to be aware that this happened. And the media is filled with people, who. I mean, well, I guess they're notPERLSTEIN: Yeah. I mean, I've heard, I've, heard at least on the democratic side that things are getting better. [00:38:00] That there are kind of generations who have been kind of absorbing what people like me and you and lots of other people have been pointing out.SHEFFIELD: It's like a normalcyPERLSTEIN: right.SHEFFIELD: Like the, liberals think well of human, their fellow humans, and they don't understand that somePERLSTEIN: Right, that's true. It might also be that they all come from kind of Ivy League schools where basically using the right salad fork as J. D. Vance, reveals in his memoir is kind of the paramount skill and kind of etiquette. And a certain way of believing in. The solidity and good intentions of elite institutions are kind of baked into your identity, right?And a certain kind of idea about sort of pluralism and tolerance, which, to use, the philosophical terms of Karl Popper creates the fallacy of tolerating the intolerant. So,SHEFFIELD: Yeah.PERLSTEIN: right, the paradox of tolerance, so, the way I like to put it in one of my new formulations is that journalistic norms should not be a suicide pact. You know the phrase, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, right? So we're not, if, someone wants to destroy the country, maybe we can cut some corners in order to destroy them before they destroy us, right?But the journalistic norms, the usual kind of both sides, you quote what someone says and you don't editorialize by saying whether it's wrong or not, you don't dive into how conservatives weaponize, the norms of, fairness, liberal norms of fairness in order to eventually uproot them in a very cynical way.That's just not part of journalism. But unless. This generation of journalists, which is gonna be very hard figures out a way to kind of deal with issues of, fairness, which has to happen and some kind of sense of, objectivity, whatever, or, fairness or however you conceptualize it.Right? That [00:40:00] allows. The liberal institution of journalism not to be destroyed if the MAGA types win, then they will be placing their own profession in existential jeopardy. And there won't be any independent political journalism, right? As there are not in authoritarian countries. And I see very little of that in journalism.I see very little methodological self criticism. I tried to start these conversations. There are wonderful journalistic critics. I mean, in the school of James Fallows and all the rest who understand this perfectly sophisticated people who have been, like James Fallows, the editor of us news and world report, right?One of the three big news weeklies, he was in the Carter administration. He's not some crazy far out, hippie. Right. And he understands how this stuff works perfectly, but he has not received a hearing. And, I, in Reganland, I'll tell, I tell the story and you talk about how they kind of weaponize, kind of liberal journalistic norms of fairness of accuracy in the media, Rita Irvine, kind of the forefather of kind of the work, you were doing, right?How he bought stock in the New York times in order to get into a stockholders meetings. And he would just sabotage them. He would just start trolling. And so, Abe Rosenthal or whatever, the patriarch of the, not Abe Rosenthal Sulzberger. The patriarch of the Klan was like, okay, will you leave us alone at our meetings if we have regular, meetings in which you share your concerns with me in my office?So the guy literally bought his way into the New York Times office and started like filling, the ear of the publisher of the New York Times with all this nonsense about communist infiltration. And it's in the book. I mean, Max Frenkel thought it was, like horseshit, in 1980, during this period I'm talking about where the right was already, working overtime, working the refs, they really started with Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew by, getting people like Pat [00:42:00] Buchanan and William Sapphire Columns, because the liberal was supposedly, the media was supposedly biased towards the left.Right. Right? There was a Butthurm Emails situation and the Carter campaign, was like completely flummoxed by the fact that Jimmy Carter's brother was this clown who was, taking cash on the barrelhead from the, dictatorship of Libya and, trying to influence his brother.Completely, it didn't succeed. There was no fire there. And meanwhile, the Reagan campaign had their main national security staffer, a guy named Richard Allen, who's still alive, was completely corrupt, kind of doing corrupt business with Japan. It came out. During the campaign, again, the alternative media, Mother Jones Magazine, which did amazing frickin stuff on the Tea Party and their ties to the militia movement, and the only reporting on on, the Oath Keepers at a time when they came out, which was during the Tea Party.The Oath Keepers was basically the militia auxiliary of the Tea Party. Right? Mother Jones did an article, an expose of this guy and they delivered it to every reporter who went to the the 1980 Republican Convention and it got like no pickup whatsoever, where the New York Times had 50 articles within the space of like a couple weeks on Jimmy Carter's brother.It was the butter emails of 1980.SHEFFIELD: AndPERLSTEIN: And Hunter Biden, exactly.The one positive thing about sanewashingSHEFFIELD: It's a serious problem, but I will say on the other hand, that. I mean, there is a, paradox of saying Washington the media not telling the full truth about Republicans is that it does enable them to get access inside thesePERLSTEIN: Right. Access is a tricky one.SHEFFIELD: political circles. So there are a lot of important critical stories that we did get out of the Trump administration because of this access journalism. So it's not pleasant to have to admit that, but I think we have to admit that, that. The right wing doesn't [00:44:00] tell us what they want and they don't tell us what they're doing. public needs to find this information out somehow. And so maybe some of this isPERLSTEIN: I mean, I think it has to be kind of a multi front war, right? I mean, if, the people at the New York times didn't hold kind of their lesser colleagues in such contempt, they would see them kind of involved in the same project and they're like, okay, we can do the Maggie Haberman stuff and find out that, Donald Trump wanted to like New Greenland or whatever, and was talked out of it by, general Mattis and, these, Activists, kind of at like, Southern Poverty Law Center are, talking about how, they want to link up all the National Guards in order to kind of, take over the border or something like that.They're, if they saw themselves as kind of part of the same enterprise, right, as comrades and colleagues and, basically just coming up with the truth and understanding the stakes, but that's, not how the New York Times thinks about things. I mean, there's the tradition of what they call the beat sweetener, right?And in my journalism that I was doing in 2016, I wrote about NPR's beat sweetener, Michael Flynn. And one of, they interviewed one of his colleagues at one of his jobs at, I think, like the Army Intelligence Chief or something like that. And he talked about, the, colleague, she talked about how charmingly messy his desk was.And then literally she starts saying, and he's so disorganized that I think that, like America's intelligence capabilities will be in grave threat. And they're like, okay, we have no time. And you can just kind of see enough saying, wow, we're not going to get anywhere with this Michael Flynn guy.If we, tell the truth about how dangerous he was. And this was, a time when, the stuff he was doing with Turkey and he was a loon even then.SHEFFIELD: I mean, he got fired by Obama forPERLSTEIN: Right, barbed wire for being corrupt and crazy. So, can you do beat sweeteners? I think you have to do it in a very tactically shrewd way.I think you have to do it as part of a long game. I think you have to be willing to burn sources if they screw you. I think instead it becomes the kind of [00:46:00] coziness between journalists and sources that You know, Timothy Krauss wrote about brilliantly in The Boys on the Bus, which is, I think, it's one of the most morally penetrating books about power and its uses.And, people will just remember it as this true, this book about how, reporters drank a lot and, womanized. But it's a really great book. And one of the things he talks about is how, how this buddy stuff works. And also how conformist journalists are.The best scene in there is where there's a democratic debate. And there's a guy named Walter Mears, who was like the Bigfoot AP guy, kind of like the, the Maggie Haberman of his day, and Peter Baker, around forever, yeah, and literally people would look over his shoulder to see what their lead was supposed to be for the next day.I mean, it's a very cliquish bunch of people. And the fact that, no journalists no longer kind of come out of this kind of hardscrabble kind of working class attitude, but come out of this, very refined either academic world or upper class world where you can afford to do an internship, it doesn't help any, anything.It's that they're just not very worldly people, right? And,SHEFFIELD: Yeah.PERLSTEIN: Behave like an aristocracy.SHEFFIELD: And they also, the Republicans thatPERLSTEIN: Right, they're fine.SHEFFIELD: are also not,PERLSTEIN: not representative.SHEFFIELD: I mean, David Brooks, now currently ransomPERLSTEIN: Right. He was up, he was,SHEFFIELD: but hePERLSTEIN: yeah.SHEFFIELD: changedPERLSTEIN: he was up for, it was, when, William F. Buckley was getting ready to retire, the talk was that two of the people that would possibly replace him were David Brooks and David Frum. And there was a fascinating profile of They were both Jewish, literally.So William F. Buckley and George Will, right, who's still on the scene, literally agreed that the person who edits the flagship conservative magazine, you'll appreciate this, had to be Christian. It's exactly what we wrote about when I wrote the profile of you.SHEFFIELD: Even though George will is anPERLSTEIN: and I did not know that. I'm sure he played, he is, he pays [00:48:00] tribute to, to, the Prince of Peace, right?But William F. Buckley is somehow recorded by history as the guy who kicked the anti Semites out of the Republican the conservative movement.SHEFFIELD: It's you couldn't get a better example than what he decided to do with it. And it's like, I don't know. So, so it, to go back to the idea that, that. The solution to sane watching has to be aPERLSTEIN: Right,SHEFFIELD: thing. Like there is some value in, this beat sweetener in this both sides journalism for public knowledge. Like, unfortunately that's true,A dual approach to combatting the problems of sanewashingSHEFFIELD: but at the same time, the right wing, they figured out. Decades ago that the mainstream media was not going to put forward their message. So they werePERLSTEIN: right,SHEFFIELD: themselves.And so they investedPERLSTEIN: right.SHEFFIELD: now, billions of dollars in creating these enterprisesPERLSTEIN: They're very good at creating study like objects, which look like academic papers. Like, theSHEFFIELD: Well, and,PERLSTEIN: andmedia.SHEFFIELD: Like, talk radio I mean, God, now there's like, what, six FoxPERLSTEIN: Yeah! And it's really mind blowing. So, like, me and my wife have, a cabin downstate in rural Illinois, and we have some friends who are kind of from this, kind of media bubble. And one of them said, oh, did you hear about the big accident in Lakin, which is the next town over?I'm like, no, Tell me about it. It's like, I read about it on Newsmax. So like Newsmax somehow is kind of like stuck. It's kind of like tentacles into local news. They have kind of like a patch function. So you don't have to ever leave Newsmax something like that. Remarkable.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. And Mark Cuban,PERLSTEIN: Right,SHEFFIELD: who has now become an open advocate for Kamala Harris. He actually made this point perfectly.He said, right wing media is the mainstream media. They have the bigger audience. And That'sright.true. The biggest political YouTube channels are right wing. All the biggest podcast channels are right wing. That's just the reality.PERLSTEIN: Yeah. [00:50:00] when I did a piece about I did kind of a similar profile to what the one I did about you about Jeff Charlotte, and he's very big on, fascism, the signs of fascism in America. And he had this very extraordinary zoom encounter at an event with a New York Times reporter who absolutely refused to accept any criticism of what the New York Times reported.And he said, well, we have 10 million subscribers, so we must be doing something right. Well, one of the things they might be doing right is not scaring people and making them feel comfortable when they read it by not talking about this stuff. But another thing is, yeah, he pointed out what you pointed out.That the New York Times does not have the biggest audience when it comes to this kind of stuff. Glenn, Glenn Beck does. Tucker Carlson does.SHEFFIELD: Right Side broadcasting or Yeah. Any of these other ones? Like where are the MSN BBC alternatives? I don't. I don't see them. It's like MSNBC is regarded as the pinnacle of left wing media, but it's owned by a gigantic multinational, billion dollar conglomerate.PERLSTEIN: till you read about how they helped oil the the march to war in Iraq, man. Well, of course they, fired Phil Donahue, yeah.SHEFFIELD: They fired Phil Donahue. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, yeah, but anyway, there's, a lot more we could talk about here. But we don't want to keep everybody all day. So what's tell it for people who want toPERLSTEIN: Well, so I got my weekly column at the American Prospects over at prospect. org. I do Twitter, @rickperlstein. I do Blue Sky, also @rickperlstein, and you might have been able to sometimes an opening comes up on my 5,000 Facebook friends so they can try that, which I have a pretty lively community there.SHEFFIELD: All right. So that is the program for today. I appreciate everybody joining us for the conversation and you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show. We've got the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you're a paid subscribing member, you get full access to every episode.And I thank you very much for your support. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityEpisode Summary“I love the poorly educated,” Donald Trump famously boasted in early 2016 as he started racking up victories in the Republican primary election. It was an unintentionally hilarious thing to say, but it pointed to a truth that’s since became undeniable: People with less education are more likely to vote for Republicans.Trump has almost certainly never heard of the 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, but the disgraced ex-president’s enthusiasm for the poorly educated echoes something that Mill said on the floor of the English parliament in 1866 that “stupid persons are generally conservative.”What if Mill was right? Since 2016, it’s become commonplace to think of having a bachelor’s degree as a sort of proxy for Trump voting among white Americans, but what if there’s something even deeper at work?Republicans don’t want to hear this, but there’s a pretty long-standing body of social science research that indicates people who have right-wing attitudes, particularly regarding religion and epistemology, appear to have lower cognitive capacity.Thinking about this topic can be uncomfortable, but it’s important because understanding that political movements are just as much about psychology as they are about ideology can help us understand the enduring appeal of someone like Trump who is flagrantly stupid, corrupt, and deceitful. I also feel like I can discuss this given my personal history as a former Mormon fundamentalist and Republican activist.Our guest in today’s episode to discuss is Darren Sherkat, he’s a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University where he focuses the relationships between ideology, cognition, and religious belief. He’s also the author of “Changing Faith: The Dynamics and Consequences of Americans' Shifting Religious Identities,” and another book which will be forthcoming on these topics.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Related Content* Have Trump Republicans lost their grip on reality, or are they just lying to pollsters to support him?* JD Vance and the reactionary mind* Far-right pundits aren’t trying to make arguments, they’re affirming the emotions of their fans* How Fox News and talk radio warped a man’s thinking, and what his daughter and wife did to save him* America’s political polarization isn’t about partisanship, it’s about epistemology* Reactionaries do not actually believe in logic, this is why you can’t argue with them* How congressional Republicans made the internet a safe space for disinformationAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:19 — Why discussing cognition in a political context is not unfair or deterministic08:51 — In the 1970s, Republicans were the party with higher verbal ability10:10 — How the "Southern Strategy" remade the Republican party cognitively13:01 — Why "poorly educated" is a better term than "uneducated" in this context14:56 — How religious fundamentalism inhibits sound thinking at individual and the communal levels20:02 — Cognitive capital and social capital23:44 — Theodor Adorno's "authoritarian personality" research included cognition30:46 — Why cognition is a better predictor of Trump support than education35:38 — Abductive reasoning versus empirical reasoning44:23 — Trump is an ideal candidate for less-intelligent people50:58 — Why Ron DeSantis, JD Vance, and intelligent reactionaries have trouble copying Trump54:53 — Public education as the cornerstone of democracy01:00:19 — Non-religious Americans need to start advocating for themselves01:03:00 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So, these are some very sensitive topics to people that we're going to be discussing here today. It's no fun for people to discuss cognitive ability and political ideology if you are the group assessed to have lower cognition at least outputs. But before we get into that, though, I did want to ask you—and to clarify that because the brain is a highly plastic organ and cognition is a form of exercise, these are not necessarily judgments that are set in stone, if you will. And this research is still just beginning in a lot of ways, right?DARREN SHERKAT: [00:03:00] Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think that we've had kind of a disjuncture between the kind of genetic model of cognition and the more environmental model of cognition. And it's not been very sociologically informed about how do processes of politics and religion and other factors influence individuals. Instead, it's been individuated that it's an assumption that this is a product of the individual rather than their social origins and their social settings.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And people's environment and also their own behavior, it can modify what their cognitive outputs are.SHERKAT: Absolutely. I mean, we're seeing this mostly in our gerontological research about, kind of use it or lose it. That if you don't think about things in systematic ways, then your brain will not operate as it should in an ideal [00:04:00] way.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And also, I have to also say that, myself as a former fundamentalist Mormon and former Republican activist, this is me talking about my former self. And I can say, when I reflect back on my earlier life, when I had these belief systems, they did inhibit my ability to think clearly and to fully perceive the world accurately. That actually was something that, that did inhibit me.So, I did want to kind of mention that before we get further into it. But before we get into your research here, tell us about your background on these matters, your overall academic background,SHERKAT: Personal background or academic background?SHEFFIELD: Academic background.SHERKAT: I came to research American fundamentalism, American religion largely because we didn't really know much about it back in the eighties and [00:05:00] nineties when the second wave of the new Christian right came up we didn't even know how many. conservative Christians there were, and so I really came through it through religious demography and looking at how many of these people are there that are fomenting these political movements, and at the time they were still not identifying as Republicans.Back in the early 90s, many of them voted Republican, but they didn't identify as Republicans, and that's shifted over time. So gradually I came to do more political research that was more partisan in a sense that it paid attention to things like party politics. And that's where some of my research has been going in the last decade or so.And I'll be presenting a paper at the I'm going to be having a number of sociology of religion meetings here in the next few weeks that examines these kind of cognitive issues by party and how religion plays a role in that looking at the measures of [00:06:00] cognitive sophistications that I have available, which are related to verbal ability and vocabulary.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And then like, what's your so you were a sociologist by academic training. Yes,SHERKAT: yes. I had a PhD at Duke in the early nineties.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Before we get into, the specific findings of the studies that you're just referring to you were using a metric that people maybe may not be familiar with the idea of using verbal ability as a proxy for cognitive ability. So how, how does one measure verbal ability in the research that you're doing, that you're relying on?SHERKAT: In the General Social Survey, they followed a lot of educational research that uses a standard 10 question vocabulary examination. And it's widely used to measure vocabulary in the English language. And [00:07:00] there are variants of it for other languages that educational psychologists have also used.So it's a pretty standard measure that correlates about 0. 66. With measures of IQ using the kind of revised Stanford and stuff like that indicators. So it's, it's not exactly the same as the IQ type measures that some people use. And it's of course different from things like the armed forces qualifying tests, which is also been used as measures of intelligence.But it, it does measure something that's very specific where it's. Detached from any concept we might have of what whatever raw intelligence means, whatever psychologist or educational psychologist may be interested in but it has a pretty profound influence on people's lives on their ability to do things like read the New York Times or navigate a complex argument in a paper or something like that.SHEFFIELD: [00:08:00] Or understand how to fill out a form properly or things like that. You have to lower it andSHERKAT: it can be bad.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. So the GSS has done this and the variable for those who are into that sort of thing is called word sum. If anybody wants to look that up on your own. But so how, how long have they been asking that particular question?SHERKAT: They insert that in the second year of the general social survey in 1974. So some of my research in my book, I look at differences in party, lines along party lines, political party lines, and their scores on this verbal score since 1974. So for 50 years, we have data comparing Republicans and Democrats and independents on this measure of cognitive skill.In the 1970s, Republicans were the party with higher verbal abilitySHERKAT: And one of the things that my research shows is that Republicans, as we would expect, starting out as elites, had higher levels of verbal ability in the [00:09:00] 1970s, all the way up through the early 1990s, when the Democrats and Republicans kind of converged. Since the 1990s, the Democrats scores have gone up, and the Republicans scores have gone down.This is only focusing on white Americans, by the way. There's a different process and a different connection between politics and religion and cognition for African Americans, Black Americans, and Latinos. And we don't really have enough Asians to, you know analyze them separately, at least effectively except for in the 21st century.We've got enough in the later years of the General Social Survey, but not enough in the earlier year.SHEFFIELD: You're keeping the data consistent and also kind of filtering out any sort of racial or linguistic bias, which might be implicit in the test. By focusing only on, on white [00:10:00] voters or sorry, white respondents in the study.As you were saying, the, the, the scores for the parties kind of started to they crossed in the, in the nineties.How the "Southern Strategy" remade the Republican party cognitivelySHEFFIELD: But religion was the, was, appears to be the, the reason why it was. Cause the Republican party, as, as you said, was not principally a vehicle for Christian supremacism that it currently is today, but there was a process over time, right?SHERKAT: Especially identification. A lot of this has to do with the transformation and the reshuffling of party identifications that came after Nixon's southern strategy. The Southern strategy, which brought all these white Southerners into the Republican party, brought with it their fundamentalist religion, their adherence to mostly Baptist and Pentecostal denominations and lower tier Methodists, not high brow Methodists that you find in other types of [00:11:00] places.And because of that, that had an effect on their cognition. And the cognitive composition of the Republican party add to that also is we saw a transformation of education in the South that was a result of desegregation that many of white Southerners began abandoning public schools or influencing content of public schools more substantially in a way that hindered their adherence ability to Access new information.I mean, we all have to access new things to learn new things or even retain the things that we may have learned before. And this kind of implosion, a social implosion led to this kind of crossover. Between Democrats and Republicans, but what's interesting, this is something that I presenting I may not have told you about before because I haven't fully analyzed it until just this week is that [00:12:00] the Republican deficit remains even controlling for religion in the 21st century. And so if I just the last decade of the general social survey, look at this, yet there are profound differences by religion, as I showed papers, but the religious factors did not explain away. The Republican deficit, and that's kind of fast, and I'm still trying to grapple with what does this mean in the 21st century that they've, they've essentially, it's an additional burden cognitively, apparently to be a Republican even above and beyond the fact that many of them are sectarian Christians or biblical fundamentalists, and they tend not to be secular individuals or non identifiers.And so that, that was, is kind of still something I'm trying to grapple with as I finish off this [00:13:00] paper for the meetings.Why "poorly educated" is a better term than "uneducated" in this contextSHEFFIELD: Okay. Well, yeah, well, let's get into that. After we talk about the, your earlier research, definitely want to, for sure. So to preface further, I mean, Donald Trump himself did explicitly state, I love the poorly educated.And so, this is not you being a meanie this is you studying a thing that Donald Trump himself invited people to talk about, right?SHERKAT: Well, and Trump is right that it's not just the uneducated, but the poorly educated, what I show in my other papers is that this transcends education levels. And in fact, kind of extrapolated for other media sources. It's worse for the more educated. a more profound effect on verbal ability among people who graduated from college.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And there was a recent study that kind of did [00:14:00] show that with regard to fact checking, for instance. So like when, when Donald Trump voters were shown a label on tweets that he made while he was the president that were saying the, the statements are misleading or have been disputed or something like that, that people, as their political knowledge increased and they were Trump supporters, they were more likely to believe that his lies if they were labeled as lies rather than less. So it was a, it's a, it's a fascinating finding.So, but to go back to your, your earlier studies though.So let's go back to the first study that you did on this, that was a more politically oriented that you Looked at 2016 vote or preference of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and you had a number of different findings With regard to verbal facility.So talk about some of those findings that you had there.How religious fundamentalism inhibits sound thinking at individual and the communal levelsSHERKAT: Well, one of the things that that begins [00:15:00] to examine is first the effect of religion on Trump vote, which is pretty profound. And also though the effect of cognitive ability and cognitive ability as you move in into the equation in the initial baselines has a very strong Positive, negative, excuse me, relationship with voting for Donald Trump, even controlling for educational attainment, region of the country, rural, urban residency I focus on white voters in this paper also.But then when I add in religiosity and specifically biblical fundamentalism versus secularism. And. Identification with sectarian Protestant denominations, the effect of verbal ability goes away, suggesting that it's working through and with [00:16:00] sectarian identifications and fundamentalist beliefs to influence or increase support for Trump votes among people who have cognitive deficits.The religion gets them there somehow.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and, and specifically in terms of the numbers, I mean, you found that of the people who missed, so there's 10 questions in the, in the word sum variable that of the people who missed all 10 questions. So in other words, they couldn't identify the meaning of of a specific word of the people who missed all 10 questions, 73 percent of them said that they were going to vote for Donald Trump,SHERKAT: That they had voted. Yeah. For Donald Trump.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. That they had.SHERKAT: Yeah. And that's, I think what you're quoting or reciting is my predicted probabilities from the baseline models.And that's controlling for education region and stuff like that. So it's even a [00:17:00] higher because, presumably those, those people do have lower levels of educational attainment. They're more likely to be people from rural areas or from the south where language and dialect are different. And so there can be expected to score a little bit lower.So, the empirical. Scores for somebody who would actually be a zero, just all the zeros among whites is, is a little bit higher than that. Higher than 73?SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and, and it's, yeah. So the 73 is. You were arriving at that by, by control. Yeah. And other things like that. Yeah.And so, so, I think though , the finding that you've had with this, it, it may seem a bit shocking to people who are new to this type of research. But on the other hand, you've got to think about how the recent news events have shown you that these educational deficits you can see them being created in Republican regions of the [00:18:00] country, but where they're going after a specific textbooks or saying we don't want schools to teach anything about, racist actions by, historical American historical figures, or we don't want to teach about that homosexuality is biological or, they don't want to, like that it's not, that it's not a sin or, whatever it is.Like you can see this happening, these structures of, of tearing down and you can see the tearing down of education happening with your own eyes, like this is not a supposition on your part.SHERKAT: No, I mean, and all of this is consequential because it reinforces that kind of social implosion. That is what drives the low levels of cognitive ability and sophistication among religious fundamentalists and sectarians. They think that people who are outside their group are evil and that anything that they say or produce or write [00:19:00] Is something that you should avoid and burn not something that you should engage and see that if you can understand it or why you disagree with it, even articulating that type of disagreement is is virtually impossible when you've never engaged with something.It's like it's a foreign language and that. Has consequences that eventually, if school children are not exposed to the big words throughout, the first 12 years here, they are an adult and they can't read the New York times. And, but that's okay. Cause New York times is evil and you're not supposed to be engaging with evildoers.And that puts you in a situation where your cognition is limited. And you think about those things and it's like anything else. So if you don't do it and you don't practice it and you don't engage it, you're less able to do it. I mean, I always have to give myself, calculus refreshers when I have to teach graduate statistics because [00:20:00] I don't really remember all the time.Cognitive capital and social capitalSHERKAT: That's the other thing about especially these verbal measures. of cognition is that in fact, one of the great findings that came out of this word, is that you don't decline after you stop education. In fact, you get better at verbal ability. Long into your life course, there's debate in the literature about when do you start losing it, but you're certainly better off when you're 60 than when you're 18 on these measures of verbal ability because you learn more things, but you only learn more things if you're exposed to something that you don't know. And if you avoid things that you don't know because you're trusted, you don't trust the information sources and that you're taught that it's evil, then you don't experience that growth. And so in my first paper, I deal with that in the 2011 paper in social science research in more detail, because in sociology, that was our big finding [00:21:00] that, hey, wow people don't really lose it until later in life. And. What I found was that people who come from fundamentalist backgrounds don't gain as much with age and meaning that they're not learning as much as they go along as, as other people normally do, because they're iterating the same types of information.The same Bible verses, thesame explanations for why things are true or false, andthat hinders them in their cognitive development. Other research actually shows how this has profound negative effects in the aging population. Uh, Henderson uh, Cheryl, I think her name, by her first name University of South Carolina has a really great paper on that, about how cognitive loss. Is forestalled by not being in fundamentalist religious groups. That among [00:22:00] fundamentalists, decline comes more steep. And that's that's one of the big findings from this.SHEFFIELD: and this concept that you're talking about here, people accept the idea that there is social capital that that is a thing that exists among goals. And what you're saying is that this is cognitive capital, largely is what you're saying.SHERKAT: Yes, that's an interesting way of putting it, but it's true. And you develop it, just like you develop social capital by connecting with other people. You develop cognitive capital by connecting with other ideas and connecting with new things. And those two are related. Because who you're connected to determines what you're going to learn, and whether you're going to learn anything. Because if you're only connected to people who know the same things you know, then you're never going to learn anything. Because you know everything they know, and they know everything you know. And so it's just, it might feel comfortable that you're in this homogeneous environment. The homophily really drives that.You [00:23:00] like being around people who are like you. But you don't necessarily learn anything from people who are like you. If you all know the same things. I learned more from my friends in zoology. I'm going to learn from my friends in sociology. That's just the way it is. We pretty much know everything that each other knows in our own little silo. But if we meet people and connect to people outside of that, then it improves our cognition. We learn new things or remember new things. High school. College biology or chemistry were a long time ago, and so I don't really remember all those things unless I connect with use those things BasisSHEFFIELD: Yeah, yeah, exactly.Theodor Adorno's "authoritarian personality" research included cognitionSHEFFIELD: And now you and your research here, it's not, not something unfortunate that has been done a lot, maybe recently. Or just except for you and maybe a handful of people, other people, but it was something that was pretty. A lot more common after [00:24:00] World War II, with the research of Theodore Adorno and some other people who followed after him and the idea of the authoritarian personality.And, and he did talk about cognition and, and verbal faculty in his In his research as well, right?SHERKAT: Yes, yes, and there certainly was this big push after World War two with some of the critical theorists of Adorno some of his research really was tossed under the table in some ways, in part because of that. I think there was a a big push to remove the cognitive side of critical theory and to ignore some of the things that came from that prior research tradition about, what attracts people to authoritarianism.And some of that is a result of these cognitive shortcuts that people need to take that if it's hard for you to understand. What's the relationship between [00:25:00] monetary policy and inflation or the rate of unemployment and inflation, then it's easier to say, so and so did it. It's these people that are causing this, because that's a nice, easy way to think about things.And so cognitive shortcuts are a reason why people might be attracted to authoritarianism. It gives them solace. It gives them an explanation that's easy to understand.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.SHERKAT: if you don't have a lot of capacity to understand, then that's very comforting to have.SHEFFIELD: It is. Yeah. And, and, and this is, as, as you have found in another paper that, there is a definitely a, a related religious component to this. But and we'll get to the other part later, but one's religious affiliations matter in your research as well, because people who, so you use the term sectarian, you know, in your meaning, what do you, [00:26:00] what do you mean when you saySHERKAT: Yeah. In mainstream sociology, the word sectarian is used to groups that believe that they have the absolute truth and that other groups are lacking that, and usually that also creates. Tension with broader society. We have people who believe that they have the truth and you don't that can create a problem with other social groups and with mainstream society. But in other places, that's just my definition of sectarianism goes beyond that tension because you can have sectarian groups that believe that they have the absolute truth where they are dominant, so they're not at tension with dominant society, you have no problem being a fundamentalist Southern Baptist if you're in Mississippi. Uh, that's the, essentially that is mainstream society in Mississippi. And so that my definition of sectarianism kind of [00:27:00] addresses that issue people who believe that they know the truth don't need to be told other truths and they don't need to seek other truths. The truth is found in the Bible, in the word of God. And if you're trying to seek other truths, in fact, that may be a evidence pridefulness. That may be a sin to try to find knowledge. Searching for the tree of knowledge is something that's sinful. It's not just irrelevant, but something to be avoided. And in places where sectarians are dominant, it's really easy for them to control all aspects of discourse. So we're seeing this in places like Oklahoma and Texas and Alabama that are instituting a kind of Christian nationalist curriculum in their schools. And what they want is for everybody to learn the same things which are easily consumed truths, they believe about the history [00:28:00] of the United States or the world, about the future, about what's going on, about who is acceptable to associate with. Very importantly, that you're not supposed to come in contact with, you can't build social capital. others. So even while we're putting in Mercedes Benz factories in Alabama, they're engineers from all over the world moving there to work and just then they have to send their kids to school where, um, in many of these places, we're actually seeing the formation of new equipment. The Japanese especially are fond of creating their own schools where they have to go live in South Carolina or Tennessee or Mississippi or wherever Nissan or Honda is putting a plant. Well, the poor engineers that came over from Japan, how are they going to raise their kids? They can't be putting them in these schools.And so they have to separate themselves, which really [00:29:00] compounds the problem. Is that, even though the South has changed, for example, you can't pick on the South because it's true hasn't really had as much of an impact as it would. Because the original natives of those places, especially the white ones, have segmented themselves and the people who move in feel like they have to separate themselves as well. Another thing this has an effect on, of course, is politics. It's always shocking to look at a continuation of white southern domination in the south, which is now republican solid south. Even in the face of all this migration from outside the South into the South, the New South never really took off in most places.In fact, it went backwards in places like Tennessee, where it looked like it was going to become, a normal state. Maybe it'd be like what Ohio [00:30:00] used to be. Um, but it's not anymore. It's going backwards. Even though there are all these people who are, new migrants who came there from California, from other places, but yet they feel like they're not even a part, why should I even vote? It comes down to even that, like, what's the purpose? What's the point? Why would I want to associate with all those people? And so we haven't really seen that kind of permeation effect of Cognitive, innovation happen, because of the pressures.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, I guess in Colorado you, you did see that, but yeah, I think you're right about the Southern states. Yeah.Why cognition is a better predictor of Trump support than educationSHEFFIELD: And now one of the other things in, in, in, in your 2021 paper that you found and, and, and also your more recent ones is that, so I think ever since Donald Trump came [00:31:00] along and he did succeed at getting a higher percentage people without a bachelor's degree, that a lot of people began to use education as a sort of proxy for Trump vote or for intelligence or something like that.But your research shows that that's not necessarily a good idea. And the, the, the education, while it has some correlation to Trump vote or Trumpiness. It's not the only thing. And in fact, there is a lower correlation than people might might suppose.SHERKAT: That the cognition matters that really it's and we see this, within universities and things like that and across majors. I mean, why do you major in business? Well, because I don't want to learn too much. I just want to learn just enough so that I can make some money. And it's making money that matters, not taking classes in philosophy, or biology, or sociology, or [00:32:00] whatever.The goal is not really to learn. The goal is to get a degree, and we're going to fend over backwards here at the academy to make sure that you get your degree and that we get our money. Um, but, it's not really to learn. And so there's this huge gap between the kind of cognitive structures that develop among people who have different goals for education and different experiences within education, that it all becomes just a practical matter. And because of that, just knowing some, whether somebody has a college degree doesn't really get us anywhere. And the same thing with among people who don't have a college degree. That's the other thing is it works on all sides of the equation. That there are a lot of people for many, many reasons who don't go to college. And some of them are very smart and one are, are very motivated to learn things. And [00:33:00] those people gravitate away from. Kind of authoritarian explanations and simplistic explanations. And instead they actually try to understand what's going on. Why am I here? Why, you know, I'm a plumber, I'm doing my job, but I don't have to just listen to Rush Limbaugh or whoever's taking his place, uh, while I'm doing my work, I can listen to NPR or, and I can converse withother people.Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And it's also, the idea of, I mean, there's, there's a tremendous irony in that the QAnon movement in particular, or anti vax people will often say, do your own research, but in fact, they don't know how to do research. They don't know what research looks like.And this is, it's not a, it's not a phenomenon, related to educational experience or anything that, you know, if the. It's related to epistemology that if you think [00:34:00] that what research is, And like, you see this a lot. I saw this when I was a Republican activist, a lot that people would, they wouldn't bother to con to try to confirm story tips that they had received.If they confirmed their bias they would just automatically. So like I had a, I, there was a guy that I worked with I had gotten a tip. During the Obama administration about how our tipster was saying that the Obama administration was discriminating against Republican car dealers in the cash for clunkers program.And the thing is demographically car dealers are overwhelmingly Republican.SHERKAT: Are there democratic car dealers,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that's right. And so, but I didn't know that at the time. And so I said to my colleague, hey, I don't have time to look at this right now. This could be a really sensational story if you can confirm it, but it definitely need we need to look at that.And he just went and published a story. [00:35:00] With without even bothering to do it and I said to him I said why why did you and then he had to retract it Because it would turned out to not be true Because ifSHERKAT: Democratic dealers,SHEFFIELD: yeah, that's right. If you're discriminating against Republican car dealers, then you're not gonna have a program period And so, so he had to retract his story and I said, why, why, why did you do that?And he said, well, everything you gave me, that was enough to go with right from what you gave me. And I said, no, it wasn't. And I explicitly told you it wasn't. But you know, it didn't matter because. For, for the,Abductive reasoning versus empirical reasoningSHEFFIELD: for a lot of people who come from, and this colleague of mine was very, very religious and fundamentalist that they, they don't use.Empirical logic they use, they use abductive logic. So a thing is true if it's seems close enough to me. And, and, and, abductive reasoning [00:36:00] is useful in, in our regular daily lives. So, if we're driving down the street, In a neighborhood and the last time we were in that neighborhood, there was, some crazy person jumped in front of your car.When you come to that neighborhood again, you're going to remember that experience, right? And even though it's not likely that that person is going to be there, you're still in the back of your mind. You're going to think, Oh, I have to be a little careful here because that a*****e might run in front of my car again.So, so that's abductive, you know, uh, habitual reasoning and it works for a lot of circumstances, but it doesn't work for understanding and proving reality and improving your perception and, and refining your ideas. And that's, I think is the root of the, is the issue that we're talking about here. What do you think?SHERKAT: Yeah. I mean, I agree. If you're talking about research especially, it's like, yeah, you can use that type of reasoning if you're a researcher. If I see something like I just did trying to [00:37:00] make my statistics exam where, oh no, that's not right. Why is it not right? Because it doesn't fit what I think. But that's because I've been using the same database for, 40 years now. And when I see something that doesn't fit my perception of how the research should turn out, then I need to like run the cross tabs and make sure I didn't screw up a code or something like that. But then I'm improving my own research. That's only because I do it. If I was doing research in biology and trying to test for genetic evidence of hellbenders in some stream in Southern Illinois, I wouldn't know for the first, how to start, I'd be having to ask, well, do I swab this? Should I use gloves? I guess I probably should. Um, how do I even do this type of research? It's not something that I'm able to navigate using my own experiences [00:38:00] and any biases that I might have wouldn't bring anything. to the table and doing a better job at doing that study. And that's that's the problem is that people don't understand their incompetencies that in doing whatever type of research it might be. And it's kind of fascinating and dangerous that people are applying that to things like medical research and the anti vax stuff is just now out of control. Let me know. Genuinely worried, we're already seeing it. We're already seeing measles outbreaks. We're going to see polio outbreaks in the next decade in the United States.It's just amazing, that people think that they can somehow look at a website or something that popped up on their phone.SHEFFIELD: Or watching YouTube video.SHERKAT: yeah,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, okay. So, but just, going back to the [00:39:00] partisanship question, so a lot of people have come up with studies to try to say, well, this, this demographic tendency, it correlates the, to whatever, whatever percentage they find.So, you, in your studies, you were looking at a lot of these different variables that were a predictor of Trump votes. So some people believe that. A Trump vote is predicted most by education or by I mean, obviously Republican partisanship is the obvious easiest indicator, right?So, but of the immutable characteristics in your research, what can you just kind of go down the numbers here of which ones were the biggest predictors in your findings?SHERKAT: well, in the baseline, and this is the tough part is, as you mentioned, partisanship predicts party votes. Andso that's something that absorbs a lot of what the real action is. It's like, well, why are you a Republican? Well, that's driven by some of [00:40:00] these other background factors as well. And so it becomes complicated in getting, how are these factors interconnected? And among even something like cognitive ability, which I view as mostly being socially produced, not being something that's simply innate. But it's a function of your social position, where you grew up, and your socialization, as much as, at least, as it is something about innate cognitive architecture, or something like that. And so, Certainly verbal ability is one of those things and as is education, uh, region of the country is another one. We've seen that in part because of the unfolding of partisanship with the collapse of the democratic solid south. And the emergence of the Republican solid South, that's going to drive our Trump vote pretty profoundly. Religious factors is another thing that's, it's when you say [00:41:00] immutable, that's, that's something that continues on after controlling. For other factors and religious fundamentalism played a very big role. And on the other negative side of it, religious secularism, this is something that the Notre Dame group has been big on the secular search.Gosh, I'm blanking on this guy's name. I'm about to sit on a panel with him next week. Speaking of cognitive ability David Campbell in his book, Secular Surge details, the increasing importance of secular Americans in political participation and voting, uh, which is something that's pretty new as they document in that book, uh, used to be, if you weren't religious, you went and hid in a hole somewhere and you weren't invited to political events and you weren't welcome at political party events and to support candidates. And that's beginning to change. I mean, we saw the real clicker with Obama making the first mention of, well, [00:42:00] maybe there's some Americans who aren't religious and they can be a part of this too. And that didn't that, that was a real step for creating a potential secular movement. That can counter the religious fundamentalism that drives a lot of the authoritarianism, uh, that's going on now. The, Robert Jones new report out from his group, the PRI group, and, uh, it looks, it's very interesting. I'm not a fan of their data in some ways, but I love their analyses and I love their measures and their kind of reformulation of Adorno's right wing authoritarianism scale, which I thought was pretty interesting. Thing that they did in that new report, but those are some of the things that are really driving it and our million dollar question is now, will this continue? Is this, one of the things Jones talked about was Trump is [00:43:00] a totem, that if he becomes a totem, it's really hard to criticize him in any way. He's not just a person. Well, if the totem goes away, do we stop believing in the totem? Or does it continue? Or maybe the totem isn't really relevant. And what matters is really this right wing authoritarianism that's been generated by this movement. And it's easy to continue, because the movement doesn't want complex answers to complex problems.SHEFFIELD: of compromise. Yeah.SHERKAT: No, we're to comprehend, they want the strong leader, and that's why they want the strong leader. And so if Trump goes away, however that might happen, then maybe somebody could easily replace them. But,SHEFFIELD: Yeah.SHERKAT: and that's the question, is will this kind of orientation continue? And we don't really know. Because another thing with the Right Wing Authoritarianism [00:44:00] Index, and for people who believe these things, is if we were to go back to normal politics again, maybe they would just simply be disinterested. That, oh, that's just a bunch of politics, I don't pay attention to that stuff anyway. And that's true for a lot of them. And alot of them did, Participate, and they weren't interested inSHEFFIELD: Before Trump. Yeah.SHERKAT: before.Trump is an ideal candidate for less-intelligent peopleSHERKAT: And now here's the frightening part in my new paper that I'm just finalizing the analyses on one of the things, and this is kind of common to the book that I see is the least cognitively proficient people are the independent. And there's a lot of them.SHEFFIELD: There are,SHERKAT: And so if they're more easily mobilized, that's a real threat that, you know, it makes you think [00:45:00] anti democratic thoughts when you see what these percentages might do. We were just looking at this in my statistics class this week, it's, it's 34%. It's this huge group of people who seem more likely to be swayed towards authoritarianism than they would towards democracy. However, that's envisioned.SHEFFIELD: yeah. And, and, and the reason for that being that, to go back to what you were saying about cognitive shortcuts, the easiest possible political shortcut is to say, well, I'm not part of either party. I'm above it all. I'm smarter than them.When in fact, you, you know, less. Then the partisans do on either side, and we see that with the undecided voter surveys that people who are, who are at this point are, there's this sliver of depending on the survey about. Between 10 to 15% or so [00:46:00] of people who say that they don't know who they would vote for, or their, their vote is subject to change.Those are the people who are the least informed, who have the least knowledge about anything related to their choice.And so for them, that is why somebody like Donald Trump actually is-- a lot of times I see people say that, Oh, Donald Trump is a, he's a weak Republican candidate, but in many ways he's a stronger candidate because he does, I mean, he speaks at a third grade level. Like that's in his output is it's, it's, it's been measured. He's the lowest Speaking, grade level candidate of any person in national politics ever since these rating ease skill measurements were invented. So for somebody who does have low levels of cognitive sophistication, he's actually an ideal candidate for that.SHERKAT: No, and maybe it can continue after that as well. What I'm [00:47:00] hopeful of, because this is the other side of this, is that a lot of what that reflects is that for people who have low cognitive ability they just really can't understand politics and that they don't care. They're disinterested. And they'd rather talk about football or baseball or Beyonce or whoever, celebrity attention, watching television. And so it becomes less about Adorno and more about Horkheimer, in asense. It's, it's Disney. It's the distractionsthat, for the critical theorists, they thought that was bad because it meant the working class wasn't going to participate. But if you take a additional critical step beyond that, well, at least they're not becoming Nazis. They're watching Donald Duck, or Marilyn Monroe, and that's might reduce the threat.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and it's okay. So, but it is cause I mean, to go back to, to go back to what you were saying about, these, these [00:48:00] lower cognitive, non participating individuals, like it is in fact the case that, they did not participate in voting. Donald Trump, the reason that he was able to, so the Republican party, demographically speaking is not, they all, all they've done is lose sort of dedicated voters over time, whether through whether it's through their voters dying off.So like even white evangelicals, for instance, as a share of the population, They have declined nonstop about since 2004 or so like that. So we've got about 20 years where they have declined as a share of the population, but as the share of the electorate, they've remained the same. And, and, and they've remained the same because.The Republican party has decided to, to mobilize these low propensity, low information voters. And that's what, that is kind of the, the political root of what you, what [00:49:00] we're talking about here today is that they've, they, they found people, who, who agreed directionally with them. And they said, Hey, you should come and vote for us.Please vote for us. Please vote for us. Please vote for us. And they had their pastors tell them, and they had their, TV shows tell them, and they threw all that. I mean, Donald Trump is making all these appearances on WWE and, going to all these, bro podcasters who talk about nothing, but, MMA You know and just various lifestyle things that these people are not political at all.And he, that's how they're doing this is they're, they're finding these people that do not participate and, and are low information and they're bringing them out.SHERKAT: And maybe it's just Trump and that, that again, that goes back to, this is the big question is could this movement survive Trump because basically, mostly, I think these people really don't know anything about politics and they're really not that interested in it, except for how it's involving Trump and it's [00:50:00] fascinating to me.I mean, I went for 20 years without watching television at all. And it was, just couldn't believe that really somebody had a show where some rich guy fires people and they watched thisSHEFFIELD: Yeah.SHERKAT: was normal. But yet apparently it was the only thing he's ever made money on in his whole life wastelevision. And, and that's kind of shocking about how popular culture. Can bleed into politics and can bleed into economic relationships in a way that, I mean, this is really kind of straight out of Horkheimer's, like to see the cartoon characters get hit over the head with an anvil because that's how we feel as the working class. And and so you're gawking at something, but then to come to identify with is another kind of step. Yeah, we'll see if itWhy Ron DeSantis, JD Vance, and intelligent reactionaries have trouble copying TrumpSHERKAT: can survive. [00:51:00] Yeah,SHEFFIELD: note, as, as you alluded to there that, in the elections where Trump was not on the ballot he, the, the Republican party does significantly worse and, and, and it's also the case, when you look at their, The people that, that have, I mean, cause Trump of course did face some, some perfunctory challenge in, in 2024 with Ron DeSantis, but Ron DeSantis has no ability to communicate outside of this right wing religious bubble, he, he has no ability to do that because of this self segregation, because, and of course, Rhonda Sanders is somebody who is, he's got a lottery, he's, he's got many years of education.He's served in the military. But he cannot communicate to people who don't agree with him. From his background. And so, and then you JD Vance, I mean, JD Vance is the most. Negatively perceived vice presidential nominee in [00:52:00] history of polling and because he has the same kind of outlook as Ron DeSantis, just deeply unappealing, deeply bigoted, deeply offensive and full of resentment and deeply ignorant, but also super silly about it, whereas Donald Trump is deeply ignorant as well.But he, he doesn't, he doesn't put on errors, right? Like he, he let is letting you know that, well, I'm just, I just say whatever pops into my head and, and I feel good about it, I'm here for the fun. He's having fun while he is doing it.Whereas Rhon de Sandis and JD Vance, they hate. They hate their fellow Americans and they absolutely hate non Christians and, and, and women, you can see that in every word that they say. But the question is, the, for democracy's sake is, are there people who have that sort of Trumpian vaudeville flair that can, can continue that because it's interesting, I don't think Republicans have noticed that Trump, Trump is actually probably stronger than any [00:53:00] of their, Currently famous politicians.SHERKAT: I think it really is, is the continuation of these previously uninterested voters as something that Trump got them in, that they got wrapped into Republican politics. And if he's gone, DeSantis is the head or whatever Vance I see them being mobilized by at least those two and that, but Trump obviously has been able to keep them in the coalition which, it's a tough coalition to be in.I mean, cause really the Republican party is minority party. It's designed to be a minority party. It's the party of the rich and not everyone's rich. In fact, mostpeople aren't andSHEFFIELD: it, and it doesn't serve its voters either. Like that's the other, so Trump, he entertain, like they vote for him because he entertains them, not because he serves [00:54:00] them.SHERKAT: but he did serve them too. That's the other thing. And they didn't, W didn't get abortion banned, youknow,SHEFFIELD: mm-Hmm.SHERKAT: and that's what they always go back to. Well, what did they do for me? And, and Trump really means it if he's elected. He'll go ahead with trying to get people's marriages annulled from, because they're gay. He didn'tcare. He didn't believe it. I mean, he probably his best friend was Roy Cohn if he had a friend.But that's he doesn't care about the issue, but he'll go along with it. He'll sign it. If it goes into law. Yeah. He'll revoke people'smarriages. He'll sign an abortion ban. Whereas most other people would be telling, it's probably not good policy.SHEFFIELD: Or good politics? Yeah.SHERKAT: Yeah, we're good politics.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. All right.Public education as the cornerstone of democracySHEFFIELD: Well, so maybe just for the future, I mean, we talked about that a little bit, but like from a, from a public [00:55:00] policy and education used to be kind of a strong bulwark against, I mean, ultimately the promise of democracy breaks down when the population is ill informed that's ultimately what happens.And I mean, like, what, what's your, do you have any thoughts on thatSHERKAT: I mean, this roughly goes back to the beginnings of theorizing about democracy, continuing through the feminist papers and all through it is that without an educated population, you can't expect people to pick leaders that can lead a country to stability and greatness. And that's One of the things that's broken down, and obviously when this happened was with desegregation, not coincidentally this is when the Republican party turned against civil rights for African Americans and they began forming their own schools and they began breaking down laws about education. That you can form your own school and it doesn't have to be regulated. [00:56:00] that you can now and then that you can homeschool y them whatever you want in even my state Illinois, th governing people homeschoo people, nothing,SHEFFIELD: standardized test? Yeah.SHERKAT: To, how do you regulate anything just yet would think that would be one form of regulation and sure, maybe there are a handful of homeschooling parents who do a good job.I've known one, maybe two in my entire life. And that's that's got to be regulated to this. We need people examining what's being taught in these Christian schools. We have high proportions of the population, especially in many southern cities, but not just in southern cities in the Midwest, too. who are going to these Christian academies where they teach David Bartonist history. My own brother graduated from a [00:57:00] fundamentalist Christian high school in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Very largeone, like division four in athletics, which is all they care about in Oklahoma. And their textbooks and history and civics are frightening. And they're written at like the third grade level. I mean, literally, bullet point, they look like comic books, like large comic books.And this was something that they gave to high school students. And it's like dumbed down versions of David Barton, if you can imagine that. And that's the kind of curriculum that they're getting from all these fundamentalist outlets that they teach in these schools. They use them in homeschooling. They also use them in all these academies. And there is no regulation. And now it's going even further. Now we have Christian nationalists who are completely co opting the public school system. Such that, we're gonna be teaching the Bible in math class in [00:58:00] Oklahoma. Where I'm from um, and not the schools were already bad enough and there was no attempt.Here's the other thing that we talk about. And this is a problem for our country. This is one of the biggest problems, but what made America great? We made kids in rural areas, go to school and learn real stuff because we were definitely afraid of the Soviets. And we knew that we had a big, stupid population. And they had to be educated and we forced it down many people's throats because it had to be they didn't want education They didn't think their kids had to graduate from high school. Why you need more thanthree years education, That's crazy talkSHEFFIELD: the Republican party participated in this for that reason.SHERKAT: Really? They were the ones pushing it. But now we've let the rural areas go entirely I mean, you look, I always [00:59:00] read the obituaries and especially people who are famous scientists and medical people and things like this. And it's astonishing how many of them came from these rural hamlets in the middle of nowhere. They grew up on a farm in Maine or in Tennessee or something like that. And because they had some modicum of education, they could make it, they moved up, they went to college, they got advanced degrees, that's not going to happen, that's not happening. If you're living in rural America, you're going to a high school that probably has zero AP classes in anything. And not history, not English, not calculus, not chemistry. And it's frightening, especially given that you look at our birth rates. Those people have higher birth rates, but yet their children are not being educated. And the educators who go to the rural schools are not the best ones. If you went to [01:00:00] school and you tried hard, became a teacher and you want to work, you don't want to work in some small town in Oklahoma or Tennessee or wherever,SHEFFIELD: Or a state where abortion is criminalized. Why would you wantSHERKAT: You're not going there. And if you're from there, you're going to leave.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Non-religious Americans need to start advocating for themselvesSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, it sounds like, so it sounds like you're saying that people who do. Believe in sound thinking and science have to start standing up for ourselves more and not be afraid. Cause like there is this undue respect, unfortunately, that society conditions us to impart to religious beliefs.And people don't understand that it's a good idea perhaps to not talk about people's religion in your When you're conversing with them or, doing, seeing them at a school event or a community event or whatever, like that's a good idea not to talk about religious belief, but there have to be, there has to be a limit [01:01:00] on how far you apply that principle that these beliefs that are fault, that, that say evolution did not happen.Like there are real, serious, literal consequences. If you do not believe that, like, if you think that evolution is not true, that affects what you think about pandemics that affects whether you, how you think about vaccines, because you have to get vaccinated for flu, for instance, because of evolution, these, these have real, like, there's some people that are non religious that they have this idea that, ah, it doesn't matter. These are just dumb beliefs. Who cares? They have no impact on them, but they do have very real acts and not just only on, voting for Donald Trump. There are many, many other down the line things and you've got to stand up for yourself. I mean, what do you, what's your, what do you think?You agree with that?SHERKAT: absolutely. I mean, I think hopefully as the secular segment of society, grows and it's continuing to grow, then we'll have [01:02:00] more of a realization that we have a stake in this too. That we can't just segment ourselves in college towns where our high school's good and in big cities and things like this. And ignore the fact that, well, 20 miles from where I sit is a school that has zero AP classes, a bunch of teachers who are fundamentalist Christians who God knows what they're teaching in their classes, and they have minimal prospects to get better teaching staff, to get more diverse offerings, so that some of these kids Who are smart kids.That's the other thing that's where we started is this isn't about determinism is some of those kids can be saved. Some of those kids could be the next Nobel prize winners. And they're not going to be.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. If you just open the door for them, we have to keep the door open for [01:03:00] people.ConclusionSHEFFIELD: All right. Well, so for people who want to keep up with your work, Darren, what are you, what's your advice for them?SHERKAT: Oh, just Google Scholar me, I guess. I've been working on some things and trying to get these other set of papers together and then a new book that's still still in development, but it should be gone the next year or two. I've taken on some administrative work this semester, which has gone haywire. So that's, that's, it's a little bit tougher to finish up papers and books. But I'm around.SHEFFIELD: Okay. And we'll have some links to your, your papers as well. If youcan give me the ungated versions or, ways that we can link it. So,SHERKAT: I try not to hate you. I'll tell you anything I've got.SHEFFIELD: Okay, cool. All right. Well, thanks for being here, Darren. That's a good, great conversation. SHERKAT: Good to talk to you, man.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation, and you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show. You can get the video, audio, and [01:04:00] transcript of all the episodes.

Episode SummaryAs everyone probably knows, White Christians with theologically conservative views are the backbone of the Republican Party, and they are Donald Trump's most loyal voters and followers and donors. But far-right Christians were not always the backbone of the Republican Party. They became that way through the work of reactionary Christian media who brainwashed them over decades to believe that Democrats are literally controlled by demons.The days of Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson are obviously behind us, but the people who have inherited the world of reactionary Christian media have drastically expanded their reach and power within the Republican party. Unlike Republican leaders of yore like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, Donald Trump, his children, and the party’s vice presidential nominee JD Vance regularly interact with and support today’s Christian right.Although they have enormous audiences, are awash in hundreds of millions of dollars, and hob-nob with presidential candidates, for the most part the stars of Christian right television are rarely covered by the mainstream media.  And so in today's episode, I wanted to shine a spotlight on some of these figures, including Lance Wallnau (who is hosting a town hall today with Vance), scammy televangelist Kenneth Copeland, and radical anti-abortion activist Janet Folger Porter.Our guide in this episode is Peter Montgomery. He is a senior fellow with the People for American Way, and he's also one of the writers over at Right Wing Watch, which is an essential website to keep tabs on the beliefs and opinions of the radical Christian right. The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Flux is a community-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content* Where JD Vance’s hate-filled and misogynistic ideas came from* How EWTN became the media epicenter of reactionary Catholicism* Far-right ‘tradwives’ are using sex to sell religion on Instagram and TikTok * How Southern evangelicalism colonized and displaced other forms of conservative Christianity* Inside the bizarre and bigoted world of Jewish fascism* Faced with a shrinking demographic base, Republican elites are inventing another ‘Satanic panic’ to scare Americans into voting for them* The story of how gay Republicans helped drive their party toward extremismAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:59 — Kenneth Copeland and the Victory Channel07:47 — Lance Wallnau, Seven Mountains Dominionism, and Pentecostalism16:16 — The Christian right's new message: Democrats are controlled by demons22:12 — The theology behind Donald Trump's Big Lie25:09 — Millions of people are attending Christian right political rallies30:19 — National Conservatism, JD Vance, and Catholic "integralism"40:39 — How Donald Trump's rhetoric has become much more religious43:18 — Janet Folger Porter and Republican abortion bans46:18 — New poll shows how far removed Trump base is from reality50:23 — A new far-right Christian sitcom speaks to cultural fears56:25 — Laura Loomer and reactionary figures from unexpected identity groups Audio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So, this episode we're going to talk about some figures that I think it's going to be a mix of people that political junkies have heard of, I think, and then ones that they have not heard of. And I, that is kind of the overall sort of. way that the religious right works in general, right?That there's this mix of figureheads and then, the money people and all these other ones. Is that, would you agree with thatPETER MONTGOMERY: Sure. Yeah, there are people who, a few people maybe, who are more sort of household names among the general public, and then there is just a vast number of people who are celebrities in their subcultures or in their pieces of the religious right movement.Kenneth Copeland and the Victory ChannelSHEFFIELD: Yeah [00:03:00] and one Of the recent media properties that has emerged in the religious right has been this network of channels and shows that is called the Victory Channel, and their most successful show is called Flashpoint. So for people who haven't heard of this organization, why don't you give us an overview.MONTGOMERY: and it actually operates as a project of. Televangelist Kenneth Copeland's church and ministry. So it is set up as a nonprofit. They give their broadcast to free. So any cable channel or satellite provider can get this content totally for free. And then it's ever, they're not allowed to put advertising on it.So the ministry really subsidizes it in a, in a way. That helps them reach a big audience because people are looking for for content, [00:04:00] especially free content so that's so so the victorySHEFFIELD: well, who?MONTGOMERY: launched in 2019SHEFFIELD: Oh, and I'm sorry. Can you just describe who Kenneth Copeland is for people who don't know whoMONTGOMERY: is a televangelist a long time promoter of the prosperity gospel the idea that If you have wealth it is a sign of god's blessing And so kenneth copeland is sort of notorious for amassing great personal wealth and sort of being unashamed about it. But he continues to, to operate this ministry around the country and around the globe.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and he also became infamous during the COVID pandemic. He became a bit of a meme, actually, for saying that he was going to cast out the devil of the coronavirus and he would blow, blow it away with the breath ofKenneth Copeland Video: COVID-19 COVID-19.[00:05:00]I'm Glow the wind of God. The wind of God. On you. On you. You are destroyed forever. You are. You are destroyed forever. And you'll never be back. And you'll, and you'll never be back. Thank you, our God. Thank you Our.SHEFFIELD: breath ofKenneth Copeland Video: GodMONTGOMERY: Yeah. I said, and so, he doesn't ever put himself in a situation where someone to ask him, what happened to that? Did, did God not hear your prayer? Did God, because he clearly did not blow the virus away. You know, He's also, you know, infamous for, taking a image of himself reaching out toward his TV set and telling people that he can heal their COVID if, if they reach toward him and they praySHEFFIELD: the television. Yep.Kenneth Copeland Video: Put your hand on that television set. Yes. Hallelujah. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, Lord Jesus. He received your [00:06:00] healing. Yes. Now say it. I take it. I take it. I have it. I have it. It's mine. It's mine.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and he claims actually to be a billionaire. Now, nobody has verified whether that's true or not, but obviously he's got a lot of, he has his own private jumbo jet. So clearly he does have. A huge amount of cash. And and I think, to some degree, he seems to have realized that whether it's a combination of the fact that he's, quite old now and has become a bit infamous or notorious that, that may be part of why the Flashpoint and Victory Channel brand was launched to be kind of independent of him.He's not the star of it. He does appear on there sometimes. But he's certainly not a regular panelist and certainly not the host. So who else is involved with?MONTGOMERY: So the Flashpoint show itself launched on the Victory Channel in the [00:07:00] fall of 2020, leading up to the election, not coincidentally. And it immediately. It became a platform for all kinds of conspiracy theories for promoting Trump's claims about the election for spreading disinformation about January 6th attack on Congress.But it's funny, I just this week they celebrated the fourth anniversary of the launch of Flashpoint. And on the, they showed some clips from their very first show, and one of those, was Lance Wallnau describing Seven Mountains Dominionism to people in, in a brief description of this, political ideology that is, sort of, really rose to prominence during the Trump era.Lance Wallnau, Seven Mountains Dominionism, and PentecostalismSHEFFIELD: And what is the Seven Mountains Dominionism for people who don't know?MONTGOMERY: Sure. It's, it's a theology in Political ideology was sort of merged. They grew out of a wing of Pentecostal [00:08:00] Christianity that goes by the name of the New Apostolic Reformation. And the central point is that the reason the world is not as it should be is that the wrong kind of people are in charge.And Seven Mountains Dominionism says that the right kind of Christians, Christians who share their biblical worldview are meant to be in control of all the seven mountains, the seven spheres of influence in society. So that's education, government entertainment, media religion, family. So, so there are these, so they basically want to take over all these institutions.SHEFFIELD: And that they're entitled to do so,MONTGOMERY: That it's, that it's God's, that it's God's desire that the right kind of Christian control these. And that when that happens, then you will be able to. transform the society and that by doing that you can help bring about the return of Christ.SHEFFIELD: [00:09:00] Yeah, and so like they, and this is a different type of rapture theology from what had come before that, that, they literally believe that Jesus will not return to the earth until they take everything over,MONTGOMERY: Yeah, it's interesting. Some of them really, they view rapture theology with a little bit of contempt because they think that it makes Christians sort of lazy and apathetic because if, Christ is going to come back and rescue the church before things get too bad. So, so their message is The Christ will not come back for a defeated church, but for a triumphant one.And so the, the enticement they offer to people is that if you join us, if you help us take dominion and occupy which is their language of occupying until Jesus comes back, then you can actually help change the course of history by, by making that happen.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it is an extremely powerful message because, it's, it's, [00:10:00] it's important to note that, the, the white evangelical demographic as a share of the population has declined. Decade over decade, but the share of the electorate of people voting in presidential elections who are white evangelical Protestants has remained the same. So basically they're wringing more and more blood from the stone,MONTGOMERY: Yeah. Yeah. And it's true. And it's one of the interesting things that's happened is that sort of the traditional fundamentalist religious right that does not necessarily buy this end times theology about from the Pentecostal wing, but they have adopted seven mountains rhetoric as a kind of lingua franca just because it is so, it's such an easy way to encourage conservative Christians to become more politically engaged.So you don't have to really get into the end times thing. You can just talk about, it's God's will that Christians be in charge. Christians be the head and not the tail, as Tony [00:11:00] Perkins says. And so that, that motivates people to get involved without having to, to dig into or necessarily agree with the theological underpinnings.SHEFFIELD: Mm hmm. Yeah, and it's definitely succeeding monetarily for them. And and in a lot of ways they are kind of subsuming the the older religious right, the older Christian right, because not only are they more politically active and willing to be explicitly engaging in partisan politics.It's also that their, their doctrines are a lot simpler. They're, they don't really have doctrines per se. And that they, it's kind of a choose your own adventure type of religion that, they're always saying, well, I had a revelation of this and Jesus told me that. And like, if that's, if you can get away with that as a religion, you don't really have any sort of core message or beliefs.It's whatever the leader tells you to do.MONTGOMERY: Well, and you can see why that fits so well [00:12:00] with the MAGA movement under Donald Trump,right? That in some ways he sort of functions. like one of these televangelists. He doesn't really have anybody holding him accountable. He creates his own media. He says things that may not be true, that he might have just pulled out of his butt.But, he, he gets away with it. And it's the, this movement really came into political influence in a big way for the first time during his administration because they had really backed his. election in 2016. Paula White, who has been Trump's, friend and so called spiritual advisor for long before that, made sure that when Trump gave her job in the White House, she used that to keep a flow of, um, these folks coming through the Oval Office, telling Trump he was doing God's work, getting their picture taken in the White House, showing their followers that they had influence now.It was a real mutual benefit.SHEFFIELD: [00:13:00] It was. Yeah. And you mentioned Lance Wall now. I think he's another one of these people who is huge in this world that we're talking about, but general political audiences have never heard of him. So who, who is he?MONTGOMERY: Lance Wallow is a self promoter, a sort of motivational speaker coach, sort of all these different things who really came intoprominence in this wing of Christianity in 2013 when heco wrote a book on Seven Mountains Dominionism. With Bill Johnson, a pastor out of California, who's a major figurein Pentecostal Christianity.SHEFFIELD: can lookMONTGOMERY: And then well now really hit it big in 2015 whenhe decided and announcedthat Trump had been anointed by Godto be president.And he said that to anybody who would listen to him and, um, Charisma, which is a [00:14:00] major media platform, with a primarily Pentecostal audience gave him a platform to, to spread that message.He published a book shortly before the election called God's Chaos Candidate,explaining why he thought that Trump had been anointed by God.and,of course, after Trump won, he now had all this cred as a prophet, because he had prophesied Trump's victory, and he has parlayed that intoMore attention, more money.He got,has been treated by an insider by theTrump world. He was invited to the white house to get a preview briefing of the Jared Kushner Middle East peace initiative. He gets invited to Mar a Lago. So, his really vocal support for Trump made him, made him a MAGA insider.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, so he's a regular panelist on Flashpoint now, but who's the host of Flashpoint?MONTGOMERY: The host is a guy named Gene Bailey. [00:15:00] Who frankly don't know that much about what he was doing before he came to host that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, me neither. He just kind of came out of nowhere for that show, but I'm sure he was doing stuff.MONTGOMERY: yeah, it's funny. I think he was probably a Victory Channel guy, but, um, I just know him in that, in that role. And, he also has made the most of the fact that since Flashpoint has been such a promoter ofTrump and Trump conspiracy theories and this idea that Trump has a, is on a mission from God,that Trump has, has, rewarded him too.Bailey got invited to Mar a Lago last yearfor a one on one interview with Trump.At the RNC this year in MilwaukeeDonald Jr. stopped by to be interviewed by Bailey.So it's they're, they're very close to the truth. Trump team. And the other figures who are routinely on the broadcast include a lot of other, people who are [00:16:00] considered prophets in this world who consider themselves to be prophets, Hank Kuhneman and others who,who continue to spread Trump's claims about the election in 2020, haven't been stolen from him, continue to say that Trump has been anointed by God.The Christian right's new message: Democrats are controlled by demonsMONTGOMERY: And they are they really promote the use of spiritual warfare rhetoric in political discourse, which is a characteristic of the New Apostolic Reformation and quite a few folks on the religious right, that this is, that, American politics is not about Republicans and Democrats or the left or right, but it's about the battle between good and evil, and that Democrats are actually evil. They're not just wrong. That they're actually demonic. They're controlled By demons and they are agents ofSHEFFIELD: Literal demons. Yeah, literalMONTGOMERY: literal demons and and You know when you if you really believe that I mean if you really believe that, how do you work together? [00:17:00] How do you find compromise? How do you function together in a democracy?I think that's why that literal demonization is so Dangerous, but it's a staple of, of this movement.SHEFFIELD: It is, yeah, and and you guys recently at Right Wing Watch uh, clipped, I've clipped a few videos on from Flashpoint of, of them talking about how Kamala Harris is sort of the agent of what they call a Jezebel spirit.Lance Wallnau: And what you're seeing now is a real Jezebel. You're going to see a lot of people saying that it doesn't, you know, it's like, does it's like Pentecostal one on one when you've got somebody operating in manipulation, intimidation, and domination, especially when it's in a female role, trying to emasculate a man who is standing up for truth.You're dealing with the Jezebel spirit. What was accomplished was she can look presidential and that's, we'll go to this later. That's the seduction of what I would say is [00:18:00] witchcraft.SHEFFIELD: a Jezebel spirit? Because, like, the thing about a lot of these people, I think, is that they use terms that are so out there or so obscure to most people that they can't understand how crazy. What they're saying is and so like if they say somebody's a Jezebel, like maybe somebody might think of that as, oh, well, that's just you being sexist toward a woman uh, but it's actually even worse than that. Can you talk about that, please?MONTGOMERY: So Jezebel is a character in the Bible. She was a wicked queen who, in the story in the Bible God wanted to, to take her out basically because she was so bad. And soSHEFFIELD: And she was manipulating herMONTGOMERY: she was manipulating her husbandAhab.She was manipulating him to, to persecute God's prophets. And So, God sent this person, Jehu, to kill her.Jehu did that, crumpled her body under his feet, and then oversaw the execution of her entire [00:19:00] family. And she has Jezebel and the Jezebel spirit as a sort of as a force in the, darkness in the spiritual realm. It's now deployed often to apply to women who, don't know their place or women who are supposedly operating out of alignment with the wishes of God as these people interpret them.And so Jezebel, Hillary Clinton was the Jezebel when she was running and now it's Kamala Harris who is a, manifestation of the Jezebel spirit.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, yeah, and the, and the spiritual warfare idea is that, angels and demons have literally divided up the world and have, control over specific regions. And, in the case of this, Jezebel Spirit, as they're calling it they believe that there is some super powerful demon who is controlling Kamala Harris and aiding [00:20:00] her and, using her powers, giving her a portion of her powers to psychically manipulate and control humans.Like this is what they really believe.MONTGOMERY: Yeah, and Walnau has talked about how she's an even more powerful and more dangerous manifestation than Hillary Clinton because she can bring race into it. He's, I mean, Walnau has always been out there. He's been, he launched his he was involved in his political tour this year before Biden left the race, but he seems to have gone even more off the rails since Harris became the nominee and sort of, implying that she's the, the devil's choice and toSHEFFIELD: Yeah, it's like subconsciously, it seems like he is worried that Trump could lose now. That's what it seems to me, in the way that he talks about Harris.MONTGOMERY: Well, I think, I think that's true. And it's, it's it's why all these a lot of these prophets on one hand will insist that Trump is anointed. He's been anointed by [00:21:00] God. So you would think that that would make him a shoe in, but because the world is always involved in this spiritual warfare where the battle taking place in the heavenlies between the forces of darkness and light is reflected in our world and our politics, the people that are working for Satan can still do harm.And so, uh, there's a, so that's, it's one of the reasons that, Um,Walnau is on a courage, what he calls a courage tour around the country. And that's an interesting fusion of spiritual revival, tent revival with healings and speaking in tongues and all that going on for part of the day in the evening.But then during the other part of the day, it's like serious politics. Why you've got to vote for Trump, why you've got to turn out, recruiting to people to be election judges so he's, he's on the tour of 19 swing counties to [00:22:00] do what he can to maximize conservative Christian turnout by explicitly portraying it in this spiritual warfare frame of this is the battle between good and evil.The theology behind Donald Trump's Big LieSHEFFIELD: So, um, now you, you, you mentioned the 2020 election lives of Donald Trump, like obviously those have been for him, a very big part of preserving his brand is his, his legitimacy among Republicans, because he is the first Republican who lost. for president to, to be the nominee and actually come back and, and run again after, after failing. That's never happened before. And so his lies about the election were pivotal to that, preservation of viability. But these, these self proclaimed prophets that we're talking about here, for them, it is, they're not doing that to preserve Trump's viability, it's, they're also doing it for their own, because they said that God, had revealed to [00:23:00] them that Trump would win in 2020, and then when he lost, Well, then it kind of makes you a false prophet.And that's, that is something that you guys have tracked with a lot of these figures over the years. Like King Cunahan, I think, is probably the most prominent with that. But, but, but other ones as well. Like they, they really are sensitive to being called false prophets for their, well, false prophecy.MONTGOMERY: Yeah, because if you, if you take the Bible as seriously as they say they do the Bible hasSHEFFIELD: They need to beMONTGOMERY: say about how you should treat false prophets. Yes, it does. So yeah, people like, there'sThere are very few people who came out after the election and apologized, saying, I clearly had it wrong.I thought God was telling me this, but I had it wrong. Most of them, however, are more like Hank Kuniman and have doubled down and say, He did win. The elect, the voters chose him. It was just stolen by this demonic plot. And so you're right. They [00:24:00] are maintaining their own credibility as prophets to do that.And basically using it to sort of just ramp up the urgency,the urgent need for this spiritual warfare to make sure that it doesn't happen again.Hank Kunneman: to a lot more different things when a prophetic word comes forth about a candidate, about It's, it's subject to a lot of things. People who say, for example, that the 2020 election, they say, well, anybody who prophesied that Trump won, whether it be a prophet, an intercessor, a Christian, or just a guy on the street, if you said that you're wrong, well, wait a minute.If you believe that the media has been telling us the truth all of this time. And you believe that a guy that was hiding out in his basement can't gather a crowd. He wasn't even around the crowds could gather more than 80 million votes. Well, you might want to re examine your theology.MONTGOMERY: But they're [00:25:00] alsothey're not depending just on prayer and spiritual warfare. They're doing really the hard work of political organizing and as well as the, voter suppression and everything else.Millions of people are attending Christian right political ralliesSHEFFIELD: They are, yeah. And in this tour that Walnau is doing, like, he's one of several people who are doing these sort of performance political tours as well there's some other people that are doing this. I'm going to talk about them.MONTGOMERY: Yeah, there's a number of folks doing tours Paula White's National Faith Advisory Board. is doing tours. I think they're calling faith vote matters or my faith matters. But they're again, going to, they're trying to mobilize, particularly among conservative pastors to get those pastors to turn their churches into voter turnout operations.There's a few of those going on. There's the Reawaken America tour, which has been going on for several years. Which sort of merges the Christian nationalism with, wild MAGA, [00:26:00] QAnon type conspiracy theories, and and other features, people like Mike Flynn and, and then there's a wholeSHEFFIELD: Eric Trump is a speaker on thatMONTGOMERY: yeah, well, and, and, yeah, and multiple Trump family people have Reawaken America, Trump himself called into one of those, at least on, on Mike Flynn's cell phone, and spoke to the crowd that way.Okay. So yeah, there's a number of those going on. There's a number of,prayer,SHEFFIELD: Voigt.MONTGOMERY: capital tour that he's been doing for the last couple of years.SHEFFIELD: for people who don't know who he is? Who is that?MONTGOMERY: Sean Foyt is a musician turned politician and political activist. He is from Northern California where he was involved in a mega church that is central to the sort of prophets and apostles wing of Pentecostal Christianity.And he decided to run for Congressa few years agoand was [00:27:00] not elected, but then COVID hit and he decided to make a name for himselfby holding worship rallies in defiance of public health restrictions.And he really built a huge audience that way. And he's, he's turned it into a,Political operation. He's held a couple of big rallies on the National Mall. He holds worship services in the Capitol Rotunda that get attended by members of Congress. He's close with Senator Josh Hawley. And on this Kingdom to the Capitol tour, he's been going to all 50 state capitals, where he often gets met by Republican officials.In Alabama, he was greeted by Chief Justice Tom Parker. Anyway, he's finishing up that tour in the next few weeks in Pennsylvania and a couple other places that are left on his list. And then it'll end in Washington with a big rally on the National Mall in October, just a couple weeks before the election.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, yeah, so like this is I mean, they've just got tons and tons of these events [00:28:00] and they're making so much money off of them. And, it's just, it's just like, this is, An entire, gigantic networking realm that exists that enables right wing political activists to make a living doing what they're passionate about, and there's nothing like this on the left, and this is only just one little sliver of what, like, you've got separate ones that Charlie Kirk's got his own conference series, and you've got the CPAC series, and, like, there's tons of these, these conference conferences. organizations out there and, they're both radicalizing the audiences that go there, but then the audiences are chipping in and funding, the, the, the, organizing and allowing people to become quite wealthy. I mean, Charlie Kirk just bought a gigantic mansion in Arizona. His organization now is making over a hundred between all his different groups has earning over a hundred million dollars a year. And Democrats or in the left [00:29:00] generally have no response to this. I, they don't even know what's happening. It seems like.MONTGOMERY: Yeah, it is pretty astonishing just how many of these events, like you said, are going on, Charlie Kirk's rallies. And yeah, I mean, he does have a vast amount of money, he started an explicitly Christian nationalist wing of Turning Point USA, TPUSA Faith, and in a remarkable short amount of time, he had tens of millions of dollars at his disposal to use to organize churches, to organize conservative Christians and pastors, and he's a co sponsor of the Lance Wallnau Mario Merlo Courage Tour.So it's all it's all working in the same direction.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and that's why I did want to talk about these guys because, I think people who haven't heard of them, it's easy to say, well, all these people are irrelevant. They just are not influential because I don't know who they are. So, but that's [00:30:00] that's not the right attitude to have. And there's a lot that, obviously their ideas are poisonous and terrible, but you know, as far as doing business and organizing, these guys are very good at it. And there's a lot that people can learn from them that's not manipulative and, terrible. So, yeah, I would definitely commend people to do that.National Conservatism, JD Vance, and Catholic "integralism"SHEFFIELD: But this is as, there's just one little wing of the larger Christian right. There's another one that's kind of becoming more prominent. Recently, especially with the, with the rise of J. D. Vance's, Donald Trump's nominee, there's been this new movement that has emerged that calls itself national conservatism. And you mentioned Josh Hawley. Josh Hawley is another it's probably the Before Vance came along as the vice president nominee, Josh Hawley was their, was their main guy. And, this is, it's a lot more we'll say high church nominated or Catholic nominated than the religious right that [00:31:00] we have been used to in the past several decades. You want to talk about this movement here, if you could.MONTGOMERY: Yeah. And you're right. This is much more of a movement that is intellectually based. This sort of comes out of these right wing think tanks and intellectuals around for about five years, I think at least in a formal sense. And they spent multiple years putting together their statement of principles, which they came out with in 2022.And even with that, it's kind of hard to define because it's a real mix and I'm, I'm not a scholar or political philosopher, so I'm not going to be able to like delve into the debates between the Straussians and the Burkeans and whatever that go on at their, at their conferences, but they they align on this sort of rejection of where liberal democracy has brought us and that the solution forward is a more autocratic, [00:32:00] authoritarian form of leadership. And so that obviously aligns pretty well with what Trump would like to do with what project 2025 lays out for what, how they would like the next president, the next conservative president to act. And yes, as you said, they've got, a lot of high profile people within the Republican party and with the conservative establishment on board.their conference this year Holly was a keynoter. They also had, Kevin Roberts from the Heritage Foundation. A lot of big names. And so it's,SHEFFIELD: And Vance was there as well,MONTGOMERY: yeah, and it's, it's, it's, it's kind of similar in some ways to the, to the Pentecostal movement we were talking about in that most Americans probably have never heard of it.And but that doesn't mean that it's notSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's and I think that the other thing also, when the media talks about, to the extent that the media does talk about these people, and [00:33:00] they almost never talk about the Pentecostal ones, but they have talked a little bit about the national conservatism. people they don't talk enough about their ideas and their theology and why they're doing what they're doing.And, when you look at the National Conservatism people in a lot of ways they are hearkening back to the pre democratic traditions of the Catholic Church and, which, there was a long history of the Catholic Church, it took them up until Vatican II, really, to kind of reconcile with, well, maybe people do have the right to determine their, their own lives and that maybe that's in the Bible also. But that wasn't, that wasn't the, the viewpoint for a long time, especially outside of the United States among, among elite Catholics, and, but they're trying to go back to that. They're trying to go back, these guys are trying to go back.[00:34:00] Okay.MONTGOMERY: where you had the Catholic prince and everybody else had their assigned roles and people were happier because they knew their place.And that's, there's a, there's a way in that kind of describes what some of the NatCon guys think, is that there is, yeah, there's these national hierarchies we've got to get, stop focusing on equality and equity and, and and all these, what they consider these toxic paths that liberal democracy and its, and its ideals have taken us down.And if, if they need to sacrifice democracy, to give the right kind of person enough [00:35:00] power to turn the ship and bring us back to this, what they see as a more healthy virtuous society, they're willing to sacrifice democracy to do that.SHEFFIELD: They are, yeah. And you see that, most infamously with J. D. Vance and his repeated complaints about childless cat ladies. And he does occasionally include men in there as well, not men without children. But, this idea that it's disordered for people to not have a patriarchal family with the mother staying at home with the children that that's the only way that things should be.And if it's not that way, then, then it's wrong.And it's interesting also, because like when you see Like there, there is also the NatCon movement is very extremely anti immigration which is a little bit different from the Pentecostals because they have correctly understood that that's a huge source of, of converts for them.So they're not quite as anti immigrant but the NatCon people are. [00:36:00] And which is fascinating because a lot, most of the immigration that we have in the United States is coming from Catholic countries where 90 percent of the immigrants are Catholic. So these, they're rejecting their own religionists because they want to punish them. The Americans who are here in addition to having their own, racist overtones. It's like this dual combination that the American people are not worthy enough, are not righteous enough to be having, gigantic families that they should be. And then also, these other people who are coming in, they're not of Christian, even though they're the same denomination.MONTGOMERY: Yeah. Yeah. And it's. You're right, that the anti immigrant thing is very caught up in this, like, the hardcore nationalist part of the National Conservatism, right? This idea that, a nation is, is not an idea, it's a certain amount of people, and it's a certain culture, and that can pretty quickly devolve into, an ethnic [00:37:00] identity, or an ethno nationalism.What do you mean, who's a real American, and who deserves, the full rights of citizenship? But it also, I think one of the, one of these guys one of the institutions where this comes out of is the Claremont Institute. And Michael Anton from there, I think, is the guy who wrote the book about calling 2016, or an article calling 2016 the Flight 93 election.You know, the flight which you had the the people on board, the hijacked plane, a 9 11 stormed the cockpit. Because they had no choice and so that's sort of an argument for an ends justifies the means anything goes Liberal society has become so corrupt American, Leftism has become so tyrannical that we just have to you know Do anything we can and so that was a justification for getting Trump in power and you heard Basically the identical argument that Claremont's John Eastman made For [00:38:00] why he was willing to do everything he could to keep Trump in power after Trump lost basically justified it with that same suggestion that if Trump lost Liberty was going to, be brought to an end.And so if he had to bend or break the law, that was okay. And that's,that's the attitude that we see from people who are talking about, having Trump as a red Caesar. This, Caesarism, or some people talk about a Protestant Franco. that it's either inevitable because the left is making people so miserable that there will be a right wing some kind of right wing coup, or that it's desirable and that, we can get there by getting Trump in office and then giving him the power to act like Victor Orban does,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And it is, and it is, especially for from a Catholic perspective, it's, this is a very strange bastardized form of Catholicism because, in the United States, the historic [00:39:00] people. are Protestants.So if we're going to go back to the way things were, well then the Catholics should are going to all be kicked out and expelled from the country. If that's what you really believe. But and then, and then of course the church, especially the American church is, has actually always been very pro democratic. And this is, it's, it is a rebellion against their own church as well, which is especially under the current Pope has begun to acknowledge that, there are certain things that are social realities and that whether it's, people having the right to, can, can have, have a same sex marriage and things they're very angry about that.MONTGOMERY: about, um, the availability of legal abortion, of marriage for gay couples but they, They some of them really try to portray themselves as being firmly in line with Catholic social justice teaching [00:40:00] because they say that they're against the ways that late capitalism has exploited workers.And so they try to give themselves a little sheen of being pro justice by claiming to be pro worker and supporting unions, even though politically that's not what the Republican Party has done when it has power.SHEFFIELD: No. Yeah, it's like being a feudalist doesn't make you a socialist. And, some maybe more naive people on the left have kind of looked at that and have been fooled by that. I mean, I've done a couple of episodes on that topic. We'll have them in the show notes for people to check those out.How Donald Trump's rhetoric has become much more religiousSHEFFIELD: Going back to the idea of, you know, God sort of ordaining these people to have to be his prophets and Trump is the servant. Trump has also kind of modified his rhetoric. Pretty significantly as well. I think it's fair to say that, when he was first running in 2016 He was kind of just more flagrantly running [00:41:00] on well Christians You might not like me very much But if I don't if I if I win you'll have power and you need power and I'll give it to you But since he you know had his victory in 2016, he now sort of speaks in much more Religious language and talks about how Christianity will be illegal and the Bible, is going to go down and no one will say Merry Christmas anymore.And I mean, just this there's just endless litany of things he promises is going to happen when, if Joe Biden won in 2020. And of course, none of it came true but it doesn't matter.MONTGOMERY: But they, they will claim and they will tell their supporters that Biden and Harris have unleashed a historic wave of anti religious persecution. I mean, it's, it seems patently ridiculous to hear that and to look at our country and to look at how free all these people are to run these ministries that we've been talking about.But this this religious [00:42:00] persecution rhetoric, I mean, it's been a political organizing tactic of the religious right since it started and it hasn't gone away. And Trump, Trump, relies on it constantly to, to, to say That, he's, he's their defender. He sends out he uses biblical language in his text messages fear not, I am Donald Trump.I mean, literally putting himself kind of in that God like position. And, and, it seems to be working, his, his, the, polling, I think among white evangelical Christians is who voted for him about 82 percent last time. I think it's about at the same level now. And as we talked about, there's a huge investment right now, just a huge sum of money going to make sure that turnout is high among conservative evangelical Christians.And there are several multi million dollar turnout operations that are designed to help conservative [00:43:00] churches. Get everybody registered mobilize them to vote send everybody messages about the right way to vote. So that's, they are very intensely focused on continuing to have a bigger, uh, impact on the election than their size in the electorate would otherwise give them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, they have.Janet Folger Porter and Republican abortion bansSHEFFIELD: And another person who's in this world that is, again, not very well known to most political reporters or, or political observers is somebody named Janet. And Janet Porter, people haven't heard of her, but she basically was setting the abortion policies for Republicans in almost, in all the states that they control.So who, who is Janet Porter for people who don't know?MONTGOMERY: Janet Porter is a long time Christian right activist whose main passion is criminalizing abortion. She is the originator of the phrase, the heartbeat bill. And some years ago, whenSHEFFIELD: [00:44:00] week abortionMONTGOMERY: a six week abortion ban, that is, You know becomes the functional of a complete abortion ban because often people don't even know they're pregnant by six weeks.So um And and for some years she was a little bit of a lone voice in the wilderness because the anti abortion movement Thought that her plans, were too extreme And so she would fight with groups like national right to life who were being more incrementalist who were just trying to say Let's pass a law banning late term abortions and then let's move on from there and she, she has been embraced by the right in the in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe in the sense that we've now had multiple states passing the kind of legislation she's been fighting for for years.And she's also, she's also been part of the just broader religious right political rhetoric. She published a book called the criminalization of Christianityagain, claiming that Democrats and liberals want to outlaw [00:45:00] Christians and drag preachers out of the pulpit and throw them in jail kind of stuff you've seen.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and and these are, and I want to stress to the audience, like when you hear people, when you hear statements like what you just said there reported out, it's easy to just dismiss them as, oh, that's ludicrous. That's insane. But when people poll. evangelicals and ask them, do you believe these things are real? They do believe these things. Like these are actual beliefs that, the, the base, the core of the Republican party absolutely believe. So this is not just her, talking to no one.MONTGOMERY: they have been told that over and over and over again for years now, for decades by the people theySHEFFIELD: by authority figures.MONTGOMERY: the people they trust. And that's, it's kind of a parallel to why so many [00:46:00] Republicans believe Trump's lies about election fraud.Because he is, he and Fox News and other far right outlets, who they trust for news, have told them that over and over and over again.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and so it's true.New poll shows how far removed Trump base is from realitySHEFFIELD: And just to give people an idea, how completely at odds with reality is the Republican base has grown. It's not just about, you know, his election lies. It's that the things he says, they, they believe that they are true. So like he has said in the debate he had with Kamala Harris, he said that in some states it's legal to kill a baby after it has emerged from the mother.And, 23 percent of Republicans in a YouGov survey said that that was definitely true. 18 percent said that it was probably true. Only 23 percent said that it was definitely false. So, this is [00:47:00] a huge percentage, like this, this, that particular belief is so completely insane. Like, if, if it were illegal to murder babies after they were born, You would know that because it would be happening.But you know, it's not. And so, but you know, but you just go down the line, like there are so many things that they believe, like there's another one they asked them, are Haitian immigrants abducting and eating pet dogs and cats? And 18 percent of Republicans, actually I'll do it with Trump voters to show it even, even further.So 22 percent of people who said they would vote for Trump said that's definitely true. 30 percent said that it's probably true. So more than half of Trump voters say that this is true. And another 24 percent said they were not sure. So functionally, They will go along with it, is what that means, and I mean, even, even something, here's another one that's even [00:48:00] more, and this is the thing that Trump said in the debate, that schools, that parents are sending their children to school and that they are coming back home after having a gender affirming care.Surgery. They'rehaving gender affirming surgery, and Trump said that, and according to this poll here, 28 percent of his voters said that it's probably or definitely true. Something that is so blatant. Like, again, if this was happening, everyone would know it.MONTGOMERY: Absolutely.SHEFFIELD: Because you would see it. You would see that this was happening. But yeah, they, they, they, they think that it's they think it's true, or like a huge percent of them think it'sMONTGOMERY: And it'sBut they just feel like out of loyalty to Trump, they have to say they do, I mean, he's got such a hold on people and people's identities are so caught up with him,And I, and I think that um, knowing that there's so many part of [00:49:00] people in the movement are so caught up with him, just feeds this like ugly and intense cynicism among people like Trump and Vance and their political strategists who defend telling these lies in the purpose of some, what they consider some broader truth, Vance is, justifies lying about Haitians eating pets because maybe then it makes people pay attention to problems that communities are having with immigration and they justify, lying about things like, schools conducting surgery on kids.Because then it, that gives them an opening to talk about why they oppose, policies that affirm trans kids. I mean, it's really cynical, it's really ugly, and it's really harmful.SHEFFIELD: It is. It is. Yeah. And actually, I saw a right wing writer who, he said that Trump says things that are not, explicitly true, but they're directionally [00:50:00] true. And that,I thought that that was such a deceitful formulation. But this is somebody who is highly educated. I think he has At least a master's degree, may have a PhD. And, and this, and this is what he believes. He's a writer on the website HotAir. com.MONTGOMERY: yeah, I think people tell themselves a lot of things to justify the outcomes they want.SHEFFIELD: They do. uh,A new far-right Christian sitcom speaks to cultural fearsSHEFFIELD: now uh, There is one little side note with Janet Porter, though. Besides having these very terrible policies she's forcing on America. Janet Porter also has a, sort of side career as a evangelical cultural figure, and you guys had chronicled her attempt to produce a sitcom, an evangelical Christian sitcom based on a book that she had published earlier called What's a Girl to Do?Video Clip: Look, I stay out of politics, alright? I don't even think I'm registered to vote.To stay out of [00:51:00] politics is to let the Marxists control your life, your health, our country. How can you date a guy that doesn't even vote? Look, look, look. Trump is for liberty. He's for Israel. He's for the Second Amendment. Thanks. Thanks. They want to take your guns. I don't have any guns. How can you date a guy that doesn't even own a gun? Well, as much as I'm enjoying this lovely little conversation, I'm gonna go. How can you date aMONTGOMERY: Well, my advice to Janet is, don't quit your day job. Because she's a lot better political advocate than she is a writer and actor. I mean, this I think the idea behind the sitcom is a smart one in that art influences politics. People for the American Waste founder Norman Lear made a big impact with his sitcoms and you know, generated all kinds of interesting cultural conversations.So I [00:52:00] think maybe that was her model, but it's horrible. The writing is terrible. It's not funny. It's basically her sitting around making speeches about Trump and abortion. I mean, it's I think she misses the idea of what a sitcom is supposed to be.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, she's also like what I believe, like 62 years old and is portrayed as dating men in their 30s uh, as well. But I, I, I, I think that there is, To what you were saying that there's, it speaks to this very real Feeling that a lot of, far right Christians have that they finally realized that their viewpoints they're regarded as kind of absurd or extreme.They finally realized that. And That this is really what powers what they're doing just as much about, the, the doctrines or whatever. There's this psychological, kind of feeling of loss. And like Trump, he [00:53:00] talked about that all the time that, you know that we're going to have so much winning when I'm the president, you guys have just lost all the time until I came along.Well, you're going to win under me. That really speaks to them. I think.MONTGOMERY: Yeah. And I think, that's part of the whole phenomenon that we saw of Trump's, just from the very launch of his campaign in 2016, it was like, ah, he's giving us permission to say the things that we've been told we shouldn't say in public. He sort ofenergized, white nationalists and he gave permission for people to be open about their bigotry.And because he did it and they're tired of, political correctness and wokeness and whatever. They're tired of liberal Hollywood. I mean, for in recent years, every religious right conference, political conference you go to, he's got some panel about conservatives in Hollywood, rising conservatives in Hollywood, making more family friendly films, making more programming because they get that they.[00:54:00]They their, their ideas have not been popular in pop culture and they're trying to, find ways to, to bring them back.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and if they can't do it through culture, then they will mandate it through the government. And that's, I mean, that's really what this comes down to, like, a lot of there, there were, with this, the Springfield rumors about Haitians that were launched the, there were a couple of publications that went and found the, the women who had kind of originated these rumors on the internet. And, one of the women, I believe it was the one who posted it she had said that, I, well, it, it's true, the neighbors didn't eat my cat, and it's still in my house, actually, but I just felt, I just feel so trapped, I just feel so alone because when I went to the DMV, I heard a lot of people speaking on Otherlink, and that's what was, she [00:55:00] inadvertently told on herself there that she couldn't stand not being the dominant group because she's never, she said, I, I felt like a minorityand it's like, well, maybe you should talk to some black people once in a while.MONTGOMERY: that and that is so telling and that is so telling about the whole make America great again, take your country back. It's this idea that, a certain kind of white Christian is the real American and everybody else doesn't. And that really flies in the face of American ideals, ideals in the best way, but it's certainly the kind of, stoking that kind of fear and grievance.It's something that Donald Trump and his, his political operatives are very good at. And that's, that's, no, and I, I think that, just the ugly turn that he's taken, I think is in part his way to get back to his greatest hits, that power to him [00:56:00] in 2016, I think, after Kamala Harris had this big surge of energy and enthusiasm we see Trump hoisting this horrific immigrant bashing rhetoric on people leading into all these problems in Springfield, Ohio. And you see him palling around with Laura Loomer, who's now like whispering in his ear and, and, she embodies all the worst things about the MAGA movement.Laura Loomer and reactionary figures from unexpected identity groupsSHEFFIELD: And actually that was who wanted to end, end our discussion here today talking about, because, you just recently um, this week um, as we're recording on the 20th of September here Donald Trump, he spoke to an event that was convened by a Jewish Republican organization. Uh, And he basically said, if, I don't win. Jews will have to face a large part of the blame for that. And, this election, especially 2024, he's really drastically ramped up this sort of attempt to radicalize uh, Jewish [00:57:00] Americans against against Democrats. And, and It's been very frustrating for him, I think, because it isn't working, and he's, it's been a real frustration for him because, these are messages that have worked so well on white evangelicals, but they're not working on Jewish Americans, and he's, really kind of becoming anti Semitic, and but also hanging out with Laura Loomer, I mean, for, let's delve into her a little bit, though if you want to get into that.Yeah. Yeah.MONTGOMERY: Yeah, let me, let me first say, I think that, Trump clearly does not understand The majority of the American Jewish community and what they value and what's important to them and why? They have voted for Democrats so consistently in recent years in, in large majorities. And, the fact that he was at an event supposedly opposing antisemitism and he's basically warned Jews, if I lose, I'm gonna blame the Jews.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.MONTGOMERY: I can’t think of anything that's, I [00:58:00] can't think of anything that is more likely to fuel the already raging antisemitism on the right wing of the MAGA movement than a statement like that. So I think it's pretty stunning. And, and that's Laura Loomer is a person who's been traveling with him recently.She is an online influencer who got her start with project Veritas moved on to the Alex Jones show, built an audience on Twitter before she got kicked off. And She just she's part of this kind of online strategy of saying, of getting attention by saying the ugliest thing you can think of, the most outrageous thing you can think of.She's just got a long, long history of racism anti Muslim bigotry, anti Semitic stuff, even though she's Jewish and palling around with white nationalists. Like Nick Fuentes. So again, I've got to think that, and Trump has [00:59:00] always loved her because she loves him, he's like, if someone is loyal, loves me, how bad can she be?So, Trump reportedly wanted to hire her under his campaign last year. And there was enough, people in his orbit. He said, you can't do that. So he didn't hire her, but now she's traveling with him. And I suspect she's, helping spur. His return to the kind of worst, most demagogic republic he can think of that he thinks might help him.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, Loomer is though, she is an example though, of that. This. These right wing radicalization attempts, they have worked on some, on some Jewish Americans, and, and obviously the fact that Netanyahu, his his policies obviously are very far right and have been, very arguably, credibly, I think, called fascistic in many ways, and, he allies himself with anti Semitic People like Victor Orban and other people like that.So, and, and, I mean, Jewish fascism is a real thing [01:00:00] and it does exist. And, you might think people might think that's an oxymoron, but it's a real thing. Just in the same way that Mark Johnson, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in North Carolina called, apparently called himself a black Nazi. But, Kanye West is out there too.So. These things exist even if they may seem absurd on their face,MONTGOMERY: Yeah. And it's, yes, we've got all kinds of examples that are sometimes hard to understand. I personally, as a gay man, I have a hard time with gay Republicans or even worse gay MAGA Republicans, but they're out there.SHEFFIELD: they are. Yeah. And actually a friend of mine just wrote a book about the history of gay Republicans. So I'll send you the link on the episodeMONTGOMERY: I will look forward to reading that.SHEFFIELD: quite a, quite a history as it turns out. And a lot of, a lot of, there's a lot of gay Republicans out there. But yeah, but it does, it does call to mind though what that, that saying of Voltaire is that. People who can make you believe [01:01:00] absurdities can make you commit atrocities. And I think that that's really the take home point when you look at the MAGA movement generally, and Trump certainly himself. Like, that's, that is what, you see that true every day.MONTGOMERY: And I think, even when Trump is not using religious terminology, the apocalyptic rhetoric he uses, that this will be the last election we have, that if if he loses, it's the end of liberty, it's the end of democracy in America that, that is very much aligned with the apocalyptic rhetoric that people hear from Lance Wallow, another religious right figure, saying, this is the final battle between good and evil.There's a figure named Lou Engel who comes out of the same Pentecostal prophetic networks who's calling a million women to the National Mall in October for a last stand for America. So, that rhetoric is very similar to what [01:02:00] people are, are hearing both from Trump and from religious right leaders that this is it.This is the last stand for freedom against leftist tyranny. And so People hear that enough and they really believe it. And then, we have seen where that can lead. It makes people desperate. It makes people fearful. And if they're desperate and fearful already, and then they believe that Trump won the coming election, but it was stolen from him by the forces of evil.Then we're, I think, really in dangerous territory.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is. Yeah, and it's yeah, these are really serious things and it's, it's something to keep an eye on. I think it's, it's too easy to think of January 6th as some kind of aberration and that even Trump himself is just this heat that he did this. He made all this happen. And none of that's true. Like, this is a struggle that has to be fought for decades to come. Until [01:03:00] this radical religious movement, it has to lose in order for American democracy to survive. And it's, it's not a one election vote.MONTGOMERY: No, and it's very clear, and I think that the whole project project really makes that clear. Now, here's a vast collaboration among religious and secular right wing institutions to lay out this, governing agenda that includes this idea of a very autocratic leader and that includes, people don't think of the Heritage Foundation as being part of the religious right, but it has often functioned that way.And in Kevin Roberts introduction to Project 2025, He gives a definition of freedom that is pretty stark. And he says freedom is not the freedom to live like you want, it's the freedom how you, to live like you ought. And so, their definition of freedom is, says, we'll give you the freedom to live according, as long as you're living [01:04:00] according to our interpretation of the Bible and the Constitution.So, that's where they're coming from, and that's what we're facing. And you're right, it's not going to go away if Trump loses this election.SHEFFIELD: No, it won't. Well, but we could continue on this a lot, a lot further, I'm sure, but I don't want to take up too much of everybody's time here. So, for people who want to keep up with what you're doing, Peter, what's your recommendation for that?MONTGOMERY: Yeah, you can follow us on at rightwingwatch. org or at rightwingwatch on social media channels. That's where we publish sort of both just daily crickets and more in depth analysis of the religious right and its political allies.SHEFFIELD: Okay. You might as well plug your own Twitter. You're on thereMONTGOMERY: Yeah, I'm at at Pete Montt, P E T E M O N T.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Yeah. I encourage everybody to follow you over there as well. So, all right. Well, thanks for being here.MONTGOMERY: Thanks.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the [01:05:00] program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation and you can get more if you go to theoryofchange. show. That will take you to the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And I do want to mention that Theory of Change is part of the Flux Media Network, so go to flux.community for more podcasts and articles about politics, religion, media, and society, and how they all intersect and affect each other. And if you like what we're doing, I encourage you to support us. On Substack or on Patreon, whichever one you prefer, that is really helpful. And if you can't afford to subscribe right now on the paying section we do have free subscriptions as well.And, but I do appreciate everybody who is supporting us financially. And if you can't do that right now you can give us a nice review over on Apple podcasts. That's very helpful or subscribe on YouTube. Thank you very much. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryJD Vance, Donald Trump’s running mate, is a newcomer on the political scene, and as such, a lot of people don’t know very much about his ideas. That’s concerning because Vance identifies with a reactionary far-right tradition that is explicitly and fundamentally at odds with American democracy. Donald Trump, by contrast, has no core ideology and no core beliefs. His main goal at all times and all places is to advance his own personal interests, and that is literally it. Vance isn’t like that. He comes from an authoritarian, reactionary tradition that explicitly rejects conservatism, liberalism, and democracy. Trump wants absolute power, and Vance wants him to have it to destroy what he believes to be a decadent and corrupt society.On today’s episode, we’re going to be talking about some of the core ideas of this very old tradition (which both predates and includes fascism) and what it has in store for the United States, regardless of the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.Our guest on today’s episode is Matt McManus, he is the author of a book called The Political Right and Equality: Turning Back The Tide of Egalitarian Modernity, and a lecturer in political science at the University of Michigan.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Flux is a community-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related Content▪ Arguing with hardcore Trumpers is impossible, because reactionaries do not actually believe in logic▪ Libertarian oligarchs are trying to take over San Francisco — and the country▪ The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ and the long history of right-wing re-branding▪ How a little-known cable channel for Roman Catholics is radicalizing the faithful▪ Ronna McDaniel and the twilight of fictitious Republicans▪ Democrats became more conservative as Republican became reactionary authoritarians, will Kamala Harris reverse this?▪ ‘Post left’ content creators are getting massively wealthy by promoting far-right ideologiesAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:29 — Distinguishing between conservatism and reactionism06:34 — Why telling the difference between conservatism and reactionism can be difficult10:53 — How the Cold War kept reactionaries in check within the Republican party18:06 — How neoconservatives prepared Republicans for Trumpism22:40 — Opposing "decadence" unites right-of-center philosophies26:08 — Redefining "elite" is core to the reactionary project33:41 — Why epistemic nihilism collapses into totalitarianism40:17 — Anti-intellectualism and right-wing philosophy46:45 — The paradoxes of left- and right-wing intellectualism53:29 — JD Vance's deep connections to reactionary philosophers59:14 — Why there are atheist and Jewish Christian nationalists01:04:44 — As the right overtly embraces authoritarianism, the left can reclaim freedom01:12:50 — The rise of the Nietzchean rightAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So we have a lot to talk about here today. The political philosophy episodes are always one of my favorites, I have to confess, as my audience may already realize. But nonetheless, so JD Vance, we're kind of organizing the discussion here of reactionism and reactionary politics around him because I think he is very obviously the most prominent reactionary figure now in the United States.So, but most people don't know a lot about what he thinks because I mean, he's a poor public speaker and, he's mostly known for kind of his bizarre interactions with people and writing a book.That's kind of the framework that I want to put this in. And then we'll come back to Vance later.But the idea first I want to explore is that conservatism and reactionism are not the same political philosophies. They're very obviously adjacent and contiguous but they're very different from each other. And you have written quite a bit about reactionism and conservatism.So let's maybe start the discussion off with that. What, what are the fundamental differences between conservatism and reaction in your opinion?MATT McMANUS: Sure, well I think the important thing to note right from the get go, is that the political right broadly, is a vast and extremely diverse area of political ideologies. It includes everything from, fascists to moderate conservatives like Mitt Romney and arguably quite a few liberals would identify on the political right as well, people like F.A. Hayek, et cetera, et cetera. So at the core of being right wing, I think is Hayek's idea that you believe that there are recognizably superior persons within society and that those recognizably superior persons are entitled to more. Right? More wealth, more power, more status on generally aligned with.This is a kind of moral view that we have recognizably superior persons in positions of authority on positions of status. Everything will go better for everyone else because you want power and you want status and you want wealth to accrue in the hands of those who are best exercised, wielded. But Who happens to be a recognizably superior person, how you make these kind of determinations.That's where a lot of the enormous nuance and variation on the political right comes from. Now, one of the things that [00:04:00] distinguishes conservatives from reactionaries is generally speaking, conservatives tend to think that the traditional hierarchies and authority structures that have been present in society for a very long period of times are the ones that we should put our faith in.For a variety of different reasons, but let's just point to, like, the Burkean tradition, right? A good Burkean would say, and this is putting it a bit simply, the reason we should put our faith in authority structures and hierarchies that have endured over a long period of time is because if they've endured for a long period of time, then they seem to be working reasonably well.Right? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now, that doesn't mean we can't tinker around the edges with things, but the main goal of a conservative is to change what must be changed in order to conserve what we can. And in the contemporary American scene right now, you still see a variety of different people on the right who hold this view.George Will comes to mind. He wrote a big book called The Conservative Sensibility, where He kind of fused Burkean and more classical liberal ideas to say, look, in the United States, we're fundamentally a classical liberal country. The founders were classical liberals. So the job of a kind of conservative in the America is to conserve and to advance classical liberal principles and institutions like those that the founders created.But that's not the outlook that many of America's reactionaries hold today. Many American reactionaries are fundamentally opposed to the liberal worldview for Again, a wide variety of different reasons, and this includes people like Vance, who's drank deep of the well of post liberal and anti liberal thought, and the goal of these figures is, in the words of Glenn Elmer's, to not conserve anything, right?Conservatism is no longer enough, as the title of one of Elmer's essays went, because fundamentally, liberalism has been a destructive force, it's wiped out everything that's of value in the United States, and so what we need to do If you're a reactionary, of course is to advance a much more militant and even revolutionary or counter revolutionary program to try to set things right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, there, there are significant [00:06:00] differences and you've described them well that yeah, conservatives, a conservative in the American sense. And, broadly speaking, maybe the.Global sense at this point now is, is somebody who wants to conserve liberalism as it is, or maybe perhaps just recently was that's what a conservative is. And a reactionary is somebody who says, liberalism is wrong, and in many cases, democracy is wrong as well. And and we'll get further into that in the discussion here today. But so with with Vance he has a lot of connections to all of these emergent reactionaries.Why telling the difference between conservatism and reactionism can be difficultSHEFFIELD: And it's been kind of just both fascinating and dispiriting how a lot of political professionals, including people who are Democratic Party strategists and communicators and professional national journalists, they don't seem to understand this difference between conservatism and reactionism. Now, why, why, why do you think that is?McMANUS: Well, I think there are a number of different reasons, right? One is that the American right for a very long time has presented itself as fundamentally a conservative movement. Right. Committed to at least market liberalism a fair degree of individual freedom and certainly the promotion of democracy around the globe.Think back to the advent of Reaganism, right, where a lot of those kinds of tropes were put together. Now, if you're a critic of the American, right, that's more longstanding. Like myself, you might question the sincerity of a lot of those convictions, but that's at least the way that it's been presented.And this kind of overtly reactionary, anti-liberal kind of muscularly counter revolutionary outlook. Comes quite a shock to a variety of different pundits, including many right wing pundits, people like Jonah Goldberg who were surprised, by what seems to have come out of the Republican party.Now I would argue again, that if you look deeper into the history of American conservatism, people like Rick Perlstein would say All these kinds of ingredients for a counter revolutionary program were always [00:08:00] there, right? If you go back to something like Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, right?Goldwater probably lost that election in no small part, not just because he was soft on civil rights and even opposed to civil rights but because he said things like, radicalism in defense of liberty or extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, right? It's not really a very conservative attitude endorsing these kinds of extremist views.But, generally speaking this tended to be a rhetorically quiescent element of the right until comparatively recently, definitely it was less transparent before 2016 when Trump gave license to a lot of these people to become a lot more vocal.SHEFFIELD: Yeah well, and, and it was both rebranding exercise as well on the part of the people that were saying, well, we're in favor of liberalism. I mean, for instance, obviously William F. Buckley, he presented as, That being his brand of, well, I'm just trying to conserve what we have in this country.And but at the same time he was saying that he was also being in favor of segregation writing editorials saying that, well, actually segregation is good because black people are just not capable of governing themselves and, and being part of the economy. So this is for their own good.Sorry, guys, you just, you're just SJWs are wrong. You need to leave it as it is. And, and, and he wrote aMcMANUS: to give another example during the, at the height of the AIDS epidemic William F. Buckley recommended that homosexuals, his term be tattooed above the buttocks, right? With a big warning label, right? And that kind of humor, let's call it that wouldn't be out of place in something like the contemporary Trump movement with this kind of vulgarity and it's just rote and callous dismissal of human life.So again, I think if you look back, further and look more carefully at some of these figures we kind of view the past of American conservatism with rose colored glasses if we don't recognize that a lot of the seeds of Trumpism were very firmly planted well before he came onto the scenes.SHEFFIELD: yeah. [00:10:00] And, and then also the fact that, I mean, the, the entire movement, which began calling itself conservatism. I mean, they, they didn't call themselves conservative. Like, that's an important point, which, because most political professionals, journalistic professionals don't know anything about it.History they don't realize that Buckley and these other people, I mean, they were the point of what they were doing was to stop. The new deal was to roll back social security was to roll back, labor unions and minimum wage. Like that was always the goal, like, and they've never stopped having those goals.And so, Yeah, it's just, it's pretty disgraceful, frankly, that a lot of, of people who pretend to be experts and put themselves forward as experts don't know any of this stuff. Pretty disgraceful, I think.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely, right?How the Cold War kept reactionaries in check within the Republican partyMcMANUS: So, once upon a time the American right, certainly the intellectual American right, used to be described as a three legged stool, right? So, One leg of that stool was militant anti communism which eventually transformed into this idea that America should have a kind of militant and muscular international relations policy in the 1990s and early 2000s when communism for the most part disappeared.The second leg of the stool was the, evangelical Christian movement which always had a very, very, very pronounced kind of white nationalist undercurrent to it with its opposition to things like civil rights alongside, of course, more conventional kinds of oppositions to things like abortion or gay marriage.And then the third leg of that stool were American libertarians, certainly right libertarians at the very least who, as you mentioned, were committed to rolling back the new deal or even going further than rolling back the new deal, going all the way back to invert something like The criticisms of the Lochner precedent from early in the 20th century, and as a lot of people have pointed out, the three legs of the stool were never exactly the same size, and the stool itself was always kind of shaky since it's not immediately clear.What economic libertarianism or economic liberalism [00:12:00] has to do with support for white evangelism let alone the idea that America should use its military and cultural might to try to impose its value system, whatever that happens to be around the globe. Again, what I would argue is that the Shared through line of all these doctrines or all these elements of the classical American right was this conviction that there are superior people and superior countries for that matter on their entitled to greater status, greater agency, and they were hostile to a liberalism, which suggested otherwise.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I think that probably one of the other reasons that this distinction is harder for a lot of people to grasp is that these early branders and influencers for, for reactionism like Buckley they, they did explicitly market their ideas in the language of liberalism Because Nazism had so, overwhelmingly discredited fascism and authoritarianism as political philosophies in the recent memory of the people they were trying to convict.McMANUS: Absolutely. Right. So David Austin Walsh has written a very good book about this, so I'm going to draw pretty heavily from that. So arguably the kind of unifying philosophy that was characteristic of the National Review crowd for a long time was Frank Reier's fusionism, right? For those in your audience who aren't familiar with it fusionism refers to this idea that we should combine a commitment to classical liberal liberties certainly economic liberties with this commitment to Judeo Christian virtues and Judeo Christian norms.Now, again, this fusion of a commitment to a kind of social conservatism with a kind of liberalism, certainly an economic liberalism was uncomfortable, even in Meyer's work and there are enormous debates amongst the National Review crowd about which axes of this fusionist synthesis they should emphasize, right, because People quite rightly pointed out that if you're committed to things like liberal values, there seems to be something [00:14:00] contradictory in calling for banning pornography, for example.And if you're an economic liberal, there seems to be something very unusual about allying yourself with people who say things like, we should ban pornography, or we should ban gambling, or whatever it happens to be. But I would argue,SHEFFIELD: at school. Yeah.McMANUS: yeah, exactly. I would argue following a lot of historians, that this is where the third leg of the stool came in despite all of these various differences and some of these debates were really quite intense and bluntly nasty if you look at the Meyer Kirk debate, for example, they were not nice to each other, a lot of them were papered over because the one thing the American right could do Absolutely agree on was that communism, socialism understood very expansively were bad things and extremely threatening.Oftentimes they lump the New Deal in with that since or the great society programs of Johnson. And there's nothing like an enemy to kind of bring strange bedfellows together and allow a synthesis intellectually like, fusionism to function. As a kind of ad hoc philosophy for a long period of time.And some people have pointed out that one of the reasons why the splits on the American right became more transparent as time went on is because without a international adversary like the Soviet Union to kind of band everyone together instead the American right started turning on more domestic enemies which of course leads to more existential questions about just what American conservatism is supposed to be and which elements of American society don't really belong.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I, I would think that that also, that sort of foreign policy component. Is probably what kept the other two from going off the complete deep end and embracing their inherent radicalism because you know it was it was run by the military industrial complex and their and, and their advocates within the, the, the Republican party that, by definition, they need a stable society and, the, as much as militaries in many countries, our forces for right wing authoritarianism, they also in many countries [00:16:00] do have an inherent apolitical mission and, and, and very often do in fact, are, are, are.Can be a force for some sort of moderation within between different warring factions.McMANUS: Absolutely. And I mean, there's no denying this, right? There are plenty of people within the Reagan administration, people like Buchanan or Sam Francis, who were a lot more hostile to liberalism and arguably even American democracy than they let on. But there was an awareness on the part of many of the Reaganites that in an existential battle with world communism, where communism had Quite a bit of appeal to many in the third world.It was extremely important to position oneself as a defender of freedom, a defender of democracy, a defender of national self determination in some circumstances, right? And again, a lot of that disappeared with the end of communism and, depending on when you want to date it, the late 1980s, early 1990s, right?As a kind of world historical force. Again, nothing really unites like a good enemy especially internationally. Without that it just leads you to turn inwards and reflect upon one's internal differences in a much more existentially, stringent kind of way.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and have to actually start developing your, your real ideas and your real values, which apparently have been pretty monstrous.McMANUS: Exactly. So, in his new book when the clock broke, John Gans talks a lot about Pat Buchanan's early runs in the 1990s and you can read Buchanan's books. He anticipates a lot of the kind of philosophy, if you want to call it that, of Trumpism that later emerges.But one of the reasons that Buchanan felt that there was this opportunity to run on a more stridently right wing kind of program in the 1990s, at least according to Gans is precisely because he felt, look, Communism is gone and the biggest untapped electorate in America, as he put it, is to the right of Ronald Reagan.And now that we don't necessarily have to worry about trying to appeal to all the left wingers and appeal to all the people outside of the United States who might be concerned about us pivoting too far to the right it's time to tap that resource. So it's a very interesting thesis. And again, [00:18:00] who knows what would have happened?If the Soviet Union hadn't fallen, definitely we wouldn't have seen something like Trumpism right now.How neoconservatives prepared Republicans for TrumpismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think so. There's there is an irony also in the, the the rise of, of reactionism or or fascism, whatever you want to call in the United States. It's, it is in many ways, kind of the The indirect creation of neoconservatism and it's very ironic because the neoconservatives were the very first people who were expelled once the Trump people took over the Republican Party, and, the,McMANUS: him for it, that's for sure.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and and so, but the neoconservatives, as much as they hate Trump and hate this kind of fascistic form of politics that he's created this reactionary viewpoint in a lot of ways, they were the predecessors for it. And you talk about that in, in in your book. So let's discuss that further.If you don't mind.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. I still think that the definitive book on the relationship between, say, the Bush administration, second Bush administration and the Trump administration has yet to be written. But, As you point out, many of the neoconservatives who kind of reached the apex of their influence and their power during the Bush administration deeply resented the Trump administration sidelining them and just pushing them out and tried to present Trump as some kind of aberration from what the Republican party once stood for.I think about somebody like David Frum, right? Who basically writes op ed after op ed in the Atlantic, make exactly this case week in and week out. I would argue that that is a misconstrual of the real history. So. Look, neoconservatism emerged as a kind of distinct strand of conservatism that began to gain real influence in the 1980s in the American sorry, in the Reagan administration.There's no doubt that many neoconservatives transitioned from the left, even from communism. If you think about somebody like Irving Kristol, who was once a Trotskyite towards a kind of classical liberalism with the Some conservative values. But this has led many people to misdiagnose neoconservatism as fundamentally a form of [00:20:00] liberalism in the clothes of a kind of re conservative outlook.I don't think that that's true. I think that if you look deeper into the text of many leading neoconservatives, it's very clear that they hold Conservative views about a wide array of issues, Irving Kristol himself had a variety of different social conservative outlooks on things like homosexuality, or you can take something like the project for the new American century that released a important document in the 2000s that was actually quite upset at the fact that America had won the Cold War.Now, this can seem odd. But what's articulated in this doctrine, sorry, document is this deep fear that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States is going to adopt an isolationist path, demilitarize, and this is going to lead to what on the right is typically called decadence, right? Americans are just going to focus on mindless consumerism.Choosing which refrigerator to put into their kitchen, and they're not going to dedicate themselves to bigger and more grand projects of the sorts that the neoconservatives found extremely attractive and extremely exciting and necessary in order to retain America's influence in the world. And Not surprisingly when the 2000 sorry, the 2001 terror attack took place many of them said, well, here's our moment.We have a new enemy. We have a grand imperial project that we can use to elevate society above this kind of decadent libertine liberal outlook that they've associated with things like the Clinton administration. And, think about somebody like Karl Rove who in a New York Times interview in the mid 2000s it's allegedly Karl Rove, I should say said things like all of you people in the fact based community will sit there and say that, what we're doing is wrong or it's not based on the facts but we're an empire now and we create our own reality.Oh, sorry, not the fact based community, the reality based community. We create our own reality now and all of you are just going to sit there and bear witness to what we do and chronicle it. That's very much a kind of Trumpy outlook, right? This idea that decadent libertinism and permissiveness is going to lead to the decline of American society.What we need instead are things and [00:22:00] projects that are big and exciting and vital to elevate the masses above the stupor that they inexorably fall into. And combined with that is this ambivalence and even hostility towards the reality based community or the fact based community for pointing out that a lot of these grand projects are going to end in disaster, which is, of course, what eventually happened with the Bush administration because they're not interested in those kind of things.They're interested in the excitement and the grandeur that they associate with these ideas and, of course, very much like Trumpism, neoconservatism, Found out that the reality of its program when implemented was a lot more banal and a lot more disastrous than they'd ever anticipated. And that's probably why the movement went the way of the dinosaurs and deserved it.Opposing "decadence" unites right-of-center philosophiesSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and this idea of decadence I mean, that is, really kind of, it is a, it is a fundamental belief across all right wing philosophies with this, in addition to being, the superior people, what makes people superior is their lack of decadence. And, their and, and, and this harkens back, even if the people saying it don't realize it, it harkens back, to the the, the, the ancient Greek ideal of Arete or As it's commonly rendered as virtue.And like the, the people who are excellent, people will not be excellent unless they are forced to be excellent by external circumstances or by the government forcing them into better behavior or better thinking, or, something has to force people to be better because otherwise they're horrible and stupid.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. And this anxiety about potential decadence understood, and I should say in a, in a, Huge variety of different ways is pretty common across a wide array of right wing views and most right wing intellectuals will proffer theories of decadence and decline in one way or another. And they'll also, of course, offer solutions.And this can be true even of what we might call more moderate [00:24:00] conservatives, people like say Edmund Burke, right? Many people associate with the defense of things like again, moderate conservatism Capitalism this idea that we can engage in incremental change but we shouldn't kind of rock the boat too much.Much of which is true, but I think if you look deeper in his book there's a lot of anxieties about barbers, for example, getting too much power in political society because what they do is just mundane and banal and a barber doesn't need political power. And associated with that is the idea that What one needs in order to elevate a society and to attach people to systems of authority is to ascribe what he calls sublime qualities onto one's rulers and to the projects that those rulers engage in.And what's very interesting about Burke is he never says that the rulers actually need to possess these sublime qualities and of themselves is, of course, what? Constitutes the sublime is in the eye of the beholder. What's just important is that you project those kinds of ideals onto them. And that's something that somebody like Donald Trump would understand extremely well, right?In his book, the art of the deal Trump says that he engages in what he calls truthful hyperbole which is a bit of a contradiction in terms, but very Trumpy in that way. And he says, look most people don't really think very big. But they. Do really admire and want to follow people who do think big.They want to believe that they are part of something that is the biggest and the most exciting and the most extravagant And of course trump has applied exactly the same kind of attitude towards his politics Always presenting whatever he's doing as some kind of sublime renewal of the country always associating himself with these kind of sublime qualities is the only person who can fix the country and of course serving as the The night of revenge for those who followed him on.Again, there's a longstanding history of that in all permutations of right wing thought, and every conservative is going to associate this need for sublime figures and authority figures in particular and sublime projects with antidotes [00:26:00] for the decadence that they see creeping in society as the masses and their vulgarity gain too much power.Redefining "elite" is core to the reactionary projectSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And related to that though. And it's ironic because. As much as, as the philosophy, as the ideas of philosophy, the rhetoric are anti fundamentally anti democratic and authoritarian. They also are often treated and labeled as populist in a lot of the mainstream press because in fact, they do use.And borrow, steal, whatever you want to say, they do in fact borrow a lot of of rhetoric and tropes from social democratic communistic traditions, critiques, and that was something that that Sam Francis did. I think he was the one that kind of. really injected a lot of that into the mainstream Republican discourse.Yeah, but, but there were other figures as well. I, Joe McCarthy obviously is probably the most prominent early exemplar of that. But let's, yeah, let's, what's, what's the I guess, yeah, let's maybe talk about first the, what you see as some of the most. Prominent examples of that in the history of this idea of these borrowings.And then maybe discuss, what why people in the contemporary press are so unable to understand that this is not populism.McMANUS: Sure. Well, I mean, anxieties about populism in democracy go all the way back to ancient Greece, right? Many of the ancient Greek philosophers were deeply concerned with the demagoguery they associated with loose figures like Alcibiades, right? Who would say whatever they need to, to rile the people up to get what it is they want.And of course the term populism comes from the Latin popularis which, was Express the kind of concerns in the Roman Republic about those who sided with the plebeians against the partitions. And a lot of this eventually contributed to the various civil wars that rocked the Republic in its late period.But in the contemporary era, right, people like Jan Mueller in his book, What is Populism says that populism shouldn't be [00:28:00] understood as being necessarily a left wing or a right wing phenomena. It's more kind of rhetorical You And strategic style of politics where you set a pure and unadulterated people against a decadent and undeserving elite who have been in charge for far too long and usually present yourself as the figure that can Remove this decadence and replace the elite and set the country or set the Organ, you know the company or whatever it happens to be back on the right course And there are left wing populists in the world.There's no doubt about it. Think about people like Alamo, in mexico, right? Some people have even tried to make the case that somebody like bernie sanders falls into this paradigm Although i'd reject that since sanders has always insisted that this movement is very much focused on the we rather than the I But, in terms of the right it's important to note that, the political right worldwide initially emerged in part as a movement that was hostile to democracy and any kind of attempt to appeal to the people.Because there was concerns that appealing to the people for support would cede a degree of political authority and political legitimacy to democratic projects, but starting around the 19th century. The most savvy conservative politicians and most savvy reactionary politicians realized that there was really no going back to the ancien regimes of Europe where Lords and Kings could more or less just do whatever they want.And the people just had to deal with it, right? The people have become a permanent constituent feature of modern political regimes as they, they started to look very cleverly in many cases for ways to mobilize mass support for conservative projects. And they were very successful at it. As we. See today, right now, one of the things that characterizes right wing populism ever and against left wing populism is left wing populism will typically present itself as agitating on behalf of people who have always and everywhere been benign political authority, social status, wealth, [00:30:00] Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.The dispossessed or the marginalized right wing populism usually moves in a much more nostalgic register, typically presenting itself as restoring to the people a degree of status, authority, and greatness that was once theirs and has been taken from them or corroded by the presence of liberal elites The swinish multitude and anyone else who's got a shot at power and status that they didn't really deserve.And Trump was of course, a case in point with that, right? His premier slogan is make America great again. And so what he's really doing is tapping into this right populist sense that people have gotten a leg up who don't deserve it. This is in no small part, the fault of liberal elites allied with the most undeserving people in society.Yeah. This is exactly what Charlie Kirk, for example, argues in his book, Right Wing Revolution. And Trump is going to restore to the people the status and authority over and above the undeserving that was wrongly taken for them. And of course, he is the only vessel that is capable of enacting this kind of restoration.And Populism doesn't necessarily have to become anti democratic although it very frequently does but it's almost invariably anti liberal in the sense that populists resent the checks on state authority and on the leader's authority that, any liberal would think is essential to a well functioning democratic regime.And partly because there is this hostility to liberal checks and balances it's very frequently the case, as Zach Beauchamp puts it in his book On the reactionary tradition that populist movements will eventually swallow the democratic element of their program and just transform into outright authoritarian regimesSHEFFIELD: Hmm. Yeah, and I think another difference between, people who apply that label to themselves on the left and right, is that for the right when they claim to be the elites that they are attacking are not economic. are intellectual elites. Like that's, so in other words, like for them, the, the, [00:32:00] the bet noire is the, the university professor like yourself or the, or the, fashion stylist in New York or the the, the feminist Instagram.model. But those are the real elite in society in, in, in this rhetoric.McMANUS: Yeah, and they're very transparent about that, right? Just to give an example, in Ron DeSantis new book or not new book his last book Fire to a Failed Presidential Run he tried to present himself as fighting against the elites. But he makes it very clear in the book that an elite does not necessarily mean somebody who's reached the commanding heights of society.Clarence Thomas Billionaires, they aren't necessarily elites. An elite is somebody who shares in the worldview of liberalism, which means that if you're a school teacher in West Virginia earning 35, 000 a year, but you want to talk about black like matters, from this DeSantis perspective, you're a part of the elite.But the Koch brothers and Supreme Court judges aren't because they side with him, right? Now this is of course absurd by any metric, but again, this relates back to Mueller's point about populism. Populism isn't necessarily about trying to develop a consistent or logically plausible framework for understanding political reality.It's rhetorical and strategic, right? And DeSantis doesn't want to attack and Trump does not want to attack the billionaire class. He wants to attack liberals. So it makes a lot of sense to them to frame elite status in this way, rather than going after what I would think are the real elites in society, which are, plutocrats.The very rich Fortune 500 companies, that kind of thing.Why epistemic nihilism collapses into totalitarianismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly.And related to that is that this is, very much an, an epistemic revolution in a lot of ways to reactionary take complete takeover of the Republican Party such that.These borrowings that we're talking about here, they, they really are basically taking [00:34:00] from a tradition, which is very incoherent, but the only real thing that it has is that you, the individual person are always correct in that they, the unnamed, they, the, the people who control institutions or whatever, they are lying to you, they are controlling you.And so as such. It's a as the graph we're showing on the screen shows that, these are our beliefs as you move further and further away from any sort of institutional trust that they are features of Marxism. They are features of liberalism, religious democracy, conservatism, libertarianism and then basically it kind of flips around to the other side there that once you do not trust any other institutions, then it.Only the individual grade leader can come in and save you and save the society, which of course ends up in reaction aism and fascism and, and Marxist totalitarianism.McMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. I think there's a lot to be said about that. Right. So, Let's just talk a little bit about right wing populism as an example. So John Gans points out in his really good book, again when the clock broke that there's a kind of oddity in some of the aesthetic tropes that you can find in Trumpism, at least a surface oddity where a lot of times Trump's followers will like to.Characterize him as something like a gangster or a tough guy. You go to a Trump rally, you'll see him, on Scarface t shirts or Godfather t shirts, et cetera, et cetera. And Gantz points out that a lot of commentators have been bewildered by that. Cause they'll say, well, aren't you the party of law and order?Aren't you supposed to believe in things like Checks and balances on authority and, that includes, the authority of criminals, but of course, the clarity of politicians and yes, points out that that's a pretty silly way of understanding right wing populism. The appeal of people like Vito Corleone Or Scarface, right?It's precisely that they represent a different kind of authority to the one that, say, liberals would reverence. Procedural and institutional authority. It represents this very masculine kind of [00:36:00] authority figure. Who's not bound or checked by any kind of restrictions. But Shows a degree of loyalty to those who have followed him.Doesn't really show a great deal of loyalty to everyone else. And is willing to do whatever it takes to advance those who follow him, the in group over and against the out group who are conceived as enemies. And this of course has an enormous amount of appeal to people. The MAGA and the political spectrum.And it always has and there's deep rooted reasons for that. But there are antecedents and the political right as well. If you look at say the fascist movements of the early 20th century, and we can debate whether Trump is a fascist or not. One of the things that was consistently criticized by fascist intellectuals was the kind of slow.ponderous, dull, decadent and nebbish quality, the nebbish quality that they associated with the talk shop of liberal parliamentarianism. And they said a leader will cut through all that and just get what done, what needs to be done while eliminating everyone that stands in his way and of course, reward those who's loyally followed him.And it's important to understand that there's always been something appealing Particularly to right wingers about this idea, although it's not exclusive to the right. And that's why it's unsurprising that somebody like Trump would be associated with gangsters today. And sometimes proudly associated with gangsters, even by his own followers.Because they embody exactly that kind of unconstrained, masculine ideal.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, And, and, and it's also not just about pa affecting the power of the, the persecuted the heron folk. But it's also that. That the, that when you move from when you, when your epistemology is entirely individualist oriented, eventually, it comes to that. Well, my authority figure is the source of reason and truth and that what he says is not is everything it is, the, the the, the idea of the, the, the great chain of being [00:38:00] divine command theory, that all of these, Things are all interrelated that, that nihilism collapses into totalitarianism.McMANUS: Yeah, without a doubt. And sometimes they can be very expressive about this. As I was saying before we went on air, if you want, just read Charlie Kirk's new book, Right Wing Revolution. And I don't remember coming into Reading anything by Charlie Kirk if you're looking for deep insight into most subject matters, but if you want to understand how MAGA operates it's not a bad source, but in the most telling chapter of that book he says, look and he's speaking to his conservative readers, you might be beset by uncertainties at any given point but you must militantly, and this is his term, police those uncertainties away and chase an absolute conviction that you are right wherever possible.And if you're not sure what that absolute conviction be, just look at what the left understood very broadly says, and you can know for sure that they are wrong and he says, what we need to do is chase a right, wrong, good or evil Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader kind of approach to every issue possible.And he does, it says. We should do that precisely because it's easier to market such a worldview than one that is defined by the nuanced kinds of epistemologies that you're talking about. And of course, this is very coincident with what somebody like Trump wants. Trump is the kind of guy who would sit there and very clearly say, happily tell you who do you believe me or your lying eyes and try to convince you that your lying eyes aren't to be trusted.But he is right. And there are a lot of different reasons why these kinds of epistemic outlooks can be appealing to people. One of them, I think, going back to people like Eric Fromm or Adorno is just that it's not, a lot of people aren't happy about being uncertain in the world, right?Uncertainty can lead to confusion, it can lead to anxiety, and sometimes it's nice to chase certainty. But I think it's a very dangerous temptation to give into those impulses because the world is invariably far more complicated than we'll ever be able to understand and trying to reductively simplify it.And I think that that's [00:40:00] one of the reasons why Trumpism is as childish and immature as it isSHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is and, and, and related to that is that the the, the Trump, since as the Republican party has become, almost entirely reactionary and certainly in the powerMcMANUS: Trumpified,SHEFFIELD: a hundred percent. Yeah. That's right?Yeah.Anti-intellectualism and right-wing philosophySHEFFIELD: As this has, has happened, there has been just this overwhelming brain drain among Republican operatives, among Republican, I mean, they don't even Like they don't even try to have policy platforms anymore.Like in, in 2020 famously, they had no platform at all. And then in 2024, they just kind of put a couple of wishlist items on a, on a, on a roughly, what was it like a five, eight, five. Page paper or something like that. It was very, very, very small, much, much smaller than, and then, and you see that with when Trump was in office, that he had problems getting people to work for him who had any sort of qualifications.And, and even Republicans didn't want to work for him because they thought that he was, just stupid and, and they couldn't ever achieve anything meaningful to them. And I can say this myself that, I was friends at that time with somebody who, because, you know, as, as. I think I don't know if you would know, I'm trying to remember if I, if I told you or not, but like, I used to be a right wing activist myself.So, yeah, so, so, when Trump first came into office, I was friends with somebody who was one of his top speech writers and he offered me a job in the Trump White House. And I thought about it for a second only because I thought, well, there's going to be a lot of really stupid people in there.So maybe there should be at least, one or two adults in the room. But in the end I couldn't, I couldn't justify it to myself morally because I thought, well, to whatever extent I would have any. Influence, I would also be counting and seeing all kinds of horrible [00:42:00] ideas and whatnot and policies And so therefore I I couldn't do it and but that's it is a It's a conundrum that you're that you're seeing not just in the in the policy making realm but also in the in the media realm as well that the the very very well financed and Sort of remnant Yeah liberal reactionism, if you will, that, that prevailed before Trump, the neoconservative hierarchy, they still exist, but they have no influence on the party.And it's almost, I don't know. It's like you read these people a lot. Like, do they. They know they don't have influence, but do you think that they think that they're ever getting it back?McMANUS: It's a good question. So I think in order to start answering your question, we have to understand what the relationship between intellectuals and the writers, right? So many people have commented on how the political right has this kind of anti intellectualist quality to it going all the way back to people like Edmund Burke, right? But, there's deep rooted theoretical and practical reasons why the right would have this wariness and even hostility to intellectuals, which stamps movement like MAGA.I think two of the clearest figures that make express where this anti intellectual impulse comes from are Joseph de Maistre and Yoram Hazony. Right. So for those of your listeners who don't know Joseph de Maistre is usually considered to be the godfather of the reactionary tradition, a fierce critic of the French revolution and a fierce critic of enlightenment reason.And he's very express about why he's a critic of enlightenment reason. Because he says, look enlightenment reason or what is ignorantly called philosophy is fundamentally, and this is his term, a destructive force, right? When people are. Told to use their own reason to assess what society is doing to ask themselves what kind of political authorities that they want.Then what we wind up with is an endless series of debates, discussions, and deliberations about who should be in charge and why that will go nowhere and that are toxic [00:44:00] to the establishment of any kind of lasting authority. And so he says very bluntly that we need to treat existent authorities like dogmas, right?Adopt an almost religious attitude of fidelity towards them not question the foundations of our political order all that substantially. And he pointed out in other works, like the St. Petersburg Dialogues, if that doesn't work, well, the hangman or the executioner will, should always be available to kind of overawe anybody who might be asking too many questions about the order.Now flash forward to the present day. You have Intellectuals like Yoram Hozoni, who make very similar points, albeit less dramatically, let's call it that because Hozoni says, look one of the things that characterizes liberalism and the left is this endless propensity to want to engage in critical reasoning and Hozoni says there's always, there always should be a place for critical reasoning, but critical reasoning can be very destructive, right, because it leads people to ask Endless questions, one after another, about why we should have this authority, what were the actual facts of our history other reasons to be skeptical of the long standing traditions that we have.And he says, after a certain point, asking these questions, one after another, after another is either a waste of time or positively dangerous. Which is why, at a certain point, you just have to stop and take things on faith. Which again, has this pronouncedly anti intellectualist attitude. And, you see this expressed policy wise in a lot of the hostility that the right shows towards things like, say, critical race theory or critical theory more generally, right?Because they don't want people asking this endless series of questions about their society, its history the role of slavery in American life and its enduring impact because that leads to uncomfortable questions about whether existing authority structures and hierarchies should exist. have the kind of legitimacy that the right wants to ascribe to them.Now, I want to be very clear, there are enormously interesting and profound right wing intellectuals out there. Going from Edmund Burke to people like Casoni or Patrick Deneen and of course, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, the rest of the canon, right? But the right, by and large, has been a lot more [00:46:00] wary of the role intellectuals should play in society than liberals or the left, who tend to welcome or even encourage theSHEFFIELD: Yeah.McMANUS: of people's critical faculties, since many people in the liberal tradition or on the left really like this idea that we should have an endless debate about things like first principles, authority structures, hierarchies.Think about somebody like John Stuart Mill, for example, the emblematic left wing liberal, right? Who said, we should encourage free speech in part because we can never be sure whether our own ideas are the right one. And even if we are pretty sure that our ideas are the right ones, there's always something to learn from combating the other side.Society should be an endless and critical debate about just these kinds of things. That's a much more liberal attitude. And of course, it's much more conducive to somebody like my taste, somebody like me and my taste.The paradoxes of left- and right-wing intellectualismSHEFFIELD: Mm hmm. Yeah, and it's also that, that core difference, though, that you just talked about, it is kind of a flaw, I think, in a lot of left wing attempts to scrutinize right wing politics in that they project. That love of intellectual debate and such that and they don't understand that, like, and I see this on on some podcasts and articles or whatever, where they will go and analyze these.People like Patrick, the Dean or whoever, and impute all kinds of influence to them when in fact they don't actually have almost any influence on Donald Trump or the people who work for him.They'reMcMANUS: Donald Trump is not flipping through why liberalism failed late at night and being like, yeah,SHEFFIELD: This guy has a point. No, they're, they're not. And like, but to the extent that they have any influence, it is. The reverse of how things work on the left with regard to intellectuals that for the right you have until influence if you rationalize the ideas of the leader, whereas it works the other way around on the left that, what, what the leaders, at least.Supposed to be doing on the left is that they are, sort of effectuating the ideas of, of, of the people who created the [00:48:00] ideas. Whereas on the right, the ideas are ex post facto, they are rationalizations for the desires of theMcMANUS: yeah. And sometimes progressive intellectuals can be quite vain for this reason, right? Just to pick on my own side a little bit. I mean, I'm a very left wing guy. John Maynard Keynes famously once said that a lot of politicians that scribble insights late at night are the slaves to some distant and long dead economist or philosopher or whatever it happens to be.And, if you want to go more radical still think about something like of organic intellectuals who gradually overcome the hegemony of capitalism on replace it with a more emancipatory culture. Now again, these arguments are more in my taste because I do think that intellectuals have a role to play in society, but it can be very substantially overstated.But there's no doubt that the left is And liberals are considerably more receptive to intellectuals playing a pronounced role in society than the right is. Although I want to stress again the right certainly post 18th century has recognized the need to have an intellectual cadre of its own to combat the seemingly ever growing, at least in its eyes cabal of left wing intellectuals that are kind of nebulously probing holes in authority structures and hierarchies within society and need to be confronted on that terrain if necessary.I mean, even look at somebody sorry, just like, Thomas Sowell who's emblematic in that respect, right? I wrote a big review of Thomas Sowell for Jacobin Magazine, some people might be interested in. But one of Thomas's biggest books is a book called Intellectuals in Society which is a book about why intellectuals should play no role in society.Now, of course, He's almost invariably singles out liberal and left intellectuals for the destructive role that they play and chastises them for engaging an interdisciplinary sweep where not that's not warranted before he goes on to talk about everything from the economics to history, to military strategy, to politics, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.But, this kind of. I'll be paradoxical stance on the part of a right wing intellectual simultaneously chastising the [00:50:00] influence of intellectuals in society while recognising that he needs to exist precisely to combat left and liberal intellectuals is very characteristic of the right. Yeah,SHEFFIELD: And there's also a paradox, even as. Let's say philosophically that the left is more open to the ideas of, or to intellectualism. They are less willing to actually support financially things like think tanks. So like, for instance, if you look at on the right, there's just this multiplicity of, of advocacy organizations that they may not be necessarily coming out with policy papers, but at least they're making, the vague noises about policy.And there, and there are, Probably in D. C. alone, probably like at least a hundred of these organizations with a cumulative budget of probably, something like 500 million a year whereas on the left, there's almost nothing in comparison to that, because like, because like to a large degree, I think that, especially this is more true ofMcMANUS: if I could just give you one quick anecdote that makes them. That kind of makes this point.SHEFFIELD: Mm hmm.McMANUS: so, back in the day, I used to write some articles for the intercollegiate Institute, which is a conservative organization. Mostly about Edmund Burke and post modern conservatism. And I just want to say they were very nice to me, right.Despite me making my own orientation clear. One of the reasons I did this was I just wanted to see, like, can I actually present conservative ideas to a conservative audience in a way that they would seem palatable? But you know, I got paid about 400 an article writing for them, which is, Really very good.And considering how poor I was at the time was helpful. I'll just be candid about that. I've written, 50 pieces for Jacobin magazine soon. I probably made about as much for all 50 pieces as I did writing one thing for Intercollegiate Institute, right? So just to give you a sense of the funding dynamics there, right?And again, that's not a knock on Jackman. They've been very happy to support my work. It's just, there's, there's no money for advancing those kinds of policies. [00:52:00]SHEFFIELD: Yeah,McMANUS: to the right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's, it is paradoxical because I do think that the, a lot of progressives. They don't understand what the purpose of universities is that it is not to be a factory or prom promulgator of progressive ideas. They don't understand that. That's not what universities intend to be.And so as such, you should not. Outsource your political popularizing or theorizing to them because they're not going to do it and the people at the top in most universities, in fact, are conservative and because they hobnob with billionaires and oligarchs to grow their endowments and that's, that's how they operate.Like these are conservative institutions inherently.McMANUS: Yeah, I always think it's funny whenever sometimes I like reading conservative media because in conservative media, People like me and my friends are made out to be basically in charge of the entire world, right? We're liberal college professors and apparently we're brainwashing generations of students and to becoming, little postmodern neo Marxist to use the Jordan Peterson term.And when I get back to the real world, I'm like, God, I can't even get people to read the Federalist Papers from beginning to end, despite my sitting there being like, please, please, please, this is your prostitution. We need to read Madison to understand it and your grade is dependent upon it.So I'm, I'm begging you. So, sometimes it's quite flattering to imagine myself in this conservative vein being like, Oh yeah, I'm just molding hearts and minds. So, it's, it's kind of funny irony that way.JD Vance's deep connections to reactionary philosophersSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and JD Vance, just to bring him back in here that, he, I think, is. He really is kind of emblematic for much more than almost any other Republican politician of this reactionary sensibility that has become so regnant under Trump. And he has specific. Personal connections to a lot of these reactionary far right thinkers, anti Democrats, monarchists.Can you talk about some of those connections? [00:54:00] Because I mean, gosh, they they need to be known. Like, every person should know this stuff. I feel like because it's so it's so dangerous.McMANUS: Sure. Well, I mean, a lot of people have talked about how. The influences on JD Vance's worldview are very online kind of influences, and there's some truth to that. Listing all of them would take too much time, but just to kind of give a short list, right? He was very influenced by Peter Thiel, who he worked for for a long time, and Thiel is, An eclectic billionaire who likes to think of himself as an intellectual.But one of the kind of through lines to his worldview from the very beginning has been a hostility to democracy. So you can go back and read, I think it's a 2009 essay that Teal wrote called the education of a libertarian where he basically says the prospects for libertarianism in the United States, certainly post Obama are pretty much nil, and he's very transparent that one of the reasons for this is Post, women be gaining the right to vote it's just very unlikely that there's going to be a coalition to support unbridled libertarianism to roll back the New Deal since women, in his opinion, are more likely to support left wing policies.And so, he expresses a Deep hostility to democracy on that basis because he thinks that democracy is just never going to be conducive to libertarianism. And if that's the case in his mind, at least so much the worst for democracy. Now, of course, this is extraordinarily self serving, and some people pointed out, I try to characterize it as ambiguous.I don't think there's much ambiguity about a billionaire thinking that a billionaires should have more power, more influence in society. But there's no doubt that this kind of anti democratic sentiment that's been pervasive throughout all of Pierre Attil's permutations has stamped some of Vance's worldview.Another important person is Curtis Yarvin, our Menchus Nullbug who was also financed, I should say, by Attil, right? It's not clear how, but he's received a lot of money from him. So for those who don't know Really, we're fortunate enough not to know Curtis Yarvin or Mencius Moldbug is the monarchist that you talked about, or the Neomarx monarchist.He started a blog in the late 2000s, essentially arguing that [00:56:00] American society was pervasively left it was dominated by a kind of left cultural hegemony by Associated with liberal elites, they called the cathedral on DH. There was really no way of breaking through this without the formation of a bunch of different dissonant right intellectuals who took the red pill.He was one of the people who coined that phrase saw through the kind of illusions that were promulgated by the left wing procedural and recognize that Democracy and socialism and liberalism were really all species of the same kind of bad thing this movement towards what he considers chaos and the only way to offset that would eventually be to transition to something like a neo monarchy now he has a lot of different things and a lot of different flavors of this idea that he's put forward over decades now.But the basic idea is that somebody like once upon a time it was Steve Jobs. Now, somebody like Elon Musk should take control of the country for the most part Reduce the influence of the people because the masses suck in his term to nil and just do what needs to be done in order to bring economic prosperity and authoritarian order to the state chilling idea, right?It's important to note though, that, Yarvin is so reactionary that he says that he's Not even anti French and American Revolution. He's anti English Civil War. He's a Jacobite, right? So that's how far back he wants to get. Another important influence on somebody like Vance would be Patrick Deneen, who we mentioned before.Patrick Deneen is a University of Notre Dame professor, author of a book Why Liberalism Failed. That is actually quite an interesting book and I think correctly diagnoses certain problems with what's called classical or possessive liberalism. But since then he's released a book called Regime Change that calls for exactly what it sounds like, right?Essentially replacing what he considers to be a decadent neoliberal elite with a conservative aristocracy what he calls aristopopulism that he thinks is going to Be more conducive to passing legislation that'll be for the common good, which in practice is going to mean implementing social conservative policies without the kind of nebbish liberal [00:58:00] restrictions that older conservatives would think are so important given the nature of the American Constitution and American culture.Now there are other influences that gone into JD Vance's worldview. But we'll just stop there. Cause I think that three is enough for your audiences to be subjected to today.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and it's, and it's important to note that like he specifically cites these people by nameMcMANUS: Oh yeah, no, this isn't speculation, right?SHEFFIELD: inferring that these are where he got his ideas from. He says this himself.McMANUS: Yeah, I mean, look, Jarvan back in the day, used to try to be a little bit more covert I think part of that was also a marketing ploy on his part, being dark and mysterious and a dark elf, as he once used to call it, right, kind of operating in the shadows but, These people are not shy about expressing their intellectual influences.If you push them even take somebody like Chris Rufo, who had a dialogue with Yarvin not too long ago, right? And once you recognize that these are the people that they are looking to for inspiration it should be concerning. Although like you, I think it's very easy to overstate the influence.These intellectuals have on shaping the worldview of somebody like say Donald Trump or even shaping what somebody like JD Vance would do once he gets into office, if he gets into office. Let's pray to God he doesn't.Why there are atheist and Jewish Christian nationalistsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and speaking of God, there is the, there's an interesting dichotomy between a lot of these reactionary writers in that position of religion vis a vis themselves. So Yorubin has said repeatedly over the years that he is an atheist and does not believe in religion and any of that stuff.And, but then, but then by contrast, nearly all of these sort of as they're, I guess, currently calling themselves national nationalist right or whatever they want to call it, national conservatism. Almost all of them are Catholic with the one exception of I'm concerning who is a Jewish and, but at the same time he says he's, he's a Christian nationalist who is a Jew by his [01:00:00] own admission.So these atheists and catholics are kind of Inheriting control of the intellectual right such as it is from the neoconservatives who tended to be either Jewish or non religious, like not atheist, but like just specifically non religious.And then the shock troops had always been the evangelicals and the evangelicals never have gotten a shot at the intellectual leadership. And I think there's a lot of reasons for that, but I'm curious what your, what your thoughts are and why not?McMANUS: Well, I think part of the reason is that there's a long history of Catholic reactionary thought that many of these figures can draw upon in a way that there isn't quite as deep a reservoir of evangelical reactionary thought. It's definitely there, right? But it's not as sophisticated or as long standing as, what you find in right wing Catholicism, at least.And I want to stress right wing Catholicism, right? I know a lot of left wing Catholics Catholics and Christians out there who would deeply resent, needless to say, being associated with somebody like Dineen or Adrian Vermeule. But look, in terms of the role that religion is playing on the contemporary right, it's extremely variated, right?Some of these people are, without a doubt, true believers. Think about somebody again, like Patrick Dineen or Adrian Villemula, right? Who's flirted with advocating for integralism, basically the idea that the United States and the American government should be subordinated to, or at least put on a position of equal standing with the Catholic Church which is the arbiter of truth and goodness in the world per se.Probably not Pope Francis's Catholic Church, but a suitably reactionary Catholic Church and the Miller's opinion. But others are just very overt about the fact that they don't personally believe in God but they nonetheless want to advocate for a kind of social conservative Christian or Catholic morality because they feel that this is a necessary to kind of bind society together and.Eliminate disorderly kind of libertinism on also because they think that a commitment to Christian morality will be good in alleviating the decadence that they see as [01:02:00] sweeping society by committing people to hire a more grand kinds of projects, which include, for instance, producing Enormous numbers of Children.And I suppose the third thing that we can point about that's some of the darkest of strands of writing thought out there. Many also endorse return to these kinds of religious principles because they're worried about the demographic decline or the great replacement of white Americans by non white Americans or non white immigrants.And they think that Christian morality can provide an antidote to that. And many are pretty overt about the fact again, that they don't believe, or again, that they question whether there is a God people like say Richard Spencer one of the founders of the term outright characterized himself as a cultural Christian Douglas Murray in the United Kingdom also characterized himself as a cultural Christian.But I think Yoram Hazony had the kind of best. articulation of this outlook where in a number of essays, he says, look, if you're a conservative that doesn't believe in Christianity again, in great Kirk like language, he says you should kind of sideline those concerns and ask yourself whether the country would be better off committing to Christian principles and returning as he understands at least to the traditions associated with that rather than continuing on the liberal path that it's, that has led it to darkness.That's far. And he says, if you do think that that's what we should do, then you should go to church. We should pray. You should essentially parrot the language of religion, even if you yourself aren't a believer. Now, to me, that's a horrific idea. And, I believe I have my own kind of religious views, but a lot of them are centered around authenticity, right?This idea that you should believe because you are wholeheartedly committed to this, the idea of taking a functionalist approach to religion or saying, I'm going to kind of parrot the language of religious belief because it's useful is deeply repugnant to my left liberal outlook. I draw upon people like Charles Taylor here who's a left wing Catholic but you know, it makes a lot of sense if you're a conservative to kind of articulate this kind of vision because you're saying, look, we just need to get as many people on board with this as possible.If you feel [01:04:00] that we need to return to tradition but you sort of don't believe in God, just don't worry too much about the theology of that right now do what needs to be done as it were.SHEFFIELD: Yeah,And Dennis Prager is another example of that, that he, he in fact wrote a column urging non religious conservatives to raise your children as Christian. Because if you don't, then they're going to become liberals. Basically was the was the crux of that column. And it's in it. It's a an interesting admission inadvertent admission on his part, I think, because like, that's that is the kind of the core threat that they feel like that.They're this. Hierarchical authoritarian sensibility cannot survive on its own merits.As the right overtly embraces authoritarianism, the left can reclaim freedomSHEFFIELD: It's so hilarious that, people like Jordan Peterson or whoever are often using the phrase that, that they want a marketplace of ideas, but the reality is that. We, we, their ideas were tried in the marketplace of ideas a hundred years ago and were failed.They're, they were rejected because they do not have philosophic or empirical merit. And so as such, they lost and, and, and people are not interested in subscribing to those ideas because they're unsupportable. But they, they can't see that this is irrational fundamentally.McMANUS: yeah. I mean, to paraphrase my friend Nathan Robinson, who writes for sorry, the editor of current affairs, there's something deeply ironic about some of the loudest and best known people in the world constantly complaining about how their ideas are being silenced and haven't been tried yet. Despite the fact that, they'll go on Joe Rogan and they have podcasts that reach millions of people and many people try them and just don't actually happen to find them all that appealing.Right. Now I want to be clear, right. I don't think that there's anything wrong. From a liberal standpoint with people living a social conservative life, if that's what they so choose to do, right? And I know many people, back at home who find that actually very fulfilling for a wide variety of different reasons.You do you. But you know, I agree with John Stuart Mill that people are very different in terms of [01:06:00] what is good for them, What their personality gels with, what their aspirations are in life and what they were going to find fulfilling. I would not find a socially conservative lifestyle fulfilling in any way, shape or form.And I know because, I was raised Roman Catholic and I tried it for a little while and I found it very boring and spiritually unfulfilling, right? Because I'm just not that kind of personality. And I think our society needs to create space for people to pursue, The vision of the good life that they think is conducive to their well being and to their flourishing within reasonable limits, obviously.Right?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and so long as they don't impinge on other people's ability to do so.McMANUS: You're part of the if your vision of the good life includes being a member of the Klan and lynching people, then no. But, if you want to fast for 40 days and go to Mass five times a week and listen to it only in Latin, then by all means do so, right? Perhaps you find something fulfilling in that, that I'm sorry, perhaps you find something fulfilling in that, that I simply do not or simply have not recognized yet.SHEFFIELD: yeah. And that's what actual freedom looks like. And it's yeah, and there's this, Like, you mentioned Eric from he wrote a whole book called escape from freedom and that, like, that's what a lot of this is, is that the freedom to a reactionary is imposing their opinions on someone else, like, They don't, and Tony Perkins, who is the founder of the Family Research Council, or at least the president, I'm sorry, of the Family Research Council, he had said that if we cannot legislate our opinions in society, we don't have freedom, which is inherently, anti liberal and frankly, anti American.McMANUS: Oh, I completely agree. I mean, Adrian Vimiole is probably the one who's most express about that, where he's Consistently declaimed that his religious liberty is violated. If he's not allowed to pass legislation or people like him aren't allowed to pass legislation, [01:08:00] restricting LGBTQ rights.Now I do think that democratic freedom or social freedom. If you want to call it that is a kind of freedom, right? So to a certain extent, he's not wrong. And I think as liberals, we should acknowledge that. Right. But the question then becomes is what is more important to a society committed to liberty AGM Vimula is right to pass religious legislation that is going to restrict people's basic liberties to love who they want or people's liberty to love who they want, right.Without interfering with anyone else. And I think that's a very, very easy question to answer. Right. Because, Vermouli can very easily live the kind of social conservative lifestyle that he wants within a liberal society, while complaining about how he can't pass legislation to discriminate on the basis of his prejudices.But LGBTQ persons would not be able to live in a Vermoulian society and love the kind of people that they love. And it's not a hard question for me, which is, are those societies more committed to freedom at all?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and, and that's been interesting to see the Democratic Party actually finally starting to make that argument under Kamala Harris as the candidate that, that freedom, this is the first time in decades. That that had been a theme at a democratic political convention. And it's, it's a welcome development in my opinion.McMANUS: It is, right? And look I have my problems with Kamala Harris. I'm a born, I'm a Bernie guy. But I do welcome this transition to a kind of rhetoric of joy and optimism that you've seen in her campaign. I mean, part of this is, I think is that Biden, just because of his age did himself a disservice by constantly focusing on the threat that Trump posed to democracy.Cause it really kind of cast this atmosphere of doom, gloom and decline around the Democratic party that, because Biden was so old was not really a great. Look, let's just call it that but I think that fundamentally Americans, and this is a point that my good friend Alexandre Lefebvre makes in his Liberalism as a Way of Life are committed to a kind of comprehensive liberal worldview.They find sustenance and meaning in being liberal, [01:10:00] and liberalism can be a very joyous philosophy in many ways it's a glass half full kind of outlook in many cases, although it's not naive about human nature. And that's why I think many people, certainly after decades of Trumpism find this rhetoric of joy resonant.Because I think that, people want to look forward to the future and they want to think that their tomorrow is going to be better than today. And when they are constantly confronted by politicians that say everything is bad and everything is trash and everything needs to be changed it can become a bit of a downer and become a bit exhausting after a certain point Probably the most emblematic moment for me, at least with the N.C. campaign is when Barack Obama went up and gave a speech and he talked about Trump and he's like, Trump shtick is getting a bit old, isn't it? And as somebody who's been writing about Trump now for the better part of a decade and has two books out on postmodern conservatism I can say I'm pretty much done talking about it and then move on to something else.Right.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and, and ultimately the, the reorientation toward freedom and, and joy like that is political parties and ideologies do best when they, when their message aligns with their core. Emotional and psychological argument so that, what it boils down to is that hope is progressive and despair and nihilism is reactionary and Biden kind of disrupted that by not by departing.McMANUS: Oh, without a doubt. Right. The reason, the moment I thought, I mean, I've done have a crystal ball, but I figured that Biden was going to win in 2020 was When Trump was attacking him, I think it was in the first debate over Hunter Biden and Biden just sat there and he's like, my son struggles a lot, he's all right.And I'm proud of him for doing that. I thought to myself, the country right now, not even America, but the world is going through a horrible pandemic. Many of us are very anxious about what the future I was living in Canada at that point and my grandmother who was 86 was like, I've never seen anything like this before.Right. And there was something that was ordinary and [01:12:00] comforting about this kind of outlook because he just seemed like a normal guy who was proud of his son, a little bit worried that was going around. And he hit a note that really worked with the message that the democratic party needed to hit at that point which is that things are bad right now.But they're going to be okay and we're going to get through this, right? And that was a fine message in 2020 but it's 2024 now and comfort, comfort coupled with doom and gloom and apocalyptic anxieties about democracy. Even though I share a lot of those anxieties isn't what we should be going for.People, I think, want something to look forward to. They want to believe in politics again. And I don't know if the Harris campaign is going to be successful in pulling that off, right? There's still two months before we get the election but they seem to be doing a pretty good job. So far, right.And again, though I have deep reservations about the Harris candidacy that stem from my own leftism certainly I prefer to be in office to Donald Trump. So,SHEFFIELD: Yeah,McMANUS: I want to see happen.The rise of the Nietzchean rightSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and just wrapping it up here like this, this idea of hope and despair and sort of the, the mutual collaboration between atheist reactionaries and, and Christian authoritarians. Lot of this it goes, it derives from, or at least is, is, sensible to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, and who was, of course, famously not religious himself.But, a lot of people, I, I, who don't, who haven't actually readMcMANUS: Don't, don't tell that shockingly to the expansive number of right wing Christians, so called who seem to find a great deal of value. I wrote an article about this for the Institute for Christian Socialism, but it's truly baffling to me that people like Jordan Peterson or Charlie Kirk or Jonah Goldberg will all cite Nietzsche extraordinarily positively while calling themselves Christian thinkers or at least beholden to a kind of Christian ethic, seemingly unaware of the fact that Nietzsche despised Christianity, characterized himself as the Antichrist.Partly ironically, partly sincerely and also famously once said that it was socialism and liberalism and democracy that they're [01:14:00] the clearest descendants of the Christian worldview albeit secularized in the contemporary era. Anyway, sorry, just go on, just a bone that I always have to pick.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, Well, and it's like the, but the fundamental point for Nietzsche as a non religious reactionary was that religion was the only thing. That what, or at least religious hierarchy was the only thing that was standing between, the emaciated denuded slop of liberal democracy and the great imagined past, which he believed that humanity had departed from and that that ultimately is why I think that, so many non religious reactionaries are, have decided, well, I think these doctrines are nonsense, but I'm going to get behind these guys because at least It, to paraphrase the dude, at least it's an ideology.McMANUS: Yeah, that's funny. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, look the rise of what I and others have called the Nietzschean right Certainly intellectually is a very intriguing development in American circles although as one wit put it a lot of American conservatives seem to have traded not reading Locke, but talking a lot about Locke for not reading Nietzsche and talking a lot about Nietzsche.I think that the American Nietzschean right right now Fundamentally doesn't really take on board a lot of Nietzsche's distinctive ideas, actually. And this relates back to my earlier point about people like Peterson or about people like Kirk or even for that matter, people like Douglas Murray, right?Who will draw on certain Nietzschean tropes about resentment without taking a lot of the more interesting material on board. But fundamentally, what they are intrigued by is this Nietzschean insistence that people are fundamentally different and they are different in a way that makes them unequal.Right? Some people are more worthwhile and more valuable than others on. That's very conducive to a wide array of night right wing thinkers who will want to Divide the world up according to IQ or divide the world [01:16:00] up according to a racial hierarchy or divide the world between men and women with men put on top or all of the above, right?Many of the people who are sympathetic to the one are sympathetic to the other two as well, right? And we can go on and on and on. And deeply funny because rather like how Nietzsche would have been appalled at how fascists banalized his ideas in this kind of populist way. There's no doubt that he would have found it both very funny and deeply frustrating that his work was so profoundly banalized by a lot of what the Nietzschean right in America right now is doing.But perhaps that's the inevitable legacy or the inevitable endpoint of any intellectual who comes up with a sufficiently interesting set of ideas. Eventually they're going to wind up with proponents and disciples who are just. caricatures of what those ideas once stood for. And I think that's what you see right now.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is important to note also, to be fair, that there are, quite a few people who do read their Nietzsche as being in favor of socialism and progressive values in some sense or another, and that they will, and there's an argument to be made, and in fact has been made about that the posthumous writings of his were edited by his sister who was basically a Nazi and she distorted their meaning.So I, I do want to make sure to point that out.McMANUS: Oh yeah, I just want to be clear about this because there's actually people, much like people aren't really aware of some of the inter scene intellectual debates that go on in the American right. There's not a lot of transparency on some of the Quite nebbish and hyper intellectualist debates that go on on the American left.But right now the American left, indeed the worldwide left, is going through a kind of process of denichification. So, if you're like me and, you're a millennial you probably went to college and you would read people like Michel Foucault or Gilles Deleuze for example who were kind of left wing Nietzscheans, right?I mean, Foucault was very overt about that, right? He said in the interview, I am a Nietzschean. And you might've just assumed that Nietzsche is [01:18:00] fundamentally a left wing thinker because he's anti bourgeois. He's got a very punk mentality. And he really advocates for these kind of grand sweeping transformative projects, right?That, you might associate with a certain kind of leftism. But recently there's been a lot of intellectual work done by people like like Daniel Tuts myself, I should add Domenico Lacerto, Malcolm Bull Ron Beaner Nancy Love we've all written books talking about how, well, yes, Nietzsche, was interested in being anti bourgeois.Yes, he was also interested in these big transformative projects but he was also very insistent that an aristocratic society, indeed a radically aristocratic society was the only kind of setting where these kinds of changes could take place. And he was very, very prone to saying things like, Hey, slavery would be a good idea, right?All these kinds of ideas that would be fundamentally hostile to the left. So it's a very interesting conversation that's going on in the left, on the left in American society right now as many people who once upon a time were weird and left wing flavors of Nietzscheanism become increasingly hostile to the guy.And I don't know where that's going to go, but it's certainly, it's not something I would have predicted back in the 2000s.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Yeah, no, it is interesting to see and and I do think that sort of debate also does is why you have seen some people aside from the fact that they can get massively rich from flattering Trumpist fascism, like. Matt Taibbi or some of these other people that they did have kind of this more that they were, they were, they were on the left if they were ever at all, but let's say they were, if they were on the left, it was only because of the anti bourgeois sensibility.And then eventually, once they realized, oh, Donald Trump and his supporters hate America also. And so, hey, we're going to go over there.McMANUS: Yeah, and actually, this is a good place to wrap up because this is why I wrote a book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism that's coming out soon, right, to kind of stress to my fellow leftists and my fellow liberals that there's a deep elective affinity between the two traditions that makes them quite different from what you find on the [01:20:00] right.Now, I just want to be clear, right, Horseshoe Theory, as it's sometimes called I think is a very bad way of looking at the world Partly for the reasons I just mentioned, right? But there is no doubt a certain kind of intellectual, or just a certain kind of personality, that is fundamentally anti liberal and anti bourgeois, and can shift, usually from left to right, although not always, and the one constant that remains in their outlook is this kind of anti liberal mentality, right?Think about somebody like Sourabh Amari, who I had a debate with, in December 2023, right? Similar kind of attitude towards certain things, although I'm very liberal, and he's certainly not. But, you see that in his transition, right?He went from being a kind of hardened leftist interested in Trotsky and Foucault and all these things to a very reactionary Roman Catholic and now he seems to have put the two together, and, he'll write a book about, why we should combine Marx with Age of Immunity and Reactionary Catholicism, and see what we can get, right?And the constant through line, of course, is the kind of anti liberal mentality. So, definitely not possible impossible and there's definitely personalities that are like that. But just to your listeners, Portrait Theory is not a good way of looking at the world. And I think that a lot of centrist commentators rely on this idea that if you go too far left, you eventually end up right, or too far right, you eventually end up left in lieu of serious analysis of what makes these different ideologies discreet.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, I agree. It's, it's, it's less about the ideologies and more about the psychologies is, is how I would put it. But yeah. All right. So, well, you, you have plugged. so, when is your book? Here's this other book, that you were talking about here. When's that coming? Yeah.McMANUS: The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, is coming out late November, right? If people want to check it out, they can pre order it on Amazon or on the Rutledge website and I imagine, for a lot of your listeners there might be a little bit of wariness about the socialist label but one of the things that I point out is that there are many, Constructive and liberal forms of socialism out there, just like there are many forms of emancipatory and egalitarian liberalism out there, and I think it's very worthwhile to put the two traditions into dialogue with one [01:22:00] another, since both are ultimately enlightenment doctrines that are committed to humanism, reason, and liberty, equality, and solidarity for all, and there's a lot to be gained by Dialogue with one another.And frankly, what could be more liberal than that?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and then the other book, which has kind of sort of been the subtext of the discussion of this episode today that you've got, which is already available and has been for a little bit. It's called the political right and equality. turning back the tide of egalitarian modernity. And then on social media, what's your where are you posting that?for people who want to keep touch with you there?McMANUS: Sure. People can add me at Matt Paul prof on Twitter. I'm never going to call it X. And the more Elon Musk's insist that I call it X, the more it's going to be Twitter. I can be spiteful that way. Or people can email me at Matt McMahon is 300 at gmail. com. And I do my best to get in touch with people by email.If they reach out to me.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Sounds good. And I will commend people to do that. So, thanks for joining me today and we'll stay in touch. I look forward to it.McMANUS: Thanks, man. Good conversation.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate everybody joining us for the discussion, and you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show. You can get the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And my special thanks to everybody who is a paid subscribing member, you get full unlimited access to the archives of the program. And I also encourage everybody to go to Flux.community where you can get access to all the other programs and articles that we produce at Flux.I appreciate everybody who is supporting us in that way. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryIt’s tempting to look back on the technological progress we’ve seen in the past few years and marvel at how much things have changed, and they certainly have. But if you zoom out on the historical scale, it’s very arguable that the trends of today were set in motion by processes and ideas of the late 19th century.Brad DeLong, my guest on today’s episode argues just that in his book “Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century,” making the case that the world of today began through industrial, governmental, and scientific breakthroughs that began in 1870 but began stalling in the 2010s.Why did progress slow down drastically and how can we get back toward making things better at a faster pace? Some of it appears to be that ideological conservatism in the U.S. seems to have utterly lost its ability to incorporate new information, which has in turn left Republican administrations unable to form any kind of real and coherent policies, let alone good ones.But there are other reasons things have stalled, and we get into them in the discussion. I hope you’ll enjoy.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Related Content* Neoliberal economics doesn’t work anymore, will a ‘designer economy’ replace it?* Why electric vehicles are here to stay, no matter what problems some manufacturers may have* TESCREAL, the new tech pseudo-religion that’s devouring Republican politics* How hedge funds are destroying local journalism* Between the memes: JD Vance and the reactionary mindAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction04:43 — Modernity and the beginning of the end of scarcity07:33 — Bifurcations of liberalism14:17 — Conservatism regressed rather than keeping pace with technological innovation20:10 — Ronald Reagan versus Donald Trump26:53 — Republicans are experiencing significant “brain drain”36:56 — Technological change and societal uncertainty42:21 — Differences between wealthy Americans and those elsewhere49:09 — Neoliberalism and its impact01:01:20 — The blogosphere and media integrationAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So, let's maybe start with—could you give us a brief overview of your book here and what it's about. It's a very grand scope.BRAD DELONG: It's a very grand book, right? It starts with the bet that the best way to [00:02:00] think about world history is that 1870 is the hinge, on which at which point in time nearly everything changes. That is, before 1870. Poverty and patriarchy. Yeah, the fact that technological progress was slow.Human fecundity is great. And in a pre-industrial world, given infant and child mortality, there's kind of one chance in three that if a woman survives until middle age, she will not have a surviving son. And in a patriarchal world that puts you in a very bad position. So that before 1870, whenever any extra resources showed up.People pretty much decided to use them about let's try to have another kid, to reduce those one in three chances of not having a son to carry on the lineage and help us at our old age to diminish those chances. And what that meant was that there was no possibility of [00:03:00] humanity ever being born.baking a large enough economic pie for everyone to have enough. So if you wanted to have enough well you could try to become extraordinarily productive, but that would only make you a soft target for the people pursuing the other strategy, which would be to join a gang. To become one of the thugs with spears or later gunpowder weapons, or ideally one of the bosses of the thugs with spears, or maybe one of their tame accountants, propagandists, and bureaucrats and so become part of the gang that demanded the peasants and craftsmen give them one third of everything they produce just because that world of societies of domination is very much what human history was before 1870.And in 1870, things change, we get modern economic growth. All of a sudden, technology is not advancing slowly, but instead, humanity's technological prowess is doubling every generation, which means that, [00:04:00] As humans are population can't keep up and after a while society gets rich enough and complex enough that people say, hey, wait a minute, infant mortality has fallen a lot.The average woman really does not need to try to have seven, bring seven pregnancies to live birth over the course of her lifetime. We go through the demographic transition. Now we're approaching zero population growth. Admittedly, with eight and a half billion people, rather than the 1. 3 billion people we had in 1870, but we can see the light at the end of that tunnel.And with population growth slowing while technological progress continues, the resource scarcity relative to technology that kept humanity so poor for so long, ebbs away.Modernity and the beginning of the end of scarcityDELONG: And we look forward for the first time to a world where it will be possible to bake a sufficiently large economic pie So that everyone can have enough that leaves us the problems of slicing the pie Of distributing it fairly or quote [00:05:00] fairly unquote And of properly tasting it of utilizing it Our wealth immense by the standards of any other previous human society of utilizing our wealth so that people feel safe and secure and are healthy and happy, and to build institutions economic, cultural, sociological, political, and so forth to actually manage.Our technology, our economy, and then our sociology and our polity so we can do, the production, distribution and utilization tasks and there were pretty much flummoxed, because every generation technologies advanced and advanced unequally. So you need an entirely different set of tools. of institutions to keep things in balance, and that struggle, our attempt to find good enough institutions to keep the system from crashing completely along with occasional complete crashes, that's the way we should look at the world from 1870 to [00:06:00] Well, to today, and you over that time in the most technologically advanced parts of the world, we have gone from, commercial mercantile to call it pseudo classical semi liberal to applied science to mass production to new deal, social democratic to neoliberal to global value chain.And now we're heading into the attention, info, biotech society and economy, whatever that is. And we've had quite a rough ride. We're here now with no great sense of what would be good institutions for the next 25 years with immense societal wealth and technologically power, still badly distributed and also unsatisfactorily utilized.And that's where we are.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And then we also have the additional problem that as science and technology advanced, many of the people in the [00:07:00] population did not never had access to them either because of, so I'm talking about not just material goods, but intellectual goods. And, so now, as we're trying to do, do make a society Has never in circumstances that have never existed is not people who say that, well, we need to take advice from, bronze age go for bronze ageDELONG: perverts.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly!DELONG: Yes.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So, well, and, so there,Bifurcations of liberalismSHEFFIELD: but there also was kind of a and, you mentioned neoliberalism that, there was also, there were multiple bifurcations of liberalism throughout its existence. And let's, maybe talk about some of those. I mean, like, obviously this is earlier than in your book starts, but you know, there were some in the beginning, let's say the 19th century with the idea that the the controversial idea that slavery should not exist and that [00:08:00] women should have the right to vote.These were controversies and bifurcations of liberalism.DELONG: I think they still are. I think Peter Thiel once wrote down that it was the greatest political catastrophe for America when women got the ballot And he is the principal patron of our republican vice presidential candidates right now As well as being a big fundraiser for trump at various pointsSHEFFIELD: Yeah.Well, and it's interesting also, though, that there, there, there were multiple bifurcations as this continued and like, I think the, legal professor professoriate is probably the best example of kind of this abandoned liberalism, if you will, these people that they actually think that they're liberal and they say that they're liberal, but in fact, everything that they do is right wing.DELONG: Although [00:09:00] it's not at all clear what right wing is.SHEFFIELD: Oh, that's fair.DELONG: That say, if you start back in the Bad old days of societies of domination.It's very clear. Things are hierarchical and patriarchal. And, you're not supposed to be upwardly mobile and you're not supposed to think of yourself as an individual with rights. Instead, you're per your person whom God has slotted into a particular social role, with obligations and maybe a very few privileges.And maybe not. And you have this society at the time, you're distributing the surplus among itself, using various procedures. More or less brutal, more or less civilized with some sense, sometimes, right, that say, in societies springing from, the Germanic strain, [00:10:00] that there are big men and the big men have rights vis a vis the king or the war leader, the Drayton that they cannot simply be ignored.And from the Greco Roman tradition, the idea that the, at least the aristocrats, of the city state and then the empire, have the right to be protected in the Roman Republic by their tribunes against unlawful exertions of force by people in authority, right? That is, imperium is only to be wielded by those who've been properly elected in the campus martius by the Roman people and then follow prescribed.Channels, i. e. Saint Paul saying I am a roman citizen. You centurions are not simply allowed to quit me Just because you feel like it If I weren't a Roman citizen, I, they could, of course, but yeah, and those two things come together with the transformation from a hierarchical to a commercial society to a [00:11:00] society where you aren't really slotted into where your parents were, but instead you have property of your own and you have to find something to do and some network of counterparties and so on social.Connections in order to produce, consume, exist, live, marry, raise up your children, marry them off and so forth. And these two ancestral traditions, kind of, of Greco Roman liberty of the individual, or at least the aristocrat, against arbitrary whippings and killings, and the German big men in society need to have some say and cannot be arbitrarily executed that those combined with the ideas that you need that what's really key to you are your the rights you have as an ability to maneuver in this growing commercial society, your right to life, liberty and to control of enough of your property that their property is yours [00:12:00] and not theirs in the sense that you can use it to pursue your happiness something that's ascribed to all men.Although not to all people, even in the breach, which is the very much earthspring of liberalism. And then it starts from that nugget which, Roman historian, Brett Devereux points out is comes to the fore as commercial society rises, just as the bureaucratic power of the modern state emerges as something that might oppress you not personally, but institutionally.And so the philosophical doctrines of liberalism become a way of attempting to vindicate yourself as an agent, as an independent, autonomous person in this commercial society with this state growing around you. And then we are off and running as what your rights are, who has rights, who properly is a full citizen, who deserves to have rights, grows and grows over the century, and we attempt to establish, [00:13:00] the liberal societies that are the most successful societies so far humanity has ever seen.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, yeah, well, and basically, this is really kind of a debate, it's an intra-liberal debate in a lot of ways that the United States sort of, was engaged in, but still the, older tradition of authority and hierarchy that never went away. And like that in a lot of ways was diminished, right?DELONG: My great grandmother, when she chained herself to the Missouri State House fence for, votes for women all that happened was that she was then expelled from the veiled debutante profits from the veiled profit debutante society in St. Louis and a bunch of people cut her at parties.And, when her mother invited African American ambassador, Ralph bunch to dinner in the [00:14:00] 1920s at the house. They did get lots of nasty looks from neighbors and maybe eggs thrown at their windows a couple of but a hundred years before the social consequences would have been much, much greater much, much more negative.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah.Conservatism regressed rather than keeping pace with technological innovationSHEFFIELD: And that's what I mean in that, the, these older traditions, like, I think that is kind of the. The real tension that we have is that, society has, created the created all of these fantastic technological innovations. But the political and sort of the political ecology has not been kept up.So in other words, it's still in a lot of ways,DELONG: still in strange ways, marked by the legacy of societies of domination. Yeah. And I was going to say, Their purpose before 1900.SHEFFIELD: Exactly. And, in a lot of ways, the kind of the cold war and the conflicts of socialism, communism, [00:15:00] fascism, they were not resolved on an intellectual level.They were only resolved on militarily level,DELONG: which is why, Frank Fukuyama's belief in 1991, that the other, two big options, Fascism and communism were now off the table, communism because of its defeat in the battle for production and fascism in the ruins of Berlin in 1945, but you know, you look around the world today and it's definitely fascism does not appear to be so dead.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and nowDELONG: was it Brian Butler this morning who was talking about how the old Republican party rested on, what was it? Patriarchy oriented family conservatism, Ayn Rand libertarian economic fantasies, and the anti communist Cold [00:16:00] War internationalism.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.DELONG: And then they.So what's happened over the past 40 years has been they've swapped out the anticommunist internationalism for neoconservative internationalism. They've swapped that out for, I don't know what to call it, some strange kind of ethno place based anti-immigrants of all kinds. Rich and poor, Hispanic and Jewish.Of all kinds. And that complex, an Ayn Rand style libertarian fantasies with its exaltation of the plutocrat and the kleptocrat the patriarchal view that, women should not be allowed to get divorces and the enormous fear of immigrants who bring bad think of one sort or another, that in itself was enough to push the Republican party over from being an.A very uneasy coalition of groups that [00:17:00] really had next to nothing in common into something that has an attitude toward The way the world should be organized that you can only pull it that politely we call neo fascist And it's very hard to think of a different word for it.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think it is it's hard to yeah, it's well and one thing that I thought about though is that kind of You There was also a, displacement within the hierarchy of the Republican party in terms of who was allowed to run things.So, let's say under the Reagan, in the Reagan years and whatnot, like there were still some, Liberal Republicans, quote unquote, out there, like, Connie Morella, for instance, of Maryland, right.DELONG: That Susan Collins is theSHEFFIELD: very last personDELONG: who became a Republican and then was elected as a Republican office holder because Lincoln had freed [00:18:00] the slaves.And even she has, extraordinarily disappointed the people who 20 or 30 years thought. They knew who she was. You should talk to Norm Ornstein sometime about how disappointed he is with Susan Collins over the past 25 years compared to the woman he thought he knew back in the 1990s.SHEFFIELD: Well, yeah.And like that, well, that's the, I guess kind of where I'm going at though, is that basically, the, there was still a displacement that happened. So in other words, there were people like David Gerger and there were people like, uh, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who, while he was a Democrat, he's ended up doing a lot of work for Republicans in many ways,earlier in his career And so, there was also kind of a, more of a libertarian flavor to a lot of the rhetoric, like they had this like concept of, what they called fusionism, which was traditional, traditionalist ends through [00:19:00] libertarian means is how they named it. And essentially, I, I think the, disintegration of libertarianism is the, untold story in what happened to the Republican party.Because in some sense they, the ones who were more, let's say, moderate inclined, they flooded into. The democratic party when, under the democratic leadership council and Paul Songhus and, some of the, Clinton backers like there was this sense among a lot of them that, this was a, that there was common cause, like a lot of the degrade regulation that happened under Reagan actually started under Carter that's fair to say.So, but something happened along the way where they lost. Any real ability to even have a voice in the Republican party. Now, they don't have debates inside the party at all over anything.DELONG: They do, but [00:20:00] they're conducted in an extremely odd way. Okay. Because the authority of the maximum leader has to be prominent.Ronald Reagan versus Donald TrumpDELONG: And you need to find some quote from the maximum leader demonstrating that you are actually in accord with what he wants and since he has no idea what he wants, right, that in some sense, the difference between Reagan and Trump was that Reagan was an actor and he believed he was very good at his job, but he believed that he was.The star and not the boss. That is, he had accountants and bureaucrats and directors and producers and so forth who worked for him, whose business it was to find the best writers and lighting directors and costumers and so forth. And that his job was to take the lines that he had given and to play the part of a president.To the best of his acting ability of acting chops, which were not actually that small. He [00:21:00] was pretty damn good at looking like a president when he was properly briefed. By contrast, Donald Trump is a reality TV store in which they follow you around with a camera for 24 hours while you b******t.And then they edit it down to one hour of convincing TV.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.DELONG: And he thinks he is both the star and the boss. And the people who work for him are not that skilled, are not that important. That all they do is take what he did, and they do the very mechanical task of chopping it down to an hour of convincing TV, which really doesn't in Trump's mind require much brains or intelligence or work at all because, everything he says is gold.You just have to pick out the best pieces of gold and string them together. And aside from being completely insane, I think lunatic as big Trump booster Jared Baker in the Wall Street Journal was saying. Earlier this week. In spite of [00:22:00] being completely lunatic and completely wrong, it does not make for an administration.Right, right now, Trump, if you asked him in his heart of hearts, would say his two biggest accomplishments as president he would say second was Operation Warp Speed, and he would say the first was replacing the worst trade deal in the history of America, NAFTA, with the U. S. Mexico Canada trade agreement.Which changed into the best trade deal the U. S. has ever been. What are the big differences between NAFTA and USMCTA?SHEFFIELD: Not a lot.DELONG: Big differences are zero. The noticeable differences are three. First, the amount of Out of three nation content, an automobile has to be had to be considered domestic for NAFTA purposes Rises from sixty two and a half [00:23:00] percent to seventy five percent under us mcta which the uaw likes but pretty much no one else in the auto industry Likes that it forces somewhat uaw plants that would otherwise be and it raises costs for u.s producers vis a vis foreign producers By an amount that's not huge, but that they notice the second is we finally, say we are going to live up to our promises about imports of Canadian softwood lumber, which, the fact that Tom Daschle came from the Dakotas was kind of meant that presidents kept breaking their NAFTA treaty commitments and telling the Canadians to sue us.For decades. And the third is similarly that Canada now agrees to no longer use, relatively bogus health and safety considerations to keep us dairy products out of Canada. Those are [00:24:00] three things that matter if you're in the auto industry. If you're. Producing dairy products in the U.S. North Midwest or in southern Ontario and Alberta and Saskatchewan. And that if you're chopping down trees, in the Canadian, hills, not for anyone else yet to see. Trump was told Trump, I think, sincerely believes that he changed NAFTA from being the worst trade deal in the history of the United States to the very best by doing this, he can be led around by the nose by whoever gets into the office and strikes the right particular note in a way that he remembers.And he can't remember very much.SHEFFIELD: Or for very long.DELONG: He was supposed to pull out a box of Tic Tacs and say, See what Shrinkflation has done to the box of Tic Tacs. And he could not remember the word [00:25:00] Shrinkflation. Long enough for him to get the punchline. Now, you can say this really isn't, that big a change.You look at the internal memos, or the internal, West Wing backstabbing memoirs from the George W. Bush West Wing. And you get very much the same idea that here is someone who has not read his brief, doesn't understand the issues and is very much flying by the seat of his pants, in every particular meeting, responsive to those who sound best or of whom he has some fear of whom Dick Cheney was at least at the start the most, um, it's not really clear how much difference this makes If the staff process runs, but you know, we have absolutely no idea what the staff process will be or how it would run in a next Trump administration, which means that we have no idea, what policies he'll attempt to put [00:26:00] through.SHEFFIELD: Well, aside from Project 2025, which he claims is not his policies, well, he claims it's defunct,DELONG: right? And it may well be defunct because he may well stay annoyed. At the people who put himself into somewhat of a pickle, in August, especially if they keep telling their friends that he's really a hundred percent on their side.SHEFFIELD: Well, andDELONG: actually grudges, he keeps grudges if he remembers them and, saying that Trump is our puppet in a way that gets it into the papers is a good way to get him to remember to keep a grudge. So I think Kevin Roberts and company, Kevin Roberts and company may be toast along with whatever that former OMB director Russell Vogt, I think they may well be toast in Trump world for now.Republicans are experiencing significant "brain drain"SHEFFIELD: Yeah, at least for now. Yeah. Well, but, that raises an interesting point though, which is that in addition to [00:27:00] there being kind of a diminishment of libertarianism within the Republican party, there's also a just a complete. has happened and you have witnessed this firsthand yourself, in that you, you, worked in the Clinton administration the Republican economists and you can fill in the blanks for me here, but you know, we're, they actually, at least some of them had some, pretense of scholarship back in the day, but now it'sDELONG: but even in Trump's first term, you were left with Kevin Hassett, right?Kevin Hassett, who would say that COVID is going to kill 50, 000 people tops. Based, I think, on a spline curve estimated in Excel on daily data. Kevin Hassett, who back in 1999 told everyone that the stock market was going to triple in the next three to five years. And they should take all their money and put it in the dot com bubble.At the end of [00:28:00] 1999. And somehow, his career at the American Enterprise Institute survived that. And back in 1983, right? I remember Marty Feldstein telling me that, he wasn't upset that I was a Democrat because the Democrats needed lots more good economists because they had so few while the Republican bench was so very deep.And, and Marty's looking down on us from heaven now and is completely and totally horrified.SHEFFIELD: Well, what do you think happened, like, with all that? I mean, is it, wasn't only supply side No, it was aDELONG: drip, right? drip, And so people give up, people leave, people can't simply stand it anymore.Know that the Republican economists who are kind of corralled to endorse the, Ryan McConnell, Trump tax cut back in 1998 were most of them privately appalled because the right wing, but honest tax foundation was saying, Hey, wait a minute, [00:29:00] There are no incentives to boost American investment America in this thing at all.To the extent that you're for tax for pro tax cut, because you think it's going to boost investment and economic growth, this is a zero, and yet they were kind of herded into supporting it and whimpering about how well we'll get our chance when the rules and regulations implementing this thing, are written, which they never did.Who was it? I first saw the extent to which this was happening back in 2004, when I was supposed to go down to UCSD to be the kind of John Kerry guy at a debate at UCSD, University of California, San Diego with the Republican guy. And the Republican guy they picked was former George H. W.Bush, CEA member Dick Schmalensee, who then I think had just finished being dean of MIT's business school, the Sloan School. And the idea that there was a debate was kind of upended at the very start when Schmalensee stood up and said, he [00:30:00] couldn't take it anymore. Too many unfunded tax cuts too much regulatory stupidity that he was going to be voting for John Kerry.And if you're not living off politics you're instead, you're a dean at, MIT Sloan school and have your healthy consulting business on the side. And if you don't maneuver in your Republican gentry circles in which all of your friends expect you to always vote Republican and think of that as a key part in why they like you, you can do that.And so academics can. Which is why I think there is the emigration of economists and academics from the Republican Party has been near total. While elsewhere there are, I think, a lot of internal emigres. People who are extremely unhappy with the choices they're being given, but, they're surrounded by a certain social milieu, and anyway, they really [00:31:00] did like their capital gains tax cut.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, but I think Greg Mankiw is another example. Of what we're talking about here as well, because, he, this was a guy that was appointed to all the things in the Republican stations of the cross, if you will. And I just looked on his blog. He said, he's voting for Kamala Harris because she's against Donald Trump.DELONG: Yeah. Although Greg was never Trump from starting in 2016. He was. Simply on the grounds of administrative competence, which isSHEFFIELD: certainly proven correct in that regard.DELONG: Democrats will implement a bunch of policies that are bad, but they will at least implement policies rather than be chaos monkeys.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, okay, so but so what is what are some of the underlying causes though?Do you think it's besides I mean is it anti intellectualism and a lot of this stuff of the so in other words like?DELONG: Populism [00:32:00] as we know it. WellSHEFFIELD: Well, let me step back. Okay, let me step back So I mean in the sense that there has been a real decline in the And I can say this, having been a former Republican myself, and one of the original right wing bloggers that, when I got started in 2000 the, there were people, there were plenty of people that were able to have discussions with, people, left wing bloggers and we had them all the time.But now, you look at somebody like, Glenn Reynolds, who was one of the older bloggers now, he's, pushing insane conspiracy theories and just complete nonsense. And look, I mean, obviously,DELONG: J. D. Vince says that you gotta realize that Bezos and Amazon benefit. When wild black lives matter, looters, and rioters destroy main street stores,SHEFFIELD: undesired [00:33:00]DELONG: effect of their support for DEI, J.D. Vance says this Donald Trump doesn't say this only because he's not coherent enough to be able to say it. All they can do is say. Tim Walz is very extreme, very into transgender. All he can say is that Kamala Harris is very bad, very extreme, very bad. And he can't remember anything else long enough to actually get it out.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So, I mean, but I see this process as one that was happening before Trump. I mean, obviously it accelerated after him he came along, but you know, again, like it's just like, you look at the way that when Republicans, let's say even before Reagan, you look at Richard Nixon's Council of Economic Advisors, you look at, or even Reagan's, like, like, the quality was just, [00:34:00] it's just, it's been a, it's been a gradual decline and then rapid under Trump. Like there was something, what's your thought on that?DELONG: I mean, as I say, I think it's that you can vote with your feet for not being an idiot. And yet, unless you voted for pretty much every Republican ticket all the time, you have next to no chance of getting one of these jobs.And so the pool is from to pick from is very thin. And the pool of people who say, I really need to do this because I need to limit the disaster is much, much thinner that for some reason, there are always a bunch of people who will take national security jobs on the grounds that, I need to be a reasonable voice in the room.We're for economists, I still don't know whether the reputational hit is greater or the people feel the stakes aren't as large, but it's kind of harder to get good people to sign up for team Republican these days. Yeah. And, and those who do almost surely have several screws loose. [00:35:00]SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, that's right.And which is interesting though, because like, there is also the, right has seen that this has happened but that academia has, become much less Republican over time. JohnDELONG: Quiggin points out, it is stronger in the natural sciences than in the humanities or the social sciences.Yeah.SHEFFIELD: I know, that's the idea. You're Wait, what is wrong? Unlikely.DELONG: You're unli You're extraordinarily unlikely to find a biologist, or a chemist, or a physicist. Who wants to sign on for Team Republican these days?SHEFFIELD: Well, yeah, I mean, well, because if you have people saying the universe is 6, 000 years old ItDELONG: could be!It could be! There's nothing wrong with it having, it's not impossible. If it were in a state of thermal equilibrium, suddenly switching into a 6, 000 BC or 4, 000 BC configuration is a statistical possibility. It could be. And in [00:36:00] an eternal universe, it will happen once,Multiverse,and Boltzmann's brains are real potential problems for modern science as we know it.Right. Indeed. We do not know. We do not know that we were not that the whole universe was not created the moment this podcast started with everything in its state and everything in motion going forward. Very true. And the argument from Occam's razor that's extraordinarily unrealistic. Runs up against the possibility that if the universe is indeed eternal, that only one of the times that we show up here, is it the real thing?And the rest of the time, it's just stance chance, statistical fluctuations, and what we think is the unknown, and forever future.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.but you know what though? Like.Technological change and societal uncertaintySHEFFIELD: That uncertainty, like uncertainty though, and this is [00:37:00] a thing that you do talk about in the book, like the idea, with of inclusion that when the economy expanded to include more people and civil rights included more people, this created a huge amount of uncertainty and also conflict that had not existed before.DELONG: Well, well, the uncertainty had always been there, right? That, I mean, last month I was thinking about the poor stockingers of late 1700s England. Who made stockings, for which there was a huge demand in that time of hose instead of pants. And, they had their technologies.Admittedly, their technologies were only 200 years old. They had their place as skilled workers. They had their things they did. They had respected positions in society. They more or less had, gained the ability to enforce relatively high wages because of riots in the past. They had acts of Parliament protecting them.And then along comes the technological changes of the [00:38:00] British Industrial Revolution and Parliament's desire to accommodate them. And they find what they thought were their legal rights to a respected position in society as skilled workers can absolutely vanish in a generation. And it is not true that the British Empire deployed more soldiers to suppress the Luddites.In 1811, then it's sent to Portugal to fight Napoleon. Even though Eric Hausbaum claims it is definitely not true. But they did send a bunch. And starting in 1770s, technological progress becomes fast enough that some large group of people who think they have a respectable Position are going to find themselves be in the bullseye of Arian creative destruction and their ability to live their lives the way they thought they were going to doing what they thought they were going to do is going to vanish and is going to vanish in a matter of decades.Whether it's poor [00:39:00] stockings, The outworking spinners herded into factories with the machines, handloom weavers, the peasants and also the landlord Yonkers of Eastern Europe, the all the way down to the blue collar manufacturing workers of the U. S. Midwest, stuck in.In the bullseye, when technological change plus the Reagan budget deficits produced the huge wave of imports from, started the huge wave of imports from Asia and greatly diminishes demand for manufactured goods left in the United States. Everyone finds themselves in, or some large group finds themselves in the bullseye.Every generation. And the question is, are the, do they suffer enough to make them potentially revolutionary as opposed to just disorderly? And do they have enough social power that they can try to gamble in some sense to preserve their position? [00:40:00] And, then that's a question that every society pretty much has to manage.In the case of the Prussian Junkers, the way they gambled was they doubled down on their role not just as landlords growing rye and shipping it to Hamburg, but as military bureaucratic henchmen of the Prussian king, and so created a very large pro war caucus. To demonstrate their indispensability for society in response to the wave of grain imports from America, Argentina, and so forth that the, and Ukraine actually, that the technological changes of the 1890s brought.In the case of the French peasants of the 1840s, it was the fact that they had what they regarded as a good thing. They'd gotten their land as a result of the great French revolution, but they found themselves. Threatened by the idea that a French state controlled by an urban mob might decide that [00:41:00] they were a good class to get a lot of resources out of it caused them to definitely go for the most anti socialist leader they could find on short notice, which was the nephew of the great Napoleon, which was Louis Bonaparte.We used to call such figures Caesarists, and now I suppose we have to call them Trumpists. Who was regarded by the Rothschilds and by Karl Marx, an awful lot as we regard Donald Trump as someone totally unqualified for the job who nevertheless managed to get it by being a circus clown.And in some sense, we're going through another of these. And here we have not managed to figure out how to, Distribute our wealth fairly, so that people can accept that the process is win or largely win or at least win for their children and also create sufficient institutions of voice and vote and respect [00:42:00] so that the people who do have social power are happy to continue with a liberal democratic system.Instead of turning into plutocrats who, instead of our plutocrats turning into people who imagine that kleptocrats are their friends And people who at all costs want to hold on to their tax cutSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and it's, yeah, like,Differences between wealthy Americans and those elsewhereSHEFFIELD: and it is interesting also when you look at high net worth individuals in Europe or let's say Japan versus in the United States, like there is a significant different ethos in in the United States among high net worth people that does not exist anywhere else in the world in any large way.DELONG: Yeah, it's called classical liberalism. Yeah, it's called classical liberalism. It really ain't, at most it's pseudo classical because it was brand new. It wasn't classical back then before 1914. And at [00:43:00] most it was semi liberal because it also paid an enormous amount of respect to hierarchy, patriarchy, and to inheritance.Which is not a big liberal value that, the idea was we would take our commercial society and have been respected and have the government act to boost it and boost technological development as fast as possible to make people think, that they were getting richer as a result. And so they shouldn't revolt while at the same time melding together, A rising entrepreneurial industrial mercantile bourgeoisie of rich with an old set of rich, of super rich, whose wealth depended on land, hierarchy, position, the fact that their great grandfathers had been accountants for Henry IV.Or their great to the 10th grandparents had kind of come over with William the Conqueror, that kind of thing, which was the British Duke when asked if he had advice to people as to how to get rich would say, [00:44:00] well, have an ancestor in the paternal line who is best buds with William the Conqueror.And, you can say that and kind of that kind of attitude, right, that weSHEFFIELD: areDELONG: lucky and the system works for us and we need to be careful is one that has come down from the European aristocracies to today's European rich who do also to some degree think that they actually have some kind of obligation to provide good lordship.As opposed to the Ayn Rand addicted Americans who get greatly, excited and annoyed when Barack Obama tells them that they did not build their businesses. Lots of people did. They just happened to be lucky enough to sit in a place where when the stuff was distributed, they got the lion's share, right?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it's true. and I don't, I'm, and it is, [00:45:00] it's tricky though, because I don't so many universities Are also kind of beholden to these types of people as well, which is very ironic because at the same time, the, the right wing says that universities are communistic and socialistic, uh, they spend all their, time, their president's time and whatnot on, sucking up to oligarchs as everybody in the Ivy league is finding out.DELONG: This is the president's time. It's not the provost's time. Hopefully the president sucks up and the provost actually runs the university. And they're not all oligarchs that, Andrew Carnegie, well, started out as the child of a handloom weaver in Scotland. He was, family was under the gun of that round of Schumpeterian creative destruction with the coming of the power loom.And his father was smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall and for them to run to the United States. And he was then lucky enough, to be a [00:46:00] boy working in a telegraph office who caught the eye of senior managers. Andrew Carnegie wound up the second richest person of the year in the art on the earth with lieutenants who would say such politic things as I can hire half the working class to kill the other half of the working class.Which is not quite the same as Eric Schmidt's, you grab everything you can, and then if you make it, you hire enough lawyers to, to square it afterwards, and if you aren't rich enough, it doesn't matter but it's along the same line, although in a much stronger direction. But, Carnegie also very much believed that he who dies rich dies in disgrace and also believed that the market mechanism is amoral and nasty enough that it's only justification is that it is necessary for the progress of the human race and we cannot think of a better set of institutions which was very much why he tried to [00:47:00] create the culture of philanthropy and in Carnegie's idea, it was I would say much more real philanthropy than most of the university gifts I have seen.Over the past 40 years, that kind of most, yeah. Much of the gifts I've are self-serving. 40 years are, well, they're not self-serving. The money goes away,SHEFFIELD: oh, I mean, self-serving Harvard. Right. That they're promoting the industry of the, ofDELONG: Yeah. But like, how many have Harvard's gotten 60 billion of private gifts since say, my father matriculated in 1956.And do you know when he. When he entered the Harvard class, there were 900 men and 300 women and maybe a hundred of the men were development cases and maybe a hundred of the men were legacies, and the other 600 no, maybe 200 legacies, a hundred development cases and 600 [00:48:00] meritocrats around the world.Today, Harvard has 1600 undergraduates in the class. Instead of having 300 women, it has 900. Instead of having 900 men, it has 700 and as best as I can see, it now has 150 development cases and 250 legacies leaving 350 places for male meritocrats compared to, 600 back when my father went which is truly extraordinary in terms of the use you managed to make.Of 60 billion of private gifts that have been given by people who don't just want a building with their name on it, but also presumably are trying to make some gesture toward increasing educational opportunity and educational excellence in America.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it's not a big return on investment,DELONG: not a big return on investment.And they've made [00:49:00] it very clear that they do not want presidents who will attempt to upset that apple cart.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.DELONG: ItSHEFFIELD: is really unfortunate. Well, and yeah. All right.Neoliberalism and its impactSHEFFIELD: So before we get to the end here, I did want to, Just have a discussion about neoliberalism. So you have, of course, had your own change of viewpoint on that.and I wanted to talk about that. the, democratic party, and this is going back to what I was saying, like the, I think of, libertarianism as sort of the conservative Cousin of neoliberalism. And it's, yeah. Like they have basically decided to just be quiet and go away in the Republican party and Democratic party.I don'tDELONG: know. I don't know.SHEFFIELD: You don't think so? what, neo, what, libertarians have power in the Republican party now?DELONG: Zero. Neoconservatives. Well,SHEFFIELD: A lot of them, most of them left or were [00:50:00] kicked out.DELONG: I would say that just as his father, Irving Kristol, transformed himself from a quirky, conservative intellectual to a talentless hack when he scented power and when Irving Kristol signed up for Team Ronald Reagan.So when Bill Kristol decided that the game was up, he changed from being a talentless Republican hack to an interesting and quirky public intellectual. Definitely worth reading. I do think Bill Kristol is very much worth reading these days,SHEFFIELD: so that's at least one. Okay. Well, but he's still not in the Republican party though, is what I'm saying.but okay. You're saying, oh, you're saying in the Democratic party as a, yeah, Neo liberal. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Well, but theDELONG: idea that the, people should read more than as if there's interested in neoliberalism as a whole, rather than the whole 20th century. People should read, not my book, but Gary Sal's, the Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order.Which I think is superb and it does make the point that, [00:51:00] the, some of the neoliberal impulse originally was not wrong, that democratic socialism entirely and social democracy substantially, was too bureaucratic. was too entrepreneurial, was too caught up in red tape and rent seeking.That the idea that of the New Deal, of the social democratic order, you know, that in the modern age, big business or big labor or big government would have your back, was not always true and was not true for a fairly large part of the population. And so, you'll call it the Washington Monthly Neoliberalism of the late 1970s.We need to deregulate where regulation is really stupid. And Miwaymo will find that market means are a better way of crowdsourcing solutions to social democratic ends in very many contexts. than is government command and control. And indeed, we'd say that it was [00:52:00] precisely because the world between 1980 and today has not been neoliberal enough that greater San Francisco and greater Los Angeles are now places where it is nearly unaffordable.To live where David Autor tells me that if you're at the upper 10 percent of the income distribution, the income gain you will gain from moving to Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, is greater than the cost of living increase. But if you're below the top 10 percent of the income distribution, it doesn't make any sense making this past generation, the first generation in which blue collar and even not only white collar workers have been unable to move to where the opportunities are.So, the neoliberal impulse was not, is not completely Understandable. And there were those of us who thought we could be more effective social democratic wolves in neoliberal sheep's clothing by talking the talk. Unfortunately, that was only us left [00:53:00] neoliberals and they were the right neoliberals.For whom the rapid rise in wealth inequality that followed the coming of the neoliberal order was not a bug, but a feature.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, because, yeah, the going back to Daniel Rand. And who were not veryDELONG: interested, who were not very interested at all in policies that actually would boost economic growth.SHEFFIELD: Right. What do you mean by that?DELONG: No, I mean simply that Reagan, right, that whatever good Reagan did with deregulation was vastly outweighed by the fact that he wanted to cut taxes on the rich and also restart the military industrial complex for a Cold War II in which it turned out to be totally the most unnecessary set of expenditures the American military ever embarked upon.And the deficits that resulted starved America of investment for 15 years or so, it was only in the late 1990s after the Clinton administration had done its work that we actually saw what the [00:54:00] growth rate of America in the age of computerization could be. And Reagan's policy stupidity kept us with all those Republican allies kept us from seeing that 15 years earlier.And for George W. Bush, deregulation was only an irritable impulse. And it landed us with the biggest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. And with a lost half decade of economic growth in the United States and a lost decade of economic growth in Europe, that no, I mean, actually boosting American economic growth.As the benefit you get from increasing income and wealth inequality was not the business of Reagan, Bush one or Bush two. Their business was the inequality was the point.SHEFFIELD: Well, and it's interesting also that, just from a technological propagation standpoint that, the, all that investment that was done by Reagan to build up the defense industrial complex, what it [00:55:00] did is it kept technological innovation centralized actually and it prevented it from growing like that.That I think was the big thing of the nineties was that. Everybody was able to partake in this stuff that had existed since the 70s. but, almost nobody got to use it. And like, that's, not something that they talk about anymore.DELONG: So, although on the other hand, you can't really view Silicon Valley in the late 1990s as a victory for Ayn Rand, because Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and company did not really want to become billionaires.Right. They wanted to do cool things and change the world.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, which is why they're very peopleDELONG: who currently run the platforms and such that they and their ilk and their successors [00:56:00] established, who are very much on how can I make sure I maintain a monopoly place in this value chain so I can squeeze good luck. All you Patriot and good luck. All you Patreon creators out there.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. Great. As we are seeing, as we're seeing well, okay, so, but, I mean, it does seem like, though, that, there, there are some people out there in the, Republican side of things that they, claim that they are populist, quote, unquote, and that they are not. Part of this Ayn Rand stuff.And yet, when you look at theDELONG: write a big book about how he's growing up, how he man's growing up in which he regards himself as being saved in the end by his maternal grandfather and grandmother and never, points out that the only reason he was able to save them was because, his maternal [00:57:00] grandfather's uncle had gotten a good steel job.in suburban Cincinnati or in Cincinnati, and then had managed to bring his grandfather along, as a nepotism hire that, the combination of the UAW and the Midwestern industrial culture is the source of J. D. Vance's, or was one of the earthsprings of J. D. Vance's success as a kid from suburban Cincinnati, even though he wishes that he were from Appalachia.SHEFFIELD: Well, okay, so then you're, it sounds like you don't find any of those claims to be credible in any way, that they'reDELONG: When the rubber meets the road, the Sam's Club Republicans deliver absolutely zero. Except sometimes they say women should knuckle under their husbands and stay undivorced because we need intact families.And I can assure them all, when a woman decides it's time to [00:58:00] move out and that this loser isn't worth it anymore, they are very keenly aware of what that means for their likely economic security, right? To move from a two or one and a half to a one or half a breadwinner family. They are very aware of that, it's not that they don't understand that staying matter, staying married gets you an extra income and also an extra pair of hands to help with all the things the household has to do in raising its children.It's that they've taken account of that and decided, no, this person, not maybe they're good for someone else. They're not good for me. Maybe I can find someone better. But you know, that kind of having more unhappy marriages while at the same time, you're opposed to child credits. You're opposed to school lunches.You're opposed these days to the earned income tax credit you're for. More tax breaks for the plutocratic rich. And you don't even require, [00:59:00] that they pass tax foundation kind of benefit costs tests for affecting economic growth. That Sam's club republicanism was a nice, it was a nice, is a nice catchphrase, but you know, it was never backed up by.Any serious policy work whatsoever.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, I think that's right. Colorado Senator. It's rhetorical.DELONG: Has, like Michael Bennett has been looking for Republican partners on a kind of centrist, poach, pro child, pro family agenda as long as he has been in the Senate, if not longer, and, has he gotten, has anything gotten passed as a result?SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And has it, yeah. When in fact, JD Vance. In the recent child care or the child tax credit, he didn't even show up to vote on it. That'sDELONG: aSHEFFIELD: little bitDELONG: [01:00:00] unfair. He is a vice presidential candidate and his running mate is off the trail.SHEFFIELD: Well,DELONG: in fact, his running mate and the first and the potential first lady are completely off the trail.And so if there is going to be any member of the Republican ticket making the daily news cycle, it's gotta be him. Yeah,SHEFFIELD: which is, yeah, an interesting dynamic, notDELONG: the job I would have taken were I J. D. Vance.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Although I have to imagine he wasn't told that going into it. This is, yeah, Trump's going to stay home all summer.And can't heDELONG: look around and see,shouldn't he have insisted on a weekend or a full week with Trump to decide rather than doing it on one phone call and telling [01:01:00] his kid to shut up the blather blathering about Pikachu. This is the most important phone call of my life. I'm talking to somebody much more important than you.SHEFFIELD: Yep. Good parenting.Pro family 101. yeah, All right. Well, last topic here.The blogosphere and media integrationSHEFFIELD: Let's, you're one of the first bloggers. what year did you start posting on the internet? 19, was it before 2000? 1996. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. BecauseDELONG: one of my ex roommates had said that physics has moved to archive. org, archive.org for all of their scholarly publications and such. And so you should start your own website so you can transfer it over to the economics archive. org when it starts up.SHEFFIELD: Okay. It never wasDELONG: left with a website. And then I found that people like Nobel prize winner Jagdish Bhagwati, or no, Jagdish died before they could give him the Nobel.[01:02:00] Where did he, maybe I'm simply totally confused. I think I'm totally confused. I will check this because I don't want to cut that part out. Are dead. Oh,yes, he's still alive. That's excellent. Jagdish Bhagwati, wonderful guy, ought to have been a Nobel one. One of the trade Nobel prizes has not due to, dumbness on the part of the Nobel Prize Committee. People like Jagdish Bhagwati and also future Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman, were picking up things.From my website back in the late 1990s at a time when I kind of was not in their intellectual circles. And so it seemed to me that websites were something worth doubling down on.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, okay. Well, and it's and you've been there ever since. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so It's now. So I, as, I mentioned I, was one of the earliest right wing bloggers, so I started in 2000 [01:03:00] Yeah.With going after Dan Rather. I, that was, what I, did in the early days. That Bizarre was so Totally, it was a very strange, I presumeDELONG: the people who created the document thought that they weren't actually forging things because a document like this must have had existed at some point.SHEFFIELD: That's what it seems like. Yeah. Otherwise, obviously,DELONG: incomprehensible.SHEFFIELD: Well, and the fact that he didn't bother to run it by anyone. Like he, he should have just said, look, okay, yeah, there was a hell of a drug. Yeah, but it is interesting though, looking at the back now, 24 years, let's say after the 2000 election, we'll say as the starting point that it seems to me that the right.Did a much bigger integration of the blogosphere than the left did and I'm curious what you think of that. I [01:04:00] think there'sDELONG: a channel from the old line weblogs to Fox News and company, the, to which there is not really a counterpart was not really a counterpart on the left. There were a bunch of people who were kind of eager to make the media jump. Yeah. Well, people on the left or the center left, at least in large part, because they had more of the existing media sphere back in 2000, the obvious thing was to become a journalist.rather than become a blogger. And it was only those of us who saw some, who were doing it for some other reason. Either trying to get a jump on the webification of an academic discipline, in my case, or people who simply could not stand having a boss in a news [01:05:00] organization on the other, who wound up doing it.And then plus the, institutions that then left institutions, then bet on it, were kind of little magazines of one sort or another that then found themselves with a problem because the blog business was doing better than their print business, but was not making any money at all.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. When it, and it is, and it's interesting.I'm sorry. Go ahead.DELONG: No, at least I think that's what happened.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, I, it's also that. I think if you look at the way that the right is much more interested in publicity and publicity seeking. So right wing organizations are very focused on that. Whereas, more left, let's say even all the way center to left are interested in policy formation and land less on public advocacy.[01:06:00] And I think that's probably the big. The big difference, which is why there isn't, the, if you look on the right, like there are no sort of centrist center, right. Organizations out thereDELONG: in the scanning center.SHEFFIELD: The what? Oh, the scanning center. Okay. Yeah. Well, they actually identify as centrist.They do not identify.DELONG: They do not identify as center, right?SHEFFIELD: No, they do not. They do not. And but, I'm saying just from a media standpoint that, all of the, outlets that exist are either, extremely conservative or reactionary fascist. Like that's the spectrum. it's all clustered over on the far right, all the media.And whereas on the left, the larger media institutions tend to be clustered into the center. and, there's not. Is much interest on the further left and creating media. It seems like, I don't know. What do you think? And,DELONG: [01:07:00] well, I don't understand what the thing is that calls itself the further left.SHEFFIELD: Well, let's say why, for instance, why is there no media? Why were there no media outlets that grew out of the Bernie Sanders campaign? Let's say, or why do like our revolution raised You know, at least 50 million and they created no media out of them. That's just one example.DELONG: that's a good point.And I will say, I have to think about that a lot more and I don't really have an answer for you.SHEFFIELD: Okay. All right. Well, it's one, it's a subject that I'm, going to be writing on at some point in the near future. Okay. Okay. All right. So, for what's your recommendations for people to keep up with you just on your website? Yeah.DELONG: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: JustDELONG: on the sub stack.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Now you have a podcast as well, though.DELONG: We have a podcast that appears on the sub stack, infrequently made. We're hoping to record next week.The [01:08:00] sub stack is braddelong. substack. com. Please come one and all. And as I say, the links to the podcast are on the sub stack.SHEFFIELD: Okay. And which social networks are you posting on primarily nowadays?DELONG: Posting announcements. Posting announcements kind of everywhere I can find that's print oriented.Actually I find myself spending more time on threads than on BlueSky or Mastodon, and doing so somewhat unwittingly because I think sooner or later Facebook is going to figure out a way to destroy its quality in an attempt to monetize it.Moving to threads is like moving to the tender, dry foothills of the Sierra Nevada right now with the monetization firestorm in your future.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, very likely. All right. Well, thanks for being here. I'll let you know when it comes out.DELONG: Sure. Please do. And thanks for doing this.SHEFFIELD: All right. So that is the program [01:09:00] for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation and you can always get more episodes. If you go to theoryofchange.show. And I did want to mention also the theory of change as part of the flux media networks.So I've got a flux.community for more podcasts and articles about politics, religion, media, and society, and how they all intersect. And if you'd like what we're doing, I really appreciate you supporting us financially. Just a few dollars a month. Goes a long way. And if you can't afford to do that right now, I understand.But please do share the episodes or tell your friends hell, tell your enemies. That you like this show, I would really appreciate it. Thanks very much. And I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryAfter she became the Democratic Party's standard bearer, Kamala Harris didn't make sweeping changes to the campaign infrastructure that she inherited from Joe Biden. But there is one critical difference between the two campaigns, and that is that Harris’s team, and possibly the candidate herself, seems to have realized that the mainstream media is not her ally, and that news organizations that refuse to state the obvious truth that Donald Trump is a moronic authoritarian who has stage managed to By people who hate American democracy, are themselves not interested in protecting the country from him. The lesson that Harris appears to have learned has been one that Democrats should have learned decades ago. The Republican party is not interested in serving the public, and its policies are about enriching the billionaire oligarchs who control its policymaking apparatus. But there is one group on the political left that learned this lesson a long time ago, the podcasters and writers who came on the scene in the mid 2000s as the liberal blogosphere. And my guest on today’s episode, who goes by the pseudonym Driftglass, was one of the earliest liberal bloggers and is the co-host of the Professional Left Podcast. I personally was there in the beginning of right wing blogging as well, so I thought it would be fun for us to compare notes about how things went back then and how both the left and the right have responded to blogging since that time.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Related Content* The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ and the long history of right-wing re-branding* How Never Trump Republicans got everything they wanted in him, while denying it all the while* The GOP embrace of violence should be too important for mainstream media outlets to ignore* Ronna McDaniel and the twilight of fictitious Republicans* The New York Times publisher thinks fighting for democracy and a free press is important—in other countriesAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction03:04 — The rise of political blogging07:39 — The legacy media's resistance to change10:36 — When it came to blogs and new voices, the American right was much less conservative than Democrats were15:54 — The "both sides" do it framework benefits the status quo in media and among Democrats32:25 — How the migration of ousted Republicans into the Democratic party made it more conservative34:33 — Democrats' struggle with messaging37:25 — Challenges in enacting progressive policies40:26 — Has Kamala Harris learned from past Democratic mistakes?42:03 — The importance of liberal media infrastructure45:44 — Why policy is not as important as political junkies often think54:28 — Russian influence in right-wing media01:02:46 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.SHEFFIELD: So both you and I started in the blog world in its very earliest days, and it still exists now, and but things are different in terms of how the left and the right. And so in my case, I started in 2000 running RatherBiased.com criticizing Dan Rather as a right wing blogger.And after that happened, after he basically refused to acknowledge that his documents that he used were fake and everyone knew they were fake. And it was obvious he lost his career at CBS because of that. And everybody on the right, I think, eventually realized, Oh, wow, there's a lot we can do with this stuff. Right wing organizations. And I had an entire pretty big business built off of helping them do that.Whereas on the [00:04:00] left, that is not how things kind of worked with the blogosphere. And you were there, so—DRIFTGLASS: I was. I was, not there at the creation. I was, there at day six of the creation, not day one of the creation. So I was a newbie, and I, still think of myself as a, junior varsity blogger, even though all the varsity members have gone on to greater and better things. Yeah, no I got involved in blogging.My wife started blogging in 2004 because 2004 was, the D-Day. For most of us, it was the, oh my God, George Bush just got reelected. How the hell did this happen? And I started commenting in 2004 and then eventually. I, was a regular over at Steve Jilliard's blog, who was the first front page blogger that Daily Kos ever started featuring on Daily Kos.So he left to do his thing, I visited his place, he basically told me, you have to get out of the comments section, I'm sick of pulling your stuff up and posting it, go get your own goddamn blog, and we'll link to you. So I did that. And that's how we got started. And it was it were heady days, because it really, for a while, looked like We were gonna bend the curve on the legacy media because there was like Ned Lamont. Ned Lamont was the blogosphere candidate that beat Joe Lieberman in a democratic primary. And that looked like, holy crap. The, first Netroots Nation I went to was the one just prior to the 2008 election. And every democratic candidate save one was there. I'm courting the bloggers and there were 200 something international press in attendance and so forth.So it looked petty. It looked like this was the direction we were going because the media was so clearly broken and so clearly unable to cope with what was happening during the Bush administration and the collapse of the economy. And, Katrina comes along and the only people talking in plain, simple blunt [00:06:00] language with details, some of whom were really excellent writers were the bloggers.So. But the reaction to Ned Lamont winning the democratic primary against Joe Lieberman was a hysterical column in the New York times by David Brooks calling us the Tom delays of the left. And we were just the Sunni and the Shia. It was Tom delay, corrupt monster on the right and the net roots on the left.And we were a threat. And I have up on my tab up here somewhere, just because I was doing research today earlier, he was on the hardball show. With Chris Matthews talking about how, yeah, you have the crazies on the right and you have the Netroots crazies on the left. And the Netroots crazies are crazier. And they're all laughing and joking about how nuts the liberals are for saying things that turned out two years later to be absolutely true. And the thing that, that shocked us the most was all of the people who were the, shut those people down, shut them up. They're crazy, they're crackpots, they're nuts. All those people still have their jobs and nothing ever happened to them. There was no market correction. There was no, gee, we really screwed up the Iraq war badly, we're we're sorry. I caught Mr. Brooks's act. I think I mentioned this the last time we talked at the Hammerschmidt Auditorium in Evanston or Elmhurst, Illinois in 2010 and a nice lady in the audience stood up and asked him about all the terrible columns he'd written about liberals and how monstrous we were and how he bashed us and he just stood up there in the pulpit and said, never said that. never, don't remember ever saying anything like that. And he just went gliding around on paths. And he is still the premier conservative writer at the New York effing times.The legacy media's resistance to changeDRIFTGLASS: So the thing we underestimated was how hard the legacy media would work to protect itself from reform and how much effort they would put into legitimizing the right, because it was very important once you lost the, left are all crazy. Doctrine, you had to find a new one [00:08:00] because clearly the George Bush administration was a catastrophe. There's no getting around that. So what's the next move? Well, the next movie as well, both sides are crazy. Both sides are bad. And it became this fetish, which became the state religion of the legacy media. And they're still doing it to this very day. You can watch the New York times, barbering what Donald Trump says, this incoherent gibberish coming out of his mouth, that if you were there, you'd go, the guy's a lunatic. But if you read it in the times, it's like, well, he has a policy proposal for childcare. And so there's this straight line where we just underestimated how tenaciously the legacy media would dig in and just refuse to reform itself. And that's where it all sort of fell apart. That's where it broke into pieces because that's what we, well, we lost, it did remind me a little bit of the hippie movement in the sixties, which I did not go through.But once. It turned out that, like, they were willing to shoot people on campus. And the Chicago cops were willing to crack heads in the streets. And they weren't going to reform, and they weren't going to change. And the Pentagon was not going to be lifted up by love. The movement fell apart. Because there was no plan B. And, so a lot of legacy bloggers are still out there. But, we're still doing what we were doing. But we're watching this circle come all the way around. Which is kind of interesting and exciting and depressing all at once. We'llSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, we'll I definitely want to talk about, the present moment later on. one factor also I think that happened was the rise to prominence and power of Howard Dean. But then after he. Got out as the DNC chair. I think that also probably was a impact guys as well.DRIFTGLASS: It absolutely was. he, screamed that one time that his candidacy was over and although there, there—SHEFFIELD: Yeah, but his DNC can candidacy was after thatDRIFTGLASS: Oh yeah.SHEFFIELD: He still had some juice after that.DRIFTGLASS: There was a lot of a lot of hope for the OFA Obama for America, Obama for America. [00:10:00] that transition would take place and there'd be this sort of infrastructure for And that just sort of, fizzled out and went away as accommodations were trying to be made.And I, think I have lots of thoughts about Barack Obama. He announced his presidency about two miles from where I'm sitting or his, run for office in here in Springfield and I supported him twice, but God damn, that guy just never learned. He just, he kept trying to pretend the Republican party was something other than it really was. And it cost him dearly because he wasn't ready for what they were going to do to him. And he. Was on his back foot almost from day one.When it came to blogs and new voices, the American right was much less conservative than Democrats wereSHEFFIELD: Yeah, he was. And then beyond the sort of the party apparatus, It is interesting to look at the way that the, let's say, the larger media organizations exist on the left and the right, after bloggingwas, became a thing that pretty much now if you go to any right wing website that's of any size, their articles are basically blogs.DRIFTGLASS: Oh, yeah. Yeah,SHEFFIELD: that's, what they are. Whereas number one, there isn't hardly any actual left wing media. And, committedly. I mean, like there's just as an example. So like, you've got the daily wire, you've got daily caller, you've got a heritage foundation, daily signal, you've got of course, Fox news has a bunch of different properties.And then you've got all these other,DRIFTGLASS: Free beacon.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, the free weekend, another one. And but then all these video platforms as well, like real America's voice, Newsmax they've just started another one called the first and then of course you've got the, Christian nationalists over at Salem Media with their town hall and red state and twitchy and hot air.And it is, and then by comparison, there's what? Talking points memo Mother Jones.DRIFTGLASS: [00:12:00] Well, I got a plug crooks and liars because my wife is an editor for crooks and liars And they had the distinctionof being the first video place on the web before anybody had embeddable video They were doing video. SoSHEFFIELD: before YouTube, yeah. Yeah, and what's different though is that all these places that I mentioned, or Washington Monthly was another early blogging site, is that all of these were independently financed. And, to the extent that there were other things that were maybe somewhat lefty sensibility, they were corporate owned.So Daily Beast or Vanity Fair, um, things like that, that, their, goal isn't to be progressive. Their goal is to um, and that's, like that there's a paradox because I think that the left media ecosystem is more capitalistic and more dog eat dog than the right wing media ecosystem, which operates, hugely outside of, and I can say this, having, been inside the right wing ecosystem.I was there, like, these guys are not capitalists. Like, your average right wing commentator, like Ben Shapiro or any of these other They don't know anything about history, they don't know anything about policy, they don't know anything about campaigning. They don't really know much of anything about anything.And, but, what they do is they repeat the talkingDRIFTGLASS: yes, they do.SHEFFIELD: And that's enough, and that's enough for them. Whereas on the left I think that people who can, have the money on the left are like, They think that the general public just kind of will figure things out by themselves. They don't need to be exto behave everything broken down for them and drilled the message into it. They don't think that.DRIFTGLASS: That is a common lament. I don't think that they talk to the public very much. The people who have money don't seem to understand. This was the the reaction to let's dump Joe Biden. There were a [00:14:00] lot of people on the left who got columns all of a sudden in the New York times, freaking out and just demanding that Joe Biden stepped down immediately. Aaron Sorkin got himself a column, and then George Clooney got himself a column, and they were just like hysterical. And I don't think they're coming from a bad place, but they weren't listening to the base who were like, he's our leader, he's the president, he will make up his mind, quit screaming, and calm the f**k down. And then it was, well, we should do a, like a speed dating thing or a convention thing. Like, no, it's Kamala Harris. That's the vice president. That's the person. And so there's all this,SHEFFIELD: people actually votedDRIFTGLASS: who people actually voted for and liked. And, the people who were, getting themselves in the paper or getting themselves op eds or getting themselves on television because they're celebrities or they're well known. I think Aaron Sorkin suggested that Mitt Romney be the vice presidential candidate or something like that. I mean, he was just, he was writing a West Wing, script in the New York Times. And we were laughing at him because the base didn't want any of that. And there's, there is this weird parallel between the two sides in that the Republican Party lost itself because it didn't know what the base was.You get all these conservative elites now who are like never Trumpers and run the bulwark who all swear to God they never had any idea how bad the base really was. And we knew, we were telling you, we were telling you for 20 years, but they didn't want to hear it. They didn't want to listen. And there's still this fantasy that somewhere there's a pony that if we just keep digging through the crap, there'll be a diamond there somewhere.There's a hidden Republican party way over there. And once Trump's gone, we'll recapture it. No.SHEFFIELD: The fever will break.I'm so sick of thatDRIFTGLASS: 10th year of the fever will be, and even before that, Barack Obama was talking this way during his presidency.SHEFFIELD: He was,DRIFTGLASS: And.The "both sides" do it framework benefits the status quo in media and among DemocratsDRIFTGLASS: But he operates at their level of, they don't talk to the base. I mean, they [00:16:00] communicate with us and we have votes and we basically ground policy, but the right elites claim to never have understood their own base.And Stuart Stevens is pretty honest about this when he says it was all a lie. All the stuff we said we believed in, turned out they didn't care about any of that stuff. The same is true in the less destructive way on the left. The people who were at the top and who were. Tastemakers and influencers had no idea the base didn't want to hear Screaming freakouts over Joe Biden and didn't want to hear let's get anybody in there, but Kamala Harris Let's find a way to sort of juice the system and we'll have a speed dating or whatever the hell it was And we'll have Oprah and Michelle Obama have a super fast convention And they weren't listening to the base because they don't understand us.They don't come out in the middle of America and talk to actual voters. They don't know what we think. And I think there's thisdisconnect where if I get my op ed in the New York Times I will have talked to the people I need to talk to. And the answer is no. We think the New York Times is a joke. And there, so there's no need to spend money on a liberal media because they think they already have a liberal media. Whereas on the right theySHEFFIELD: absolutely. Yeah, no, you're, 100 percent right about that, and and, yeah, and they don't, they haven't understood that the mainstream media, while they are not, let's say, screaming reactionaries who want to burn the government to theground, they're not that, like, that's fair to say that they're not,But, their business model is not to be a progressive advocacy organization.That's not their point. That's not how they see themselves. And that isn't how they conduct themselves. And they never haveconductedthemselves. Like Republicans in my former world of the media bias, right wing media bias industry they, they, basically convinced, it's ironic, they convinced Democrats That the media was liberalDRIFTGLASS: Yeah, they convinced, [00:18:00] and, there is something about and this is something that I've talked about with my wife, we've talked about with her dad on Zoom. We have a regular Zoom date where we play the New York Times crossword puzzle every Thursday and Sunday, and he's 80 something, sharp as it, as can be.But he is, he in his generation. To be a well educated, well rounded person, a learned adult person, meant you, you took the New York Times. That was part of your personality. It was wired into who you were. You crack the New York Times open, and that's how you know what's going on in the world.You watch PBS, you read the New York Times, you read the, what's on the book list. And the idea that the Times is just rotten, when it comes to opinions and things, is, like heartbreaking to these people. They don't want to hear it. And I mean, I don't know if you saw this comment or this column yesterday.The Washington Post, A. G. Schulzberger. He had his column in the Washington Post yesterday. It was a very nice long column about the threats to free speech in India and Brazil and Turkey. And very well put. But there's a paragraph smack at the top going, But I'm not in the politics business. I'm not in the advocacy business.And I think it's basically ridiculous to suggest that we're at any kind of risk. Like these countries are. So I'm not gonna, I'm not in that business. I don't advocate for stuff. It threatens my status as the steward of an independent media company. Like, dude. You are living in a dream world. You're living in the 70s.You're living through your ancestors who ran that thing. And that's the problem, is because the, conception of what an independent media means, means both sides. Both sides are always the same. Journalism means both sides. And that, even people who've worked in the media Mark Jacobs, who was a editor at the Chicago Sun Times and Tribune, just is on TwitterX everyday screaming, Stop it. This is not, you're screwing up. Don't you understand what's going [00:20:00] on here? And they don'tunderstand. So they have their own religion and their religion dictates that if there are two candidates who are old and two candidates that seem a little bit infirm, it's okay to just bash the crap out of Joe Biden because age and infirmity are an issue. Joe Biden leaves the race suddenly. It's not an issue because I can't both sides anymore. So it's not an issue anymore. And if, Donald Trump spews a string of incoherent gibberish, we're going to write it up as a serious policy prescription and compare it to Kamala Harris policy prescription, because that's fair. And if Donald Trump just lies all the time, and Kamala Harris doesn't, we're just not going to talk about his lying. Because to do that would violate our dogma of it's always got to be both sides. Because if it's not both sides, if it's only one side, That means we've been wrong about everything since, let's see, 2004. A really long time. We've been screwing up for a really long time and we're absolutely not going to look in that mirror. So, that's what we're stuck with.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And it's also that they've, they have this institutional bias to, to think that, well, I am above it all. I, am not a prisoner to partisanship. I, am, I'm, I'm beyond that. I'm my own thing. I exist in this savvy world of. I don't believe anyone. I'm just cynical.And, it's like, they haven't understood that cynicism is ultimately the best attitude for reactionary fascismDRIFTGLASS: totalitarianslove cynics. Because they justgive up.And, I don't know if you, were you reading my blog today? Because I wrote a wholething about how fighting,SHEFFIELD: actually but I'm glad you did.DRIFTGLASS: Look, I,SHEFFIELD: Great minds thinkDRIFTGLASS: I got up early and I, wrote this thing that, A. G. Scholzberg is, I'm glad he finally admitted that he thinks that [00:22:00] fighting for democracy is beneath him. It'sjust so dirty and grubby getting in there and fighting for democracy. We're above that. We're the New York Times. And we are eternal, presidents come and go. Governments come and go. Countries come and go. But the New York Times is eternal. Therefore, we don't need to worry ourselves about Which is the antithesis of democracy. Getting in touch with the actual human beings in the world. They sent, when it was Donald Trump, man, they sent caravans of people to the middle of the country to do what I called magic ruralism, which is find that Ohio diner, find that Trump voter, because we are blown away these people exist.We never knew they existed. I mean, we haven't gotten past the Hudson in 40 years, so we didn't know any of this stuff. Cool. All right. Where are the vans? Coming up to my house, asking me as a midwestern guy living, ten, ten miles, five miles from a cornfield middle class, middle age, white guy, my opinion.Why aren't you, why aren't you as, curious about democratic voters in the world as you were about republican voters in the world? And that's because, well, republican voters are interesting and alien to us, but we know all about democrats. Democrats are, the people we dine with, and the people we know, and the people we schmooze. And so, it's this complete lack of interest in the country you live in, and its state, because you, transcend all that. You are above all that. Which is, you know, and you know what? It comes, it goes before the fall.SHEFFIELD: a haughty spirit.DRIFTGLASS: yeah, exactly. So,SHEFFIELD: yeah, well, yeah, it's and in the case of like those Cletus safaris as they are sometimes called there's there's nothing wrong ipso facto with doingbut as, as long as the other side is being done with it, but, and, of course they don't do that. And, but, and I will say, like, I think that the re, part of the reason that became a genre of journalism is that for, that, [00:24:00] the DC, New York, Acela Corridor,Republicans, not just the, media, but like, None of them actually knew what the baseDRIFTGLASS: No,they didn't.SHEFFIELD: And so like, that's what part of what these Cletus safaris were about was to say, Oh, wait, these people, they actually do not have these dogmas about free trade and, cutting the department of education and allthis, stuff that, that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were allabout, in a tizzy about they never heard of it or, and they don't even like it if they have heard of itand so.It was like, to me, it was very shocking that this was basically people whose job for decades was to report on politics. This was them inadvertently saying, I don't know about what I've been tellingDRIFTGLASS: yes,in, I've been tellingyou about this in, I've been telling you about this in declarative sentences for decades, and I didn't know anything about anything, and what they reported back on was, I I wrote a thing, I don't know, a million years ago it seems like, and I likened it to, like, dime novels from the frontier days, these are, this is if you ever saw Unforgiven, the Duke of Death, And these are all these lurid fictions from out in the country, where wild Indians ride, there's buffalos, and there's, diners full of people with red hats.And it was all this sort of high adventure fiction that was being paid for and subsidized and turned into a genre by media companies who were located in the greater metro sprawl of the East Coast. For the entertainment and titillation of their readers, because it was far away in a strange world. And, again, inadvertently, they sort of Confessed that they had no idea what was going on in this country, ever. And again, they never change their certainty. They simply broaden the dogma under which they operate. So again, under the Bush administration, it [00:26:00] was Liberals are cranks and crackpots and un American and terrorist loving, America hatin scum. And when the Bush administration fell apart, it's like, well, isn't it a shame that both sides are crazy? And they've, and that's been the through line for 20 years. And they're not changing anytime soon.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and with this whole genre, I mean the, it became not just about articles, it became a bookDRIFTGLASS: Ohyeah, yes it, sure as hell did, yes. I wonder if RonHoward is having second, I wonder if Ron Howardis having second thoughts now about, maybe I shouldn't have done that. Because that wasn't a great idea. but it was his entree. It was, he wrote his book, and his book was his entree into the, big world of venture capitalism. And that was, and he blew that, and that was his entree into politics. So, worked out great for him.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, the book it seems like this was a book that a lot of people bought, but no one read,Because. If you actually did read it, which I have, it is no different in any way from standard issue Republican dogma. It's basically the thesis of the book, Hillbilly Elegy, is these people that I grew up around are lazy and they're shiftless.Bums who won't work and that's why they're poor. So f**k themThey need to pull their pants up and go to work at walmart for three dollars an hourThat'sthe thesis of the book.DRIFTGLASS: And that's standard issue, Republican. Usually it involves skin color. But yeah, it's standard issue. Those people are lazy. And they're in bad circumstances because of bad morals. They're, if, they would just be better people, they would be less poor and disadvantaged. Here, pass out copies of Atlas Shrugged down at the local, read, I don't know, We The Living, or read, The Fountainhead.That'll save ya. Yeah. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: and there's an [00:28:00] irony also though is that I think a lot of Those attitudes did creep into the democratic party and this is something that I wrote about a little while ago about, with these, as the Republican party became successively more reactionary through waves, such as the Goldwater people, the Reagan people, the Pat Robertson people, the Tea Party people, like, and then now onto the Trump people, like as these waves of far right freakazoids kept flooding into the Republican party, some of them started saying, okay, well, I, can't take this anymore.I'm going to go be a Democrat, but I'm not going to change anything that I believe.DRIFTGLASS: Why would I do that?It's not, I'mnot the problem. My belief structure's not the problem. Those people are the problem. And, okay, if that gets you through the night, but that's not my experience. My experience is the, you created a magnet by your ideology. I don't mean you, but Republicans created an ideology that became a magnet for people who were terrible and had terrible beliefs and believe terrible things.And the more the party came to depend on pandering to those people. And they didn't do it directly. This was, Trump's genius. It used to be done, They used to job it out to someone else. It was someone else's job to go get the base fired up. It was Rick Wilson's job. it was LeeAtwater's job. Bill Buckley. Yeah. Their job was to go out, Yeah.and I mean there's a whole, multi billion dollar industry of getting the rubes to the polls, hating the right people at the right moment. Donald Trump just caught the middle man. He just started talking like Rush Limbaugh talked. And the base loved him, and he did the other thing that was terribly important to them. He absolved them of responsibility for George Bush. He said, you are not responsible for George Bush. George Bush lied you into a war. And he screwed up real bad. And there's his brother right there. You don't want to elect his brother, do you? It's just another goddamn Bush. And the base, at that moment, [00:30:00] became magnetized to him. Because what they were seeking the entire time the Tea Party was up and while they were freaking out about Barack Obama and so on and so forth was, we don't want to take responsibility for all the s**t we just did eight years ago. We don't want anyone reminding us of the Bush Cheney signs in our yard.We don't want anybody telling us that, well, reminding us we were on the radio screaming about liberals being dirty America hating terrorist loving scum. We want someone to changethe dialogue.Oh, the Iraq war was great.Iraq War was great. It wasgreat.SHEFFIELD: perfectly.DRIFTGLASS: It was going perfectly and I've likened it to Germans, after the fall of Berlin, burning their uniforms. They didn't want to take responsibility. We were in Switzerland the whole time. We had nothing to do with that. So suddenly you have a brand new party called the Tea Party, who'd never heard of George Bush, and were independent constitutional conservatives, not Republicans. Why would you call me a Republican? And they were desperate for someone to come along and tell them they weren't responsible for their lives and the decisions they'd made. And liberals kept telling them that they were. End. Donald Trump said, you're not responsible for anything. In fact, you're the patriots, and they're theawful people. You're you areabsolutely the victims.yes, and you're the victims of those people over there. And, I know I've said this before, we tried an eight year lab experiment of not being offensive, and reaching with an open hand, and not being judgmental, and let's all get this together, and it was called the Obama administration. There's, no red states or blue states. There's purple states and there's amighty God.SHEFFIELD: plan is, MittDRIFTGLASS: Yeah. And, they had an eight year racist primal scream and then they elected Donald Trump. It's like, at that point, I'm like, don't you get it? That's the party. This is what they've chosen.This is who they are. Quit trying to pretend they're not this way. And that's where most NeverTrumpers and I part company, because they really want to continue to believe that it wasn't their fault, that Or they had nothing to do with it, or it was just a fluke, or it's just a fever, or [00:32:00] sometime we'll be able to reclaim the party.We'll be able to come back to theSHEFFIELD: Or it's just Trump. It wasDRIFTGLASS: Yeah, it's just Trump Onebad apple and a couple of guys around him, and once he's gone, everything's fine. That's not true. And, after Trump, there's going to be a whole lot of toxic waste out there that someone's going to want to build a party out of. That's not going to look a damn thing like the Dwight Eisenhower Republican Party of the 1950s.SHEFFIELD: yeah. No, not at all. But you know, soHow the migration of ousted Republicans into the Democratic party made it more conservativeSHEFFIELD: as that sort of migration of former Republicans into the Democratic Party happened, it did make the Democratic Party more conservative.DRIFTGLASS: did.SHEFFIELD: And, this wasn't, this is a thing that happened over decades. I mean, Hillary Clinton herself is a former Republican.DRIFTGLASS: girl. She was a Goldwater girl, right?SHEFFIELD: right. She was, yeah. And, there were other former Republicans who, you know, or if they weren't Republicans, they were the it's, I mean, it's odd that I don't hear people say enough how neoliberalism is basically just libertarian. That's what it is. And, and so, you They flooded into the Democratic Party and, made them not do what needed to be done.And basically, the thing is though, there were enough of them that Democrats could get just slightly past the 50 yardAnd instead of doing what they should have done, which is, Try to activate the, 70 million, 80 million, depending on the election, 70 to 100 million people, adults, who could vote, but don't.And they never ask them, well, why don't you vote? And like, so, to the extent that they did, they would focus on voter registration problems.DRIFTGLASS: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: the polling is in now, and people who don't They say it's easy to register, and they could if they wantedDRIFTGLASS: Solving the wrong problem. Yep. Yep.SHEFFIELD: They choose notto,DRIFTGLASS: now, why do They choose not to,Now, why do they choose not to? That's a very interesting question.SHEFFIELD: Well, and, there is multiple [00:34:00] reasons, but yeah, like, and in a lot of elections, the people, the, what they call the un, and I, have an entire episode on this called The Unlikely Voters, actually.DRIFTGLASS: it. you're a podcaster. Plug that episode. Go right ahead.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, there we go. But yeah, it's so, there, there's, yeah, there's polling done by David Paley Logos the pollster, and he, surveyed these people over the decades, and for many years, they've all, they've preferred the Democratic candidate.and an unfairly elected White nominee for President. And so it's because well, it's in other words, if they were forced to choose someone, they would choose the Democrat.Democrats' struggle with messagingSHEFFIELD: And but they don't because, the Democrats either haven't talked to them or are not forcefully cause like, going back to the idea of, cynicism and complacency.A lot of people really do think that both parties are the same in the media, of course, tell us but at the same time, Democrats also are not out there saying, Hey, we actually are different than those guys. And here's what we're going to do for you. They don't do that. Like they, they've been so focused on, just getting past the 50 yard line.That's all we have to do. And, the thing is, you can't do that with this Trumpist fascism. They have to be crushed. They have to be crushed, and you have to, like, if you say that democracy is at stake, then you actually have to f*****g mean it and do something differentDRIFTGLASS: youdo.SHEFFIELD: what you've been doing. And, for the longest time, they didn't changeDRIFTGLASS: Yeah. Well, I think there's a lot of psychology going on there. First is. You take big swings and if you miss, you end up with Donald Trump as dictator for life. So risk averse Democrats got burned, starting with Reagan. This was, we're losing, my God, we're losing.We keep losing. There was an SNL sketch with Dana Carvey playing George H. W. Bush. And his opponent, it was a debate, going, [00:36:00] I can't believe I'm losing to this guy. How am I losing to this guy? Well, you, did lose. And so, they were desperate for some kind of formula to win the White House. Not to win the hearts and minds of the American people. And Clinton comes along and says, well, we have this DLC thing. We're going to triangulate everything. We're going to find a sister soldier and we're going to punch her. We're going to show people that we're centrist and that we can work with the other side of the aisle.We're And a whole lot of activists I know just threw up their hands and said what the hell am I doing? I fought to get you elected so you could get back, for me, the necessary things I need to serve my population. And you're giving half of it away. Your, priority is kicking people off welfare anti gay legislation, and balancing the budget, all of which he did. So he should have been, he should be on Republican Mount Rushmore. He gave Republicans everything they asked for and they f*****g impeached him and you know over nonsense, so It took a long time. I think for Democrats to learn a hard lesson Which was not just you know, there's a progressive farm movement.You could reactivate this country that goes back a hundred and fifty years There's, there are progressives under every rock out there. There are people who think, Medicare for all is a really good idea, and there's a lot of places out there in the world where it works pretty well. Or an equivalent.Challenges in enacting progressive policiesDRIFTGLASS: And there's all these polls showing that basically progressive issues are popular with, somewhere between 55 and 75 percent of the population. A majority, a working majority. But the only,SHEFFIELD: a lot of Republicans. Also,DRIFTGLASS: yeah, but the only time Democrats have been able to enact those is with supermajorities.Roosevelt and and Johnson. That's the only time they've been able to get through lots of progressive stuff that everybody likes, that everybody ended up liking, rather than, instead of the Vietnam War, which everybody hated. So, Johnson's burning in hell for that. But, the Great Society was, had a lot of good features to it. And, [00:38:00] The problem is now, is that I think a lot of people feel trapped in this cage of, well you need 60 votes in the Senate, we'll never get there. And we have this electoral college, and we have a Supreme Court that's locked down for 30 years. How do, where do we start? And I think you start with, you gotta have a liberal megaphone, big enough to reach into the heartland, to activate people, to do the work.Because and those people have been told, for a generation, two generations, Matthew, this is a center right country. This is a center right country. I don't know if you've heard this, but we're a center right country. Everyone on the editorial board of the New York Times agrees this is a center right country.And you know what? Both sides are basically the same. Both sides are the same. I don't know if you know this, but both sides are the same.DRIFTGLASS: And the king of doing that, in 2016, is now an MSNBC employee. So, Matthew Dowd was the worst offender. The absolute worst offender during the 2015 2016 election. He actually He fought with me on Twitter, called my listeners stupid, called me.I didn't like the facts because I told him this, every venue you're in, you're screaming that, Donald Trump is bad. Hillary's just as bad. Donald Trump is bad. Hillary's just as bad. And we have to break the corrupt duopoly. We have to, I'm voting third party. I'm voting independent.And you're the ABC news director, man. And you're using your voice to tell people that there's not a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And it turned out there was. And, what happened to Matthew Dowd? Well, he just went radio silent for a while. And then he appeared on MSNBC, going, You know the problem with the media? It's this whole both sides thing. Man, where did that ever start? Why are people doing that? That is so irresponsible of people. And I just, I go, you know what? The whole thing is screwed. We have asaying on the left that MSNBC is not our friend. So the only closest thing we have to a liberal media is like an hour and a half a day in the evening and that's it. And sometimes it's not that great. So number one, I think is [00:40:00] where you started, which is there's a lot of independent operators on the left doing a lot of things. There's no liberal media. There's no liberal megaphone. And there's no way to reach those people and tell them any different in a massive way without that. And, I'm, doing my bit with my little tip jar on my blog, but I don't know, I got a lot of great ideas, but, so do a lot of people.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Has Kamala Harris learned from past Democratic mistakes?SHEFFIELD: and, it is, it's interesting, though, that I do think that, it seems like that Kamala Harris campaign is, Has slowly been reorienting in the correct direction with thisand we can see that both with how because the interesting thing about comparing the campaign operations of Biden versus Harrisis it's mostly the same people, actually, it's almost entirely the same people, but there is one person who is missing and that is Anita Dunn. The communications chief, basically, for Biden. And just her absence has done a lot ofgood, like, because essentially, there's all kinds of smart, creative funny, interesting people who are over there at Kamala HQ.And Now they can do what theyDRIFTGLASS: They're fast, their responseisSHEFFIELD: they're doingDRIFTGLASS: The response. they do the, press releases. They release the videos. They release fast, fast, Funny, smart, incisive. You're like, oh, okay. This, you're acting like bloggers now. This is great This is, I recognize this voice. This is the, voice I hear in my head.This is the voice that people out there that I read speak in. It's this quick, authoritative, bring the receipts. Take no prisoners. And move on to the next thing approach to politics that you know, you come at them with a sword in both hands And I don't know who said it's [00:42:00] all gas no brakes And that's terrific.The importance of liberal media infrastructureDRIFTGLASS: it's a breath of fresh air and the best thing she's doing as far as the because i'm speaking now for the entire liberal republic, democratic base, you know that right? I mean I speak with authority for 60 million americans That the smartest thing she's doing is telling the media to screw off You know, because everybody hates them.Everybody thinks, because the minute they get a chance to ask questions, it's like, Did you hear what Donald Trump said about you? What do you think about what Donald Trump said about you? I think this is a waste of my time. And why don't you ask me about, I don't know, policy. Yeah, Donald Trump said this about policy, but he said it in a mean way.What do you think about that? And she's like, that's it, you had your shot, and now we're done. And everyone else saw that and saw, Oh, I get it. You're not wasting our time or your time talking to people who are basically working for the high school gossip rag. And it's might have a big gray headline.It might be very impressive on the outside, but that's all there. That's all they care about. Is that nonsense? It's like, yeah, that's the press corps right now. That's the Washington political press corps right now. So yes.SHEFFIELD: Like So the interview that harris and tim walz did recently with cnn's danabash, which you're kind of referencingthere you know after it was over. She basically got Criticized by a lot of people on both the, the right wing was saying, Oh, you didn't go after her enough or whatever.Butthen people on the left were, saying, well, you just asked her nonsense.DRIFTGLASS: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: and she was like, Oh, well, both people are criticizing me. So I must've done somethingDRIFTGLASS: Yeah. That's that's the Chuck Todd line. That is Chuck Todd's gold standard for I'm doing a good job is that both sides hate me. No. The right hates you because they have always hated you. And the left hates you because you don't do journalism. You're not interested in journalism.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. The right hates you because you're not a fascist.So that doesn't mean you're doing a good job. And and, yeah, so, [00:44:00] so the Harris campaign has finally figured out that the media, the mainstream press has a different businessDRIFTGLASS: Yes.SHEFFIELD: Than what they want. And. You don't need them.You can do your own thing.And that's something that Republicans figured outdecades Yes.DRIFTGLASS: A hundred percent.SHEFFIELD: ago. Now, of course, the next step. So, Republicans figured out two things that Democrats missed. One was that mainstream media isn't your friend. And then two is, you have to create your own media. They've done both of those things veryDRIFTGLASS: Third thing.SHEFFIELD: Oh, you got a thirdDRIFTGLASS: You gotta spend, you gotta spend money. you gotta be willing to dump billions of dollars into all of your operations, into this spider web of think tanks and websites andmedia platforms and Newsmax and you have to spawn them and you have to get your bench trained. You gotta bring people up from the dregs all the time and spin them up and let them go and make sure they have money in their pocket.And that's the one thing the Republicans are willing to do is, the, I used to call the patient capital of fascism. They're willing to spend money over decades to make sure that the media is Corroded and destroyed and the fundamentals of democracy are taken out and we I mean We just don't do that at all and you can tell and it's still this kind of well If we just get a plucky band of rebels together for one more election and we'll knock them down.no this is the fight of generations And if you don'tspend the money and focus on what's important Way over the horizon, 20 years from now. And I keep watching people making mistakes. So, well, once we win, we'll fix it. Like, dude, have you been sleeping the last 20 years? Anyway,Why policy is not as important as political junkies often thinkSHEFFIELD: and they also think that policy alone is, the way to run aBecause, and not realizing that most people, I mean, well, I'm not saying most, but a huge percentage of people don't know anything aboutand don't want [00:46:00] to know anything about policy. They just want to know, what's wrong with this other person.And you know what? And, And I know that's a lower standard, perhaps, and not very intellectual, but you know what? They still vote.DRIFTGLASS: They do. and, there's something about that. I mean, I worked for the city of Chicago for 10 years and worked with a lot of very good people who did a lot of very good work. And. They were progressive, and they, had great programs, and they helped ex offenders, and they helped women who were in shelters, and they got people jobs, and we did a whole bunch of cool stuff.But getting them to summarize what they did in English language, and tell the rest of the world, here is what we did, and you know what, we're proud of our work, was like pulling freaking teeth. They, were just, didn't have the mindset of, you, you bake the cake, then you have to sell the cake. And then you take the credit for the cake, which, Means you get to buy enough ingredients for two cakes next time.Isn't that great? They just didn't get it. They just wouldn't talk about themselves in those terms. And I think it's just something wired into a lot of progressives brains that, the, act itself should be enough. The work itself, the work should speak for itself. And it doesn't. It just doesn't.Yeah.SHEFFIELD: it doesn't, because most people are just trying to survive in thisworld. And You know, they have to work, two or three jobs because the state they live in has a, seven, 25 hour minimumwage. And so they don't have time to read your policy paper.never going to,DRIFTGLASS: That's right.SHEFFIELD: And they're not going to read your New York Times op ed.They're not going to read,watch a video on your website about how great, your, policies are. They're never going to go to yourDRIFTGLASS: Well, and, good policies,SHEFFIELD: to reach them where they are.DRIFTGLASS: good policies are invisible. When I go to the DMV here is great, by the way. It works smoothly. It works terrific. They don't make any headlines because they're doing exactly what they should do and they're doing it very efficiently and well. My post office works great.No one's going to [00:48:00] write stories about how well the post office is working. So when public policy actually does what it's supposed to do, then it's invisible, and that's terrific. But when you get Republicans in office who are, trying to break the system. This is something that Republicans really do I want to get into government to break government to show people government doesn't work. Look, see, look how terrible FEMA is. Well, yeah, you put a lunatic in charge of it who had no qualifications. Yeah. But FEMA is bad. Government's bad. Government failed you and enough. You start convincing enough people that government is broken and can never be fixed and it will always be your enemy.And there's taking your money, your good, hard earnedtax money.SHEFFIELD: the cynicism. Yeah.DRIFTGLASS: So, and that's, that can, these are human problems and a, there is a solution to them. The solution, however, is boring. It is having your own giant megaphone with hundreds of voices, thousands of voices all over the country, speaking more or less from the same playbook, which is the progressive playbook, and reaching people where they are and doing what unions used to do. Going into neighborhoods and talking to people where they live and getting to know them and getting to. So they're comfortable with your face, like beat cops used to do when I was a kid. You knew who they were, and you knew that they were trustworthy. And if they had an opinion about something, you would listen to it, because they're decent guys, and they took care of my mom.This is what Chicago aldermen knew. You give them a turkey at Thanksgiving and a ham at Christmas, and you'll get their vote next time the polls come up. And it's, it's politics 101, but it requires, sadly, because of a lot of reasons, including Citizens United, a s**t ton of money. I'm glad that Kamala Harris raised 370 million in the last 20 minutes. It's insane that elections cost 370 in that field other than the very wealthy.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. But you gotta do something with that money after you raise it, like that, to go back to the Organizing for America thing, like, cause that was also a thing with the Howard Dean campaign, they had created our [00:50:00] revolution based out of his, former campaigns, and that also went nowherein large part because people line their pockets with the money rather than actually doing something with it, I will say.DRIFTGLASS: I, I, will, Ikeep missing the, I keep missing the part where I, I get my big sorrows checked. So I'm obviously not sleeping with the rightpeople or something. So.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. What, and here's the paradox is though, that because progressive policies are more popular from a crowdfunding standpoint there shouldn't be a money problem for independent media on the left.It's just that the people who are raising that money, they flush it down the mainstream media toilet onDRIFTGLASS: Yes, they do.SHEFFIELD: then there's nothing to show, like, after the election's over, almost all the money was spent. And there's no infrastructure. That is put in place. There is no, career paths for people to come afterward to advocate for the ideas or even, or hell, even the candidate themselves, like, you would think that if you win the White House, that you would want to have some people out there that are saying, Hey, this person's pretty good.You should like what they'redoing. Think about voting for him next time. Like,that.DRIFTGLASS: would think so. And one of the things, I will put this to bed at the end of this decade. One of the things that just irked that crap out of me, but made me laugh a lot, was that, a handful of former Republicans called the Lincoln Project, popped up out of nowhere, and basically repurposed, in my opinion, liberal talking points about the Republican Party. In short videos, which is something liberals do and liberals have done, but they had something we never did, which is they had 24 hour a day access to the cameras at MSNBC and CNN. They got to be the people who were speaking for the resistance and the revolution. And they, and liberals wrote them a ton of money.They made a s**t ton of money writing, as far as I can tell, they didn't move the needle at all. They [00:52:00] might have, but there's no objective evidence as far as I can tell that they did. What they did do was write a bunch of ads that made liberals all warm and sticky inside. Like, ooh, he's saying Trump's an a*****e.That's great. Let's have more of that. And so you had people in Hollywood writing checks to them. Big checks. Checks that would sustain me for two or three years. To do more of these ads that were designed to make liberals happy. It was, I called it porn hub for, liberals. It was cool, 20 second, 30 second, half an hour porn that made us happy, but it didn't do anything.It got shown on television. It got free rides all over cable news and it didn't go anywhere. I'm like, you know what? Here's a clever idea. Why don't you take all of that effort and time and money and focus on building something that will be an infrastructure for actual liberal messengers. Past the end of the campaign. And how about you stab it with at least a couple of people who didn't used to work for Ron DeSantis. and Jeb Bush. How about you put a couple of liberals in charge of that or at least part of the crew. And it, it bothers me that there is a willingness to spend money in, over very short bursts of time. We need to spend a lot of money in the 90 days before the election with a lot of ads. And you're willing to spend all kinds of money to do that, but not build the kind of infrastructure that you need to sustain that voice and those messages over the course of 10, 15, 20 years, like the National Review did, like the Weekly Standard did. The Weekly Standard never had, what, more than 50, 000 subscribers, right?SHEFFIELD: And they never had a huge staff,it couldn't have taken that muchDRIFTGLASS: No. But they wereincrediblyinfluential. And BillCrystal is still,Living off that lunch, still dining out on him. His former editorship there, and it was Rupert Murdoch money. Murdoch showed up on his buying spree and bought a bunch of [00:54:00] conservativeSHEFFIELD: Before he started, he actually paid for it from theDRIFTGLASS: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: ButDRIFTGLASS: yeah,no, he didn't buy that.He, built that, but it was, he was willing to spend the money to hire a bunch of people and put him to work messaging at the very high end, the intellectual high end. And there is a. There was an understanding that if you're gonna take on the evil liberal media, you had to do it at every level. And there's, no understanding of that as far as I can tell among liberals with deep pockets.There just isn't. So.Russian influence in right-wing mediaSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and then there's another obstacle for progressives versus the right wing, which is that Russia,DRIFTGLASS: Oh yes.SHEFFIELD: Of course, loves right wing media. And we just saw that,This week as we're recording that the department of justice indicted two Russian nationals who were working for Russia today, AKA RT. And they are standing accused of funneling. 10 million to a a company called Tenet Media. And they paid people the again, more generic ignorant dipshits, right wing losers, Tim Poole, Benny Johnson. And they did it through this woman named Lauren Chen, who has lately her, project has been to rehabilitate and mainstream Nick Fuentes, the Nazi.That's her objective, and, like, that's, it's, I mean, this is a huge issue as well, like, cause, and, Tim Poole I don't know if you saw the clip of him saying recently where he said, if, somebody was a foreign agent and they wanted to subsidize someone, they could do it just through YouTube advertising, and no one would know that it happened,DRIFTGLASS: SoundsSHEFFIELD: And like, and I'll say just before you, I'll let you jump in thatWhen I wrote for Salon a few years ago, this was when the Russians had hacked the Democratic National Committee.And there was plenty of evidence that they had, in the days [00:56:00] afterward. But the government released the documents. Something immediately thereafter, which told absolutely nothing about the allegation, and they are just, it was literally just an appendix, mostly of terms of what terms were or who different groupswere, and it offered zero evidence.So I wrote a column for Saman saying this. Thing that they put out was trash. And that was one of the most popular things I ever wrote because the Russians latched onto my column and they were floodingDRIFTGLASS: Way to go. Way to go, Matthew.Way to go. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And then on top of that, then they invited me onto RT afterward after they saw it.And then I showed up on RT and I said, oh, and by the way, the Russians obviously did hack the Democrats, and there's lots of evidence. Microsoft has released this and this. Five points. And they were so shocked that I had done this to them, and of course, they never invited me back on theirair, like, I know I'mshocking, right, but like, this is a serious issue, like, oh, there's, if you actually are patriotic.and you care about this country, the reactionary media, these people are anti American.They hate this country, and they want to destroy it,and that's why Russia likesDRIFTGLASS: Yeah. Yeah. Or they're willing to do anything for money. Which is, again, that dimes with the difference. There's no difference between the two. I forget, it might have been Keith Olbermann talking to Sean Hannity like a million years ago. They were at some dinner together.He tells a story every now and then about how, they pretend to hate each other. They hate each other. And, They're, opposed to each other, whatever, but when the cameras go off, whatever it was, like, I think it was Hannity, don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure it was, he said, but you know, you know that this is just BS, right?It's just TV. This is just TV. This is, it's just a performance. It doesn't matter. I'm, just putting on a costume and doing my thing. And a lot of these people, I swear to God, are just, Floating from one identity to the next, [00:58:00] looking for the next paycheck. And whatever will pay the rent, and give them a house in California, and give them a vacation home, and pay for their mistress, they'll do it. And they don't really care one way or the other. They're incredibly amoral, and there's a big audience out there, as long as they stick to the subject. And a friend of ours, who's also an OG blogger, who goes by the title Batochio, Told us, 2004. Team Evil pays really well. And Team Angels doesn't.And it really comes down to that at the end of the day a lot more than anybody wants to believe. And yeah, Russia's, willing to dump a Whatever amount of money, and the thing is, I understand that the FBI has a much longer list of co conspirators or suspects or suspected people who've been touched by Russian money. They're running to like 2, 000 more people, and 800 of them live in the United States or so. So, I've been going through my checkbook, and I haven't taken any Russian money recently, so I think I'm in the clear. I, you've got an honest face, I assume you're in the clear too, but I have in my mind a list of about six people who suddenly and drastically took a turn from one perspective to a radically different perspective that I kind of think might be on that list.And I won't speculate, but I'm sure in my mind at least one of them might have worked for the Rolling Stone for a while. Thank you. And one of them might have worked for the Intercept for a while, maybe two, maybe three.SHEFFIELD: Oh, hell, you can just say theirnames.DRIFTGLASS: some of them might be the close personal friend of Ed Snowden, who I haven't heard about in years. I have no idea what Ed Snowden's doing these days, other than he's in last I heard he was in Mother Russia, living a fairly nice life. SoSHEFFIELD: Yeah.Well, and that's, yeah, and you raise a point that maybe we can kind of wrap on it, which is that that, Russia also is very keen on pushing [01:00:00] kind of, delusional leftism, fanfiction leftism. And that goes nowhere, and because it's so, naive and foolish and ignorant. It never goes anywhere.And then eventually collapses into nihilism,DRIFTGLASS: yes, absolutely,SHEFFIELD: you right wing. Because, hope is about, is as much about determination as it is about, wanting something better and thinkingDRIFTGLASS: absolutely,SHEFFIELD: This is how I will do it. And none of these people ever did that. They never had a, you look at Jimmy Dore or something with his force the vote stuff about, Medicare for all.Like, that was never going to do anything. It was obviously stupid from the very beginning. But the goal was to make people think that having something better and deserving something better and working toward it is impossible.And so therefore, Trump wants to burn it all down too.Maybe he can't be so bad.DRIFTGLASS: yeah.SHEFFIELD: That's where it ends up. That's where it endsDRIFTGLASS: Oh, and, my, one of my tests for this is Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders believes in Medicare for All. Bernie Sanders didn't burn it all down. Bernie Sanders wentto work in the Senate, and Bernie Sanders endorsed Joe Biden twice, and has endorsed Kamala Harris. And now a lot of the people who thought Bernie Sanders was the beginning and the end of all things because he was going to snap his fingers and change the government hate him now. Because he sold out. And I'm like, wow. So the conspiracy is so big that it includes, who? Hillary Clinton? And Joe Biden and Noam Chomsky, they're all in it together. How is thateven possible? And hey, let's see how they just keep getting to people. And because there is this, the, I forget the introductory sentence, but the slow boring of hard boards. it is a slow grinding process that takes generations to accomplish anything. And, the thing that we have as a legacy is that we have the legacy of all the accomplishments of [01:02:00] Roosevelt and Truman. And Johnson to look back on and say, things can get done and things do get better if you're willing to work for them, but you gotta dig in man, this is a long, hard fight and it won't be over, it won't be over until long after you and I are gone. And that is something that is just not appealing to anyone who thinks, Well, it's so obvious that this should be this way, And if it's not, there must be a conspiracy to stop it, And why even bother? So, burn it all down. And, there's a big market for taking those people's money. And If I were less of a person, I would be tempted.Because there's a lot of easy money to be made Skimming from rubes who believe crazy s**t.SHEFFIELD: It is. And and Russia will help you out with itDRIFTGLASS: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: you want. Seems that way. So, all right.Concluding thoughts and future outlookSHEFFIELD: so, let's wrap it up here then. Thanks for being here.So tell people Where they can keep up with yourDRIFTGLASS: Oh, Lordy, it's such a long list. We have a media empire that's growing every day. You can find me at driftglass. blogspot. com. You can find me at the Twitter X at Mr. Electrico, that's at Mr. underscore Electrico. Cause the Drift Glass title was taken. And I'm a believer in property rights. I don't believe in taking things from people that, who don't want to give them up. Youcan find.SHEFFIELD: though you're a communist,DRIFTGLASS: though I'm a filthy communist. You can find my wife and I have a podcast called The Professional Left. We do two episodes a week. We used to split them up into one on politics on Thursday. Every Thursday for the last 14 years. And one called No Fair Remembering Stuff, which is where we provide historical context for things like third party voting and the history of Chicago politics, things like that are interesting, but they do bear on modern politics, but they give you like, Oh, this is how we got here.Oh, this is what happened. And we have a lot of fun doing that. My wife just started a knitting class. Podcast, which that's where I'm sitting right now in the spot where she does her knitting podcast because she is a awesome Superior knitter. She is the editor [01:04:00] under blue gal at crooks and liars And I'm sure there's ten other things we do on a bunch of other platforms But at the moment, I'm very tired and getting over a cold and I'm drunk on coffee and good feelings being on this podcast I'm just high being here with you there MatthewSHEFFIELD: Well, sounds good, man. I appreciate it. We'll make sure to get everybody to check those out, so, and I'll, have links to 'em as well. All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate everybody joining us for the conversation. And you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange. show. You can get the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And my thanks especially to everybody who is a paid subscribing member. You get a little bit extra access to everything.And I thank you very much for your support. And if you can't afford to support at this time, please do give a review over on Apple Podcasts. That's very helpful. Or make sure to subscribe on YouTube as well. I appreciate that very much, and I'll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryEverywhere you look, the radical Christian right is on the march trying to ban abortion, birth control, pornography, and books that they think are insufficiently pure, or insufficiently deferential to their beliefs. Obviously, trying to force everyone to live according to their religion is a huge motivating factor for far-right Christians. But it isn’t the only reason that they’re doing this. It’s also about trying to stop people from experiencing other ways of thinking, and other ways of feeling. Because if people are allowed to choose, they won’t choose the Christian right’s oppressive beliefs. My guest on today’s episode knows a lot about all of that. Her name is Sinn Sage, and she is an adult film actress who has been in the industry for a number of years. And she has a lot to say about this topic and many others— which makes sense since she’s also the host of the podcast “Sage Advice With Sinn Sage,” which focuses on adult entertainment and also relationships and sex.As you might expect, this episode of Theory of Change is “not safe for work.”The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Related Content* Trump’s macho personality is making his fans turn MAGA into a fetish* Why the “oldest profession” is a pretty good description of the central role sex work played in ancient societies* How former porn star Nyomi Banks is helping straight men understand intimacy and themselves* 1950s housewife books are the latest trend among far-right women* Why becoming a sexual subject can help women overcome objectification* Personal insecurity and right-wing extremism often go togetherAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction02:00 — Are adult entertainers finally realizing that the far-right wants to criminalize their business?19:11 — Flashback: MAGA porn star Brandi Love expelled from a Charlie Kirk conference24:11 — Why informed and empowered sexuality is dangerous to religious authoritarians28:42 — Repressed male bisexuality and right-wing authoritarianism31:56 — Low-grade podcasters are ruining the lives of their audiences with their awful advice38:03 — Sex work and the human need for intimacy43:56 — Sinn’s journey out of religion01:06:44 — Why seeing others’ humanity makes it so much harder to hate them01:12:55 — Answering the radical feminist critique of pornography01:17:02 — Why intimacy and attraction are essential01:27:42 — Artificial intelligence and the future of adult mediaAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: One of the reasons why I wanted to talk to you is that you are so political and you know so much about where your industry is positioned in society as a whole.Do you ever feel like you feel that you're kind of alone in that regard, or you wish people knew more or were more active in trying to preserve and advocate for themselves? Is that something you've thought about, is that part of why you started your podcast? I don't know. That's a lot of questions there. So you can answer what you want.SINN SAGE: No, You're good. No. I will say that's, that is not part of why I started my podcast to activate people or people in my own industry. Not so much to activate society at large to be like, see, I felt strongly. There are lots of times I think as a performer, you come up with a platform.Once you realize you have a platform, right? Once you realize I've got this many people following me on these many different social media platforms, paying attention to what I say, You have to come, you have to decide for yourself. And how am I going to use that? And I don't, I'm not going to judge anyone for making the choice to use their platform just to make an income.Like that is your f*****g choice and you do not have to be engaged with this stuff. That's a big thing. A lot of us sex workers say in general is like, “get your bag.” Like, I'm not mad at you for it.So I don't feel like the sense of like, wow, why can't I pull more of you into this? It's I'm just like, I can only speak for myself. But when I looked around and I saw the size of my platform and I saw how passionately I feel, especially about queer issues and as years have gone on, how Like the fight is here and I need to be engaged with it.Like I need to be a part of it because [00:04:00] my goal is queer people and sex worker, total liberation. I don't. Want any of this hate. I don't think we deserve it, but so that was a conscious choice that I made. And there have even been times where I'm just like, Oh, maybe I should just like pull back on this a little bit.And, maybe then like I'd make a little more money and I'd be a little more stable or something. Especially. In 2016, that was really rough, and my Twitter account was at over $300,000. And ever since 20 $16, 300,000 followers, sorry. And ever since 2016, I've dropped down to like 2 98 or something, and I've never gone back up over 300.So that's something that made me be like, does this. Is this something when I want to do like I, and I, Oh, I also received a few emails from people who were like I want to order a custom video where you wear a Trump hat and then s**t gets dumped on your head and, stuff like this, because, there's just so loving over there on that side of things, but,Real Christlike, but I saw some of that, like direct backlash.I also got caught up, f*****g no doubt, like I was definitely caught up. I deleted my Facebook account in 2018 because it was like people that I grew up with, being friends with we're on Facebook and just like fighting and saying these really horrible things about each other. And Yeah, I was like, you know what?And a number of things. It's just the way I saw certain people using Facebook and I just think it's a terrible,SHEFFIELD: Well, it's just filled with so much trash. Like I hate Facebook.SAGE: It's like it's awful. So I got rid of that account.SHEFFIELD: A cesspool.SAGE: Yes, cesspool. But so is Twitter, but the difference is, I figured this out kind of recently, is that like on Facebook, it's all your friends and family on Twitter and [00:06:00] Instagram and all these places, it's a lot.It's mainly strangers and so.SHEFFIELD: And a lot of them like you,SAGE: Oh yeah. And so doing it on, and so having these opinions and a lot of people agree with me when a lot of people think differently from me, but they still appreciate hearing the things that I say. And I've even had, I've even had people say, I used to think this way.I listened to everything you were saying. I saw how much sense it made. And I sort of. Change the way I think about things. And I was like, Jesus, crap, I'm doing it. It's happening. But like that. So when I think about what, one of the aspects that really motivated me to make my podcast, it was more about hope.Using that, using my platform in the ways to uplift these people, these specific people, sex workers, especially. So sex workers and queer people is huge in my podcast because I want to normalize and humanize, I want to normalize conversations around sex and sex work and queerness, and I want to humanize sex workers and queer people.And I think that like the format that I use of my podcast is it lends itself to that. I think a lot of that is going on and I think like if people just stumble across it and find it and maybe their mind is flexible enough to hear some of the things that we talk about and recognize the issues on a societal aspect.The other thing about the question that you had asked me is that like, in my community of sex workers. Um, they are pretty activated, not all of them. And like I said, that's fine. But a lot of them, and that's probably why, like, I am friends with them.SHEFFIELD: You like them because they agree with you (laughs). But they should, but they should!SAGE: But it’s not just that they agree with me, but that they are also activated in the same way that they are also advocates for these things.And like someone that I met in Vegas. Summer Hart, like [00:08:00] she's just so smart. So she's like, she is the, like a body I would sculpt out of clay. I mean, she's just got like, she's got, she's totally natural. And she's got huge titties and a big round ass and the small little waist. And I mean, she's just like, And she's just beautiful and she's stunning to look at and very successful, but she's also so f*****g smart that like, honestly, there's so many times that I'm like, I can say all of these things, but then I start firing up my limbic part of my brain and I get like real confused because I'm just too passionate about it.I'm like, go talk to summer because she is just so f*****g well spoken and she's such a good activist about these things and she is actually like gone to the f*****g state legislators and had meetings and tried to like, get them to understand what sex trafficking really is. And. Like what the policy should be when sex workers are arrested on the streets of Vegas and stuff and that it shouldn't, we want to do harm reduction, not put them in a worse place.She's actually got, gotten to have seats at the table in these things. Places. And so, she runs SWAID, which is Sex Worker Mutual Aid and people can apply for micro grants through SWAID, sex workers can. And this is a nationwide program. She's got plan B, she's got Narcan test kits, and all of these various things, and she's just like passionate about getting it out to people and just, man, such a good activist. And so, so yeah, people like that. I tend to be more, I guess, drawn to it. We have a personal friendship, beyond, work.So, so I do see a lot of that.SHEFFIELD: Well, that's good. Yeah. Did you catch that little incident that was involving Brandi Love and that right wing conference, a couple of years ago, did you see that?SAGE: Oh so I, [00:10:00] did not see that, but if I find out that a performer is MAGA, like they are on my list. I won't follow them and I don't want to have anything to do with them. So I did, I was aware of that. I had people say, I want to put you in a scene with this person. And I was like, ‘Nope, I'm doing okay on my own. I don't need to be in a scene and I will not work with that person.’Because there's just so much self delusion going on there. Mainly with the fact that they don’t care that Republicans are trying to stop porn. They have let the evangelicals take over that party a hundred percent. And their number one goal is to take away rights from women over their own bodies.They want abortion ban over the whole country. Does not care how many children get raped.SHEFFIELD: They do not.SAGE: want queer people to get married. And it's like, especially what really makes me f*****g almost the most angry is like, these women perform in girl-girl scenes, you're performing lesbian acts on camera for money.So you're totally cool to exploit that aspect of it for your own personal gain. But when it comes to like the rights of these people in this country, you could give a f**k. You do not care at all. And so like, That part of it blows my mind. And then the part of it where it's like, you think, that you're going to be the special one that like gets to go ahead and keep making porn and keep living the lifestyle that you live.No, they will throw you in a f*****g camp too. Like they will throw you in jail when they implement their Project 2025 b******t, when they make porn illegal, you read it right there in black and f*****g white. Exactly what they want to do. They want to criminalize porn. They want to jail pornographers. And you're out there waving your MAGA flag!Like just the cognitive dissonance is, it's it's staggering, the levels [00:12:00] there. And those are the same people that will just say, they'll be like, Oh, that's not going to happen. Like, do you know how many people said that about Roe versus Wade? Like, Everyone was saying that.No, they'll never do that. It'll be fine. And now we live in a world where f*****g 10 year olds get impregnated by their dad and can't get abortions. Like, and you're f*****g okay with this. I'm sorry. AndSHEFFIELD: you're going for that party. Yeah.SAGE: And you want that. You are going to go in that voting booth and vote for that motherfucker.Like, Oh, man, it just,SHEFFIELD: I trySAGE: to like, not like in these situations, I'm down if I'm like, let's f*****g talk about it. Let's do it. But I have to really try hard to live my life with peace. So I, and I feel, and I, feel like I'm very constantly always walking this tight rope where it's like on one side, I'm so f*****g outraged by all of this stuff.And I feel like such a passionate drive towards activism and and then on the other side of this tightrope, it's like, man, I just want to live, be happy. I just want to live in peace. And I, and the media and the, like, my goddamn phone is constantly trying to, like, get me. Enraged and get me like responding and boosting the algorithm and stuff.And it's like, it's, very difficult to find a place to, to find that place of peace to, sort of detach from reality and remember that, like what's real, like, not, I'll be dead and none of this will have mattered, but I'm here now and it f*****g matters.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it makes sense. And Steve [00:14:00] Bannon, when he first came in as Trump's chief of staff or I guess White House advisor he said that their goal was to “flood the media zone with s**t.” And for a very good reason, because like they want people who are normal and affirming and progressive, they want you to see all this s**t and be so disgusted by it that you're just like, Oh, I cannot deal with this awful s**t anymore.I'm turning, I'm tuning out, I'm dropping out and and that's how they win. Because like. Americans, they don't want this s**t. They don't criminalize abortion. They don't want to criminalize birth control. They don't want to have mandatory prayer in school. They don't want any, they want their porn, like they want their marijuana.Like, this is what most people want and, but the goal, but they can, but the right wing can only do this by getting people to just be so disgusted and turning out and just like, oh, it's, just too awful. I can't handle it. I can't handle it. Yeah.SAGE: Yeah. And I do. Figuring out how to do that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So figuring out, how to be like, well, this is awful. But I exist in my own space and it is a positive space where I am around me. That's, I think, I feel like that's the ticket. And as much as you can cutting out personal drama and people who create problems for you in your life. Because yeah, you don't need to deal with that s**t. If you have a relative that won't leave you alone or a neighbor, that just pisses you off all the time. Don't talk to them.SAGE: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: It's totally okay.SAGE: It's beyond okay. Like, yeah, you don't, I don't think I a lot of times I really don't think that like engaging in arguments with people who are on the other side of the Your political beliefs. [00:16:00] I don't, I think we've reached this stage politically as a nation where I don't think that is productive even.I think it's like, you are just you're just talking to, yeah, you're, talking to a brick wall. You're literally just like bashing your head into a brick wall. Now there are people that I know a couple who are just like, gosh, I kind of feel like. Like Elon Musk is doing these good things. And I'm just like, okay, I can understand.I used to feel like that way too, when he was first coming up and he's like renewable energy and I'm like, yes. Then he made like 150 billion and a lot of things changed. And I'm like, and now I can explain to you step by step, like the way he's gone downhill. But also his origins, which you might think are one thing, but they are the opposite of that thing.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And that patience and that care for people who are like that is, that's fantastic. We need more of that because I do, sometimes I do feel like the progressives, we have our own little world and. When we see somebody who isn't familiar with the news stories or the issues, the, it's just, it's easy to, because I mean, there are a lot of shithead out there.But at the same time, there are a lot of people who don't know. They just simply do not know. And those people need to be, need to be talked to in a compassionate and thoughtful way.SAGE: Yeah. And that's part of it too. when you come back with anger and miss and just being like, no, you're wrong.That's, not going to convince anybody either. It does have to be this, like, let me ask you this question. Do you struggle to pay rent? Do you, how much is your health insurance? Do you have it? Okay. Let's think about like the reasons behind these issues in your life. Are you going to blame the person with absolutely zero [00:18:00] power, who maybe a nickel of your taxes goes to help give them food stamps to pay, to feed their kids, is that the person that you're really mad at? Or is it the billionaire who is just working to take away union rights and the CE the multi million dollar CEO of a health insurance company who wants to make really sure that like that you have to pay 1, 500 a month to get the insurance. But if you have an emergency, they're going to find every reason possible to make sure that they don't have to pay for it.I mean, it's just, who should you be mad at?The person with zero power or the person owning all the institutional power of this entire f*****g country? Like, can I just say they're building a goddamn train on the moon? How much is that? Billions of dollars? So we can't have healthcare, but you can build a f*****g train on the moon?SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Get some priorities. Yeah, No.Flashback: MAGA porn star Brandi Love expelled from a Charlie Kirk conferenceSHEFFIELD: So, okay. So, but just for your, you said you hadn't heard about the incident that, Brandi had.SAGE: Oh, please tell me. Yes.SHEFFIELD: Okay. So the thing with Brandi Love is, so this happened in 2021 and I wish it had blown up more because it's so hilarious. So she is super MAGA. And also Christian as well, which that's, I don't quite understand. And so anyway, so she, she bought tickets to Charlie Kirk's, one of his Christofascist rallies.SAGE: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And she showed up with a couple of her, I guess they're, assistants or who knows what, anyway. And so they were just wandering around and then that Nick Fuentes Nazi [00:20:00] guy, he had his people at the conference and they spotted her. And of course they all know who she is because, she's super famous and of course they all watch her and everybody else.And so they knew exactly who it was. And they started like posting on social media about, Oh, Charlie Kirk has invited this satanic slut into a conference of children. Look at this a*****e. And so then they filtered back to Charlie. And he kicked her out of the house.SAGE: Like, came down, found her, asked her to leave?SHEFFIELD: Well, not him personally. Yeah, he had her removed. Sent his people to remove her. Yes. And she was not doing anything, pornographic.SAGE: No.SHEFFIELD: She was just walking around being supportive. She was wearing a dress. And not even showing any real, I don't, I, if I remember right, I don't think she even showed much of any cleavage at all.And so she was just wandering, just wandering, and and they kicked her out and she was so angry about it and I'm just going to pull up what she had said about it. And I actually, I tried to talk to her about it. She, did not engage with me at all. and I thought that she might, because like a bunch of, people who work in porn follow me.So, and it's, cause like when somebody replies to you, it says, so and so follows. This person, right? Right.SAGE: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And so like, you can see if this is a, a person that would be relevant to you potentially that I'm not just, some shithead on the internet going to bother you.SAGE: Yeah, not just a Twitter guy.SHEFFIELD: A reply guy.Oh, actually, here we go. I'm going to put the screen share of this article on the stream so you can see it right here. So I might as well. Yeah. And it has the shirt that she was wearing. So you can see, it's literally [00:22:00] the most tamest v neck t shirt.SAGE: Oh yeah, totally, but she’s got gigantic honkers. So like, it's, I get this a lot with my ass sometimes where I'm like, I'm not even dressed egregiously, but people are treating me like I'm dressed insane!SHEFFIELD: Well, it's also, I mean, I do think that, yeah, women's bodies are thought of as community property in some sense.SAGE: Of course.SHEFFIELD: And so anyway, so she got very angry and this is what she says: It's a Trojan horse. If I had known it was going to behave and feel like a religious cult, I would have never gone. It's not a central message in their mission. I love God and I hate organized religion.SAGE: And it's like, she's got a personal relationship.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Jesus is her pal.SAGE: Like I read what I read there too. I caught a little bit of that article and it's like, that some mothers were like made aware of who she was, the pornographic nature of her lifestyle or whatever, and that they were like afraid for their kids or something.Your children are just going to see a woman that they don't know what the f**k she does for a living like thatSHEFFIELD: Well, or if they do already know her, they like her. You're not saving them from anything!SAGE: Oh, blonde women with huge knockers tons. She looks just like—SHEFFIELD: Mar-a-Lago.SAGE: Mar-a-Lago.SHEFFIELD: Maybe with less plastic surgery.SAGE: It's just so crazy to see because of the again, even with that tweet, it's like the cognitive dissonance. She's like, if I would have known it would have been like a religious cult. And I'm like, You're so deep in the forest. You look around and you don't see f*****g trees.Like the call is coming from inside the house, [00:24:00] lady.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, it's true.SAGE: But yeah, sometimes people are just s**t. Sometimes people are just s**t and that's just what they're going to do. So that's still a thing too.Why informed and empowered sexuality is dangerous to religious authoritariansSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Because I, mean, as we've talked about it, I mean, the Christian right. They want to take all of this away and like yeah, like nobody should be voting for these a******s because especially if you're like if you are like a single guy like they're, they want to take away everything that you like, like they want to censor video games.They want to take away your porn. And then they want to treat you as a second class citizen because you're single.SAGE: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. If you're not out making babies, what are you doing?SHEFFIELD: That's right. Yeah. And like, just they're, against everything who you are. Like it isn't just, so even if you can't fully see why sex workers are, should be protected and supported.Like, or, that you don't maybe, have a lot of respect for, I don't know, whatever groups you don't like, understand that they're coming for you. They're coming for everybody who is not a, white Christian billionaire. Like if you're not those things, then you're going to get fucked and not in a good way.SAGE: no, the worst, ways. Yeah, and it is, and, like, and this is why I do think that sex workers are so important because you, guys actually, your own lived experience is instructive to both women and to men.Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. . Like when I started, especially there's more knowledge coming out and when we learn about. How utilizing the real words for parts, like really empowers, especially children.And it is there the lack of explanation and this separation of self from body that we sort of impose on children at a young age and [00:26:00] like not explaining to them about their own body. That we're like, that's your cookie. That's your hoo ha whatever the f**k it's like, no, that's your f*****g vulva and this is your vagina.And. You need to know these things. So if people start talking to you about this stuff, you can be like, this is wrong. It makes me uncomfortable. You could set your own bodily boundaries and autonomy. Like this is healthy. It keeps people from, it makes it less likely to experience sexual abuse. And with how f*****g rampant that is with children.It's like, it's,like, here I am a porn star. They're trying so desperately to keep me away from children when I have their best intentions at heart. Like, ultimately I am like, they need to know this about their body. They need to know like what violations are.And when they reach a certain age, like when they're 13, 14, 15, then they should be learning about sex.SHEFFIELD: Like their body is for them. It's not for. God, it's notSAGE: for the man that will come into your life at some point or whatever. Like,SHEFFIELD: this is your thing. It's your property and you should use it to the fullest degree and love it.SAGE: And you should, and it's okay to feel pleasure like that. Like pleasure is not naughty. You shouldn't get worried about getting caught by your parents, like discovering your own pleasure. And it's awkward and uncomfortable, but I think the thing would like, if your parents discover it, it's well, if they walked into your room, it's like, Oh, I violated your privacy.Like I will do better next time you have that conversation. If it's like, they're doing it on public, it's like, Hey, you know what? Totally love that you're exploring your body, but that is something that we do in private. So when you're in the bathroom or when you're in your bedroom, then you can go explore your body.SHEFFIELD: But porn is also instructive and helpful for men, that porn really is most people's, at least maybe for a long time is most people's exposure to same sex intimacy.SAGE: [00:28:00] Yeah, no, for sure.Definitely.SHEFFIELD: Like, and even though we'veSAGE: come a long way, you might see just the concept.SHEFFIELD: But like, like if you lived in Victorville, California, like you wouldn't know, even now I would think like, you wouldn't know that many people who were out, lesbian or out gay. You just wouldn't. And so Where ISAGE: grew up was even smaller than Victorville, California.I wasn't the first person who was like holding hands with my girlfriend in high school, but I was probably the second.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, my high school was extremelySAGE: small. Yeah, forSHEFFIELD: sure.Repressed male bisexuality and right-wing authoritarianismSHEFFIELD: and like porn is basically, so for, non heterosexual people, it is educational in that sense for them. It's getting them to realize there's other people who don't do things that are heterosexual.And yes, and, that it's not horrible. Like, and I wish, I wish, you That it was more of a, cause like, I feel like there are a lot of bisexual men out there.SAGE: Oh, definitely.SHEFFIELD: There are so many bisexual men, but there is so repressed. Yes.SAGE: And that is a major issue currently, I letting believe for sure.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. I think, I actually think it's one of the biggest societal problems because, now the stigma against. Against bisexual women is, it's, mostly gone. Although people still don't take it seriously. I think,SAGE: They don't.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. It's,SAGE: it's kind of like the bi invisibility issue in general.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it'sSAGE: like you're either, a lot of people think, Oh yeah, you're just, you're on your way to being gay. And No, or it's like, people would be not even like a woman would not even want to hook up with me. Because I have a, because I have a male partner, so it's like, Oh, well, you're not, real.And [00:30:00] I'm like, look, we're not even trying to have a. I'm not trying to marry you, like, but like, I am genuinely attracted to you very greatly.And it's just like, but because I think they have, a lot of gay women have this just feeling that like. Well, you wouldn't really be into it cause you're just waiting for the next dick to come along. And it's just, that's so the opposite of me specifically. And that's why I don't really like identify as bisexual, but knowing that I have attractions that have the potential to go all directions.So that's why I identify as queer. But I doseetheproblem of bi erasure. And that's why I don't really like identify as bi erasure. And I, just dislike it when it comes to women. I just like that. It's yeah, like not taken seriously, but when it comes to men, it's like, it's so repressive and it's so, it's just like rooted in toxic masculinity and like traditional masculinity and like what that means that and again, to this idea that like, when people are misogynistic, when people are Uh, they are also, they are just misogynist in disguise because it's like they see gay men as being like feminine and they don't like feminine men and they don't like feminine men because they don't like femininity and they feel like femininity belongs in this particular box.And if it doesn't look like that. It's just, it's all the same f*****g thing. Well, andSHEFFIELD: yeah, an expressive feminine man should not exist in that world.SAGE: Right. Yes.SHEFFIELD: Stay in the closet. Yes.SAGE: If you're a dude who wants to have a dick in your mouth, well, that's an issue for them. YeahLow-grade podcasters are ruining the lives of their audiences with their awful adviceSHEFFIELD: Yeah, but and but it is also I mean it isn't [00:32:00] only misogyny.It's also no I mean it is definitely a fear of their own, homosexual desires And so like just like and it bugs the f**k out of me that like for instance Because I feel like men are, they have, there's a lot of men, a lot of cis hetero men are totally lost in this world. I feel like that there needs to be a, non toxic Hugh Hefner. That's what there needs to be as a way of modeling positive. Affirming masculinity.Yes. And sexuality. Affirming male sexuality. That doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. And we've got, I repeat, we've got, all of these, Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan. It's trash. And it's harming Not only is it harming the women and, the, LGBTQ people in the, in this, it's also harming their own audience.Like they're f*****g them up horribly because they're telling them s**t that isn't going to work that, that, OhSAGE: my God. That's so it's not going to work. And the response to this has been this anti. Man movement and not in the sense of like, f**k all men, although there is a little bit of that, like, I could say this is what leads to, there's 4B movement and the man versus bear.Argument, and it's because they, these people are gathering up so many minds of young men and it's like, they're just teaching them to be worse. And so you have women responding by being like. Oh, cool. I'll I'm actually really happy being single and I'll just do that. Then I'll just be single and I just won't have kids.And then they're watching like these, [00:34:00] okay. So people are having less kids. It's like, Oh, this is because of like all this feminist b******t. It's like, no, have you looked at the economy lately? Like who's going to f*****g be able to afford a kid, but also all of you men coming out and like talking about this s**t, it's like, who, who wants that?Like, and then the fertility rates are dropping because there's f*****g microplastics in a hundred percent of people's f*****g balls because it's just in our body now because the f*****g deregulation of the food industry and the things that we consume. I mean,SHEFFIELD: Oh God, I love this. I f*****g love this.SAGE: And so then you've got these pundits on Fox News who are like, Oh, it's the liberal f*****g sex hookers, whatever.And it's like, man. No, and religion isn't going to change any of this s**t. The only thing that's going to change this is getting rid of capitalism in the state that we have it in right now.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Oh man.SAGE: And yeah, I am so glad that we areSHEFFIELD: talking to each other. Yeah, this is so great. I love it. I love it. Yeah, no, you're right. The advice that they're giving to men, it's, also totally outward focused as well, because like, they're telling young boys, your only goal in life is to f**k women.And it's like, if that's your goal in life, you're not, you're never going to have a meaningful relationship. Even if you do have sex. And you should actually love yourself and know yourself before you try to go out and like, you should be, you should like being single because you get a chance to finally know who you are and to be with yourself, but I think a lot of people, they don't.They're afraid of being alone with themselves.SAGE: A lot of people are afraid of being alone with themselves. And but like what you just said, that's, sort of my advice to people in general anyway, is like people who feel like they're so [00:36:00] desperately looking to find a partner not even just for sex, but like a life partner.And I'm like, And I see a lot of them where it's like, you, haven't been alone for five f*****g minutes. Like you've never not had a boyfriend or whatever the case is, it's just like, yeah. Like, why would someone want to be with? You, if you don't even want to be with you, you have to know that you are like someone who's worthy, who has value.And if you can't even see that, like you have to work on yourself first so that you can come to another person and be like, Hey, I don't need you. To, like, fill up this hole inside me.SHEFFIELD: To complete me, yeah.SAGE: Yes! Like, that was the most toxic f*****g thing of the 90s, right? You complete me. It's like, no, I'm complete, and you just, like, make things even better.We complement. You don't complete me, you complement me. And that's like how I feel with my partner. It's like I, when we approached, when we found each other, it was like, it wasn't like I'm missing something and I desperately need you to fill this hole inside of me.It was like, Hey, I'm good right now. I'm f*****g feeling great. I am looking great. I'm, good. So we can see if we want to be together. So it was a little like dancey at first, but it was ultimately like we fell in love so fast. But that was the thing is that it was very much like, I didn't want us to be having this codependency or something like that.It was like, we are both full whole people and we just, we're even better when we're together, we just like being with each other and we, lift each other up in these ways. But not that like I needed you to, because I can't be alone. And like, I see that with my, with, I just, I see that in other people sometimes and it just kind of makes me like, Oh yeah, I wish you could [00:38:00] know that you're worth it.LikeSex work and the human need for intimacySHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it's all, it's also that I think, a lot of people, they, and this is probably more a thing for cishet men is that they don't have real friendships either. And so,SAGE: yeah. AndSHEFFIELD: so the, their romantic partner is their only deep friend. Yeah.SAGE: Then they don't even want, yeah. Like they, it is, and yet they won't even like.deeply engage with that person evenSHEFFIELD: like,SAGE: You could just have this sort of picture in your head of this type of Chad or this type of incel or this type of whatever Andrew Tate motherfucker. And it's just like, man, you haven't thought about. You haven't had an existential thought in your entire f*****g life.That's kind of how I think about it. Like, and it's great. I do meet people like that sometimes. And I'm just like, man, you never once like thought about those. Big picture things like, like big like not even big picture, like, I don't know, like what, why are you here? But just thought about something otherSHEFFIELD: than your job and what you, what's on the team.Yeah. JustSAGE: like the deep, picture . Yeah. It's like my mind like if those are the onlySHEFFIELD: things you think about Yeah. Then yeah, you really gotta change your mindset. ButSAGE: I'd encourage it . Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Well, and, like, but I mean, and historically I mean that is also a. a thing that sex workers have done, that in many cases, because like before therapy was even a thing.And even now that it is, like a lot of people will not go to a therapist because they don't want to do it or just never even enters the picture or their religion tells them they shouldn't do it. And so that is why, like people in Hollywood sometimes mock the idea of [00:40:00] the, the stripper with the heart of gold story.Like they think of it as a cliche, but in a lot of ways it actually is, that's how a lot of sex workers are for their clients. Because without them, they would have no. External significant thoughts. They wouldn't experience physical touch. OhSAGE: yes. The physical touch thing. Like I've, understood that since I was a stripper, like I said, stripping was the first just about the first sex work thing that I like really, did.And yeah, I've thought a lot the first couple of years and I came to really understand like. That, I mean, I had a lot of experiences where it was just like, I could feel that this person needed this from me so badly and does not get it anywhere else in their life. And and that's a devastating thing.AndSHEFFIELD: it's tragic for that person. Yeah.SAGE: Yeah. Yeah. And not only that, I mean, I've had. experiences where it was just like, I would say I learned a lot about chemistry from giving lap dances at the strip club, and some people you're given a dance to, and they're just yeah, hot chick. Yeah.Hot chick. But then other people, it's just like, you feel total strangers never saw them again. But like, I, there's a couple of clients that stand out in my mind that it was, and this is f*****g like more than 15 years ago. But I still remember these particular moments where I was like, he kept getting dances and we were just like making eye contact.And there was just this heavy chemistry going between us. And I mean all this stuff, like sex work opened my mind and my eyes to so many different things. Like I feel that I used to be like anti Prostitution. When I was like 17, 18, I was just raised like where my mom would talk about that kind of stuff and be like, well, that's bad or whatever, but I don't think she even really understood why it was just [00:42:00] that era of feminism from the time that she came up in And just through doing the sex work, everything just started opening up.And I was just like, why is that bad? Like if someone wants is willing, if someone is like, Hey, I offer this service and someone else is like, I really need that service and I will give you money for it. Whose business is it? Like, it's not the government's business. It's nobody like. It's just that like what makes it illegal?Two people can f**k whenever they want, but now it's illegal because I left some money on the counter. LikeSHEFFIELD: blowsSAGE: my mind to this f*****g day. I am just so mind blown and, it's almost like now we can't even, we're so far away from even being able to address that topic. It's like because we are on the porn thing now and the porn thing has just kind of always been like well We've got the constitution so you can't tell these people that they can't make and these other people they can't consume You can't do that But we're getting closer to them like f*****g doing it and that way they're doing it is they're going like around the Constitution They're like they're skirting the issue by going to the childrenSHEFFIELD: Also,SAGE: and they're doing that, which, but we all know that, right?It's like, it's always, they use, they pick up the children and they hold them out as like a f*****g, sword and shield as like, we're going into battle on their behalf and it's like, that's the parents business. Like ISHEFFIELD: sawSAGE: this tweet that I retweeted a little while ago that was like, you should be f*****g offended that the government and these lobbyists, religious groups and stuff are telling you that you don't know how to protect your child from from stuff online that you don't want them to see.That's your job. That's not anybody else's job. Like you should be f*****g offended by that. And I'm like, good point.Sinn's journey out of religionSHEFFIELD: And like One of the other things that it can teach them is that [00:44:00] bodies are different and it's, and that there are so many different ones out there and, many people can be beautiful.You yourself could be beautiful also, if you write about it.SAGE: Yeah,SHEFFIELD: and that's, it's something that, yeah, like, that's, I mean, like, ultimately the, whole right wing, religious hatred of porn and sex work. It's, that women are empowered and have agency, but it's also that men learn that they don't have to hate themselves and feel dead inside.SAGE: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Those I think are to me why they hate it so much.SAGE: Yeah. And I think those are major threats to their institutions of power.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Because ultimately, I mean, and I, they want people to feel like that everything sucks and it can never get better. And you are not worth anything.Yeah. And that you are not worth a goddamn thing. Yes. Yes. And you shouldn't try to band together with someone else to impact because that's not possible. Progress is not possible. No. Having something better is not possible. Being a better person. That's not possible. You are s**t and you should just accept it.SAGE: Yep. That's why I think that religion for children, I think that's abuse, like straight up abuse, like even withoutSHEFFIELD: theSAGE: sexual abuse, like take that to the side for a second. Just telling a child who's just becoming aware that. You were born awful, so you're already broken and bad just because you exist but don't worry, there's a way to fix it if you [00:46:00] just, say the magic words and then follow this book chock full of contradicting rules, then you'll be worthy enough and valuable enough to like, Whatever.I mean, it's just that thing where it's, marketing really like religion is just master of marketing because it's like convince people they have this problem and then provide the only solution.SHEFFIELD: And then also prevent any sort of accountability of your solution. So, yeah. So, but I, so in your case though, when did you kind of have that realization?Like, what was your background in religion?SAGE: for me, like, it wasn't really It wasn't oppressed upon me in this terrible way. So I am extremely blessed and lucky that I have parents that were just. They were English teachers, so, they went to college at Humboldt State University. I was born in Arcata, California, which I guess if people don't really know, that is a super duper hippie college um, and Humboldt State University.SHEFFIELD: Northern California.SAGE: Yeah, it's Northern like super far Northern California, like six hours North of San Francisco in the Redwood forest. And that's where all the best weed in the world comes from. Like, it's just hippieville. Like you can literally go there anytime I could go there right now.And there'd be some hippies in the plaza wearing their, Jerry Garcia pants. Or just, what you could get, what you get there. Anyway,SHEFFIELD: there are evangelicals there too, though, right?SAGE: there are some conservatives there too, but because, well, you just have this extreme kind of, cause you'll have people that are really big on guns and cause it's also very [00:48:00] rural.So even though there is this like education institution and a lot of the more hippie Mindset, at least how things are now, that mindset, that sort of naturalistic path, the essential oil type stuff that can also slide right into the the manga. Yeah, it's calledSHEFFIELD: Pastel Q and I don't know what people call it.Yeah.SAGE: Yes. Yeah. So like the conspiracy theory stuff and all that, but let me not get too off topic here. So what I will say is that when, my, my dad got a job, a full time, a job, full time teaching in Southern California, and so we moved down there when I was like five and a half and, That was the desert and that was a totally different lifestyle, totally different place and there's lots of churches.So I will say there was this moment, I remember it was like first grade and a kid had asked me, what religion are you? And I was I don't know. Uh, So like, I think I'd been made aware of the God concept. I know my parents were in a church when I was born, but I think that was a lot for sort of the community support aspect of it.And then I moved to Southern California and I, so I went home and I said, mom, what religion am I? And she said, well, you're a Christian. And I was like, okay, so I just went and that's what I told the kid, like my mom says I'm Christian. That's what we are. Okay. Like no big deal. We're kids. Like, we're not really like thinking a lot about that.And then over the years, like, I remember my mom taking us to a particular church one time and. Then there was like a youth, or Sunday school.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Cause I wasSAGE: little so, and that was interesting and kind of weird. And and then I'd stay the night at friends houses and the next day would be their time to go to church.So I was like, is it cool if I go to this Catholic church with my friends? Cause I stayed over on Saturday night. Like now they're all going to church. Can I go? And she's like, well, yeah, you can go, it wasn't that [00:50:00] they were, Yeah. Not neither of my parents ever were like, no, you can't hear about these other ideas.They, never enforced this Christian aspect on me either. So I went and tried a couple of times at the Catholic church and saw. Honestly, like there's at least one sermon that I remember being fairly positive and probably had some sort of influence on the way I think about life and stuff, but and then from there, but I didn't like get super into it.And then another friend was like going to this thing called Awanas, which was more like youth group. But I was like. 11, 12, 13 at the time. And so it was like this booklet you got and you had all these s***s you had to memorize. Like they wanted you to memorize the, all the books of the Bible, like all this stuff.It was like, why? But so this is where we're getting closer to sort of like when things start brewing for me. And there was this one night and. They set up the place where we would hold this as a, an airplane, like, like we're going in the airport. We got a ticket to get on the plane and we sit down the plane and they're like, the movie we're watching on the plane ride tonight.It was f*****g left behind.SHEFFIELD: The Kirk Cameron one, I presume, right?SAGE: I'm not sure if it was before Kirk Cameron did his version. I think there's been several but we are talking like, 95. Kirk Cameron isSHEFFIELD: the original oneSAGE: though. 95. It could be. It could be.SHEFFIELD: I think it was him. Yeah.SAGE: I don't remember a s**t ton about it, but like I do remember that it was terrifying.And I was just too young at the time. How old were youSHEFFIELD: again? Yeah, it's probablySAGE: 12 when this happened andSHEFFIELD: that's child abuse right there. ISAGE: agree. Yes. They show you this terrifying thing and they say, when you die. Or when the rapture comes, because that's what the movie's more about, the rapture. And so it showed this mom waking up and she can't find her kids.So she's [00:52:00] freaking out. Like our kids have been kidnapped or whatever. And she goes outside and everyone'sSHEFFIELD: like, yes,SAGE: but it's shown in this terrifying way. Like where, as though it was a person that came and took them. And so that was really scary. and then they're like, I guess at the airport in heaven or whatever the f**k it is.And. It's like, well, yeah, we love them, but like, they didn't believe. So they don't get to be here and we don't get to be together now. And and, oh my God. And I was just like, is that what it's like? Oh, f**k. Like, I don't want to not be, I don't want to be without my mom and dad when I, when we die and go to heaven or when the rapture, the idea of the rapture is absolutely ludicrous to me, but, I sit down in my room by myself and I pray and I say, Yes, Lord. They tell you, they give you instructions. This is what you need to say. A script.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, there'sSAGE: a script. And so I sat down and I said those things and I manifested this feeling in my heart, and I like shed a tear even.It's funny 'cause it was almost like performative, but I was alone. And I, did all of that. And it's just interesting because it was almost like performative in a sense, even though I was. Alone in my room, but Oh,SHEFFIELD: yeah.SAGE: But so they could tell youSHEFFIELD: make it, that's a word.Yes. Fa that is really what they tell you.SAGE: And it's a, and I like that for a lot of other aspects of life, , but ISHEFFIELD: know that is ironic. Yeah.SAGE: Yeah. But so to me that was like this big moving thing. And I think even at that point, my mom had already started kind of being like, I'm not sure about this religion stuff.To a certain extent. And then the other thing is that I had always been taught that when it does come to God, God is love. That God is love and there's not, it was never taught about this sort of judgment stuff andSHEFFIELD: that,SAGE: You should be fearful of God and that he's all about the punishment.Like that was definitely not the [00:54:00] attitude that my parents were trying to instill in us at all. Yeah. So, So then I, what really, so anyways, that's just to tell you that, like, they used fear to manipulate my very own mind towards this thing that they wanted me to do. And another element, like I remember being at that Awanas and it was this couple was, they're young couple and they were talking about the sex before marriage thing.And they're like, we're getting, they were engaged. And I was like, so, and this is me at f*****g 12. I was like, you guys. I've never even, you've never had sex. You've never even kissed because that's the, thing, right? Like you cannot even make out, you cannot do any of that s**t. And I was like, what's it going to be like when you have your wedding night?Don't you think that'll be awkward? But they were just so deep in with, drinking the Kool Aid. So then I joined this after school club, which we had on campus at the time because the satanic temple didn't exist yet to come and say, well, we also have a Satan club. So we were, so I was doing this, it was called the Alpha and Omega club and.These are the two things that really pushed me to the change. Like, of course I was always been thinking aboutSHEFFIELD: middle school.SAGE: Yeah. So now I'm 13. So I'm 13. I'm in eighth grade. Ever since I was a kid, like, I remember the first time my babysitter was like, I don't believe in God. Like that's b******t.And I was like, what? I thought that was so interesting. And she was just what is it? She was just explaining things to me in a rational way that made sense. And I was like, okay, but like, I still believe in God. So, but I think it just always just like my, I was always taught how to think, not what to think.I'll put it that way. And so when, so first thing that happened, we have a little election and our little alpha Omega group that had maybe five, maybe like eight on a good day [00:56:00] andSHEFFIELD: hierarchy started.SAGE: Yes. So we had to have an election. Yep.SHEFFIELD: ISAGE: was like, well, I'm going to run for president of this club. So I went up and I was just like, to me, God is love.And it's about expressing that love. And I think we need to find more, all these ways to like, really show God's love and like live in this and yada, right. And my best friend who was my best friend for years, like love her till the end of the days. And also the smartest person I know. Is still very Christian.And I always fantasize about like talking to her about that stuff, now we're 40, I think we're just eh, I'll let it, lie. But anyways she gets up there and she's like, I was. My thing is that I fear God and her whole spiel was like the righteousness and the fear and the like all that type of like her vibe was opposite of mine.And I was like, wow, I got this in the bag. Right. And no, I lost and she won. So that was a big thing for me where I was like, Whoa, what's this? Okay. Okay. Okay. That's fine. We'll go to the club and several weeks are going by or whatever. Okay. So, this. Someone had brought in this game. We would play this game.I think it was some kind of a card game and the cards have these little like moral conundrums on them. And I mean, the point is to thinkSHEFFIELD: aboutSAGE: it through the lens of Christianity. The point, it's like a Jesus game, right? And so it's, so that each little conundrum on the, it's, meant to stimulate conversation about like what you would do through the It all ends in your faith or whatever.And so the card was. Your friend is having a sleepover and I can't remember exactly the scenario, but it was something along these lines or yeah, your friend's having a sleepover but she has a sister who's a [00:58:00] homosexual. Like, do you go to the sleepover? It was something like the, along those lines where it's like, there's a homosexual involved and that's like what we're f*****g talking about here.And. Should you be in theSHEFFIELD: house with a homosexual?SAGE: I mean, essentially, yes. I remember when I was in first grade when I heard some kids say like, you're gay. And I was like, what the f**k is that? And I went home and I said, like, what is gay? My mom told me what gay was. And she's like, but people are different and there's nothing wrong with being different.So. It was just, it was always, that was the thing. And the girl, the people like the other people in the group were like starting to debate about this. And I was like, what is going on here? Like Jesus calls us to love people, right. And not to judge. So why would we judge? Can we just go to the f*****g party?Like I say, we just go to the party.SHEFFIELD: I mean, hung out with prostitutes for God's sake. Those were his friends. Like,SAGE: and so and at that moment, the, man, it's so convoluted because the teacher, you have an afterschool club. There has to be a teacher who is called the advisor. And especially when it's a religious club, the advisor has to sit in that chair and keep their mouth f*****g shut and let the students do the club.Like this isn't like a teacher led club because it's religious. Right. So her job was to sit there and let us f*****g have this discussion. I was already getting like really fired up and I was just kind of like getting very frustrated by what was being said. And she pipes up back there and she says, okay, well, because I know her personally.That's the other thing. Like, so my parents are teachers, very small community. She lived down the street from me. I was friends with her daughter. Like, like we, we always, like, I knew her since I was young, And I knew she was super duper f*****g religious. And so she pipes up and she goes, well, it does say in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin.And [01:00:00] I gotta be honest with you. She might have gone on to say any number of kind or nice thing, but I will never know because I grabbed my backpack and I f*****g stormed out of that classroom and let the door slam behind me. And that is always the moment that I look at as like. Me really recognizing the hypocrisy that Incongruity of beliefs, the fact that you could all say you're Christian, but you all have different beliefs.You cherry pick the things that you want that apply to your personal life or your personal way you want to live your life. to vilify other people. And that was just like the beginning of a cascade, right? It was like the first domino falling, kind of. So after that, it was just, I'm thinking about this stuff so much.I'm thinking about, why do I even, like, why do I try to dress like the other people at school? Why do I, like, I was just thinking about. Why do I even believe in this stuff? I was thinking, when I was born into the world, if as I'm developing consciousness someone told me that a plate of flying spaghetti created the universe and he watches over me this flying spaghetti and da That's what I would believe You know, and I think about all the other, of all the other religions all around the world and how those people were each born and they were each told that what, truth was, and so then they believed that was the truth.And so then I was just like, well, what the f**k is true at all? And like, how's any of this? How can I trust anything? And so there was a good year, two years of a lot of just really reflecting on all of this major, big stuff. Like I said [01:02:00] earlier, like having all of these big existential thoughts and ideas running around in my head.And then I found, The music of Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails and that song, Terrible Lie and all that stuff. And then I met other, when you get to, I got to high school and I was like, I'm meeting different kinds of people. And I met this girl and she dressed super f*****g goth. And I was so fascinated by it.And her general attitude of like, not caring what other people think. And she kind of introduced me to him, the Marilyn Manson stuff. And then I was like, really obsessed with watching that stuff and the things that he had to say. So this, girl, she went on to, she was like the first my first real relationship, like the first person I really was in love with.And. So we dated for a short time in high school. and then Marilyn Manson, I would say these were the two, these were two like key figures that I think really helped shape me into the person that I am today. I mean, going back, so long, that was a good baseline for me to be like, why am I so concerned not only with like what other people are thinking about reality, but like with what other people think of me.Like,SHEFFIELD: well,SAGE: that's, it's not, I love this phrase. Like what other people think of me isn't any of my business, unless it's good.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. ButSAGE: It's like, it's still a good thing. And then like doing the job that I do now and hearing from such a wide variety of people on a daily basis for the past 20 years of doing this work, it's really shown me how many people are paralyzed by.Worrying about what other people think that they don't live [01:04:00] their truth. They don't live their life authentically. They don't live their life with the joy of their own expression.SHEFFIELD: Or even knowing who they are.SAGE: Yeah. Or their own even adventures. Like, man, I wish I could go do X, Y, Z. And I'm like, what the f**k is holding you back?You can't. Oh,SHEFFIELD: you could. Yeah.SAGE: Yeah. But they're just crippled by this stuff.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, so can I just step back a little bit in the story though? So you I mean for people Who are familiar with your work and who you are, like, you do identify as queer and you are attracted toSAGE: men andSHEFFIELD: women like, so, I mean, nonSAGE: binary people and, yeah,SHEFFIELD: And so for, but like, did you have that sense when you heard the teacher say that.Homosexuality is a sin. Had you had that sense about yourself by that?SAGE: Okay. So yes, I had, but not in the sense that like I identified as that person yet at that time I think it was. Around that time that I was around 13 that I was really starting to be like I'm bisexual. That's how I identified at the time.But it didn't really sink in like, no, I like girls too. I have crushes on girls too. I think I was in ninth grade the first time I made out with a girl and I was like, yep, I want this, so I think I wasn't really like when I got up and walked out of that classroom, it wasn't because I was personally offended from my own.Queerness, it was that I was offended for an [01:06:00] entire, of course, I wouldn't have had this language at the time, but an entire marginalized group of people who I viewed as, No different than myself and not because of the sexuality aspect. Just because of the humanity aspect and, just like the way that I was raised.So I wasn't, yeah. So I wasn't pi, I wasn't like pissed off for myself. I was just pissed off that in this f*****g classroom, , this teacher was trying to remind. that being gay was this was a sin in the eyes of God or whatever. And I was just like, this is not okay. Like I just viscerally knew that was not okay.Seeing others' humanity makes it so much harder to hate themSHEFFIELD: Yeah, like that's getting people to not see that is really the, one of the core control mechanisms for this authoritarian ideology that we're talking about, because the moment that you see that people are, who are different than you are also the same as you.SAGE: Oh yes.SHEFFIELD: Then it's, then you can't, it's impossible to hate them after that. That, getting men to see that women are people too, and getting, straight people to see that, non straight people are people and the transgender people are people,it's about removing our humanity, our shared sense of humanity.SAGE: Yes, finding the ways to separate us, whether it's up and down, whether it's right and blue. Yeah, And that's the thing is like it is up versus down, but everybody's all caught up in this left versus right and they're not. And I'm like, if we could just realize that it's up that we need to be f*****g using our forces again.But when we talk about like what you just said, even about getting, people to essentially like hate each other. [01:08:00] And Even when I think right now about people that I just like disagree with so deeply on such a deep level, like when I think about Donald Trump, for example, I don't even think of it, I think of it, it kind of was the thing that just like makes me a little ill and it makes me just upset that to know that people can fall for such a, it's just so clearly An emperor in no clothing type of situation.Right. But it's not, I don't feel hatred towards it. I don't feel hate towards Donald Trump, towards Charlie Kirk, like towards Andrew Tate, Joe Rogan, whatever. I hate the ideologies they espouse, but I don't hate them as people. I think they're just like very, misguided people that. Got almost the minds taken advantage of, but and so I think that it's, yeah, as you say that, like, if we could just recognize each other's humanities, that's like a really good first step.But it's frustrating that like very much feels like their site isn't willing to see that, but on a deeper level than just talking about sides, like I have done some of the most powerful hallucinogenics that you can have access to on this planet. And. And it was made very clear to me that like, and so you can take this with whatever grain of salt you want to, but through my own lens, like this seems very obvious and I see it all the time.I mean, I see this s**t all the time that just like people see Jesus all the time. I get it. It's about it's about. Getting that oneness, that non duality. So it was basically like, we are all the same thing. We are like all of this, not just you and me and not just people, not just animals, not just this desk or whatever. It's just like, it's all, it's, there's no separation.It's. And we're here having this this [01:10:00] little f*****g experience of being alive in this way. And so I remember the last, I've done it twice now, two separate times. And the, and obviously the second time it's going to be a lot different than the first time. And after I came out the first time, when I came back, I was laughing hysterically because being alive is just so f*****g ridiculous. But then the second time when I came back, I cried and I wasn't crying because of what I had been through. I was weeping because what I said over and over was if only they knew. If only everybody knew what it all really was,we wouldnot have all of this like hate.It sounds so trite, trying to use the words to say it, right? It sounds very cliche and very hippie ish, but it's like, if things wouldn't be this way, if just people knew.SHEFFIELD: Well, yeah, and well, look, you shouldn't feel. Bad about that, about feeling that way. Cause you're right about that. Cause the, everybody wants to be seen, but most people don't want to be known and, so like, and that, that's the thing is that if you can get to the, if, everyone could get to the point where they want to be known to themselves and to others, like, that's what we need is for people to have that sense of that, that we are.All together. AndSAGE: yeah,SHEFFIELD: That's what we need. And we comeSAGE: from the same stuff and we'll go back to that. So yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And like, and that is why I do. I mean, that is another reason why that I am trying to sort of reconfigure my career [01:12:00] because like I, I'm, by trade a political writer and a pollster and TV news producer.But those are not the answers we need right now. And like this is like, and as part of my personal journey, like I have come to realize that, adult entertainers and sex workers. You guys are actually some of the most important people in the world right now. And I, really mean that. I'm not just, saying that to be nice to you.Yeah. I really f*****g mean that. It's nice toSAGE: hear, but I know what you mean. Like, I know what you mean. Most of us do live our lives in aSHEFFIELD: very honestSAGE: way.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and that's what it is, because like, It is the only profession out there that everybody knows about. And everybody uses. But it is also hated at the same time.SAGE: Oh, yes.And they don't want to talk about it. And yeah. Yeah.Answering the radical feminist critique of pornographySAGE: And it's funny too, because like a lot of like, especially Rad Feminist, like Rad Fems, Radical Feminists. And they'll be just like, Oh, you're exploiting yourself. So there's that. Where it's like, Oh, that's, having a job. That's what having a job is.So get that right first. And then they'll be like, you are Objectifying yourself and I'm like you are the one who is dehumanizing me like you are the one who is saying that I don't have the choice to make for myself to portray myself as an object if I so desire to use my, yeah. And then alsoSHEFFIELD: you're the one that made that choice.So therefore you can't be. The object like nobody did that to you. You did thatSAGE: exactly. And the other thing is, like, the, they say like, it's teaching men to dehumanize you or whatever the f**k like that. And I'm just like, you are the 1 doing the dehumanizing here. And. This is something that's really interesting is like, there's been some studies on whether or not porn makes men think of women, [01:14:00] think less of women, like think of women in a more misogynistic ways. They interviewed a bunch of men who watch porn, like on Pornhub and stuff.And then they interviewed a bunch of men who went to AVN. So ABN being the it's the awards show, but it's the convention leading up to the awards show every January. FormerlySHEFFIELD: adult video news for those people. Yes. Yeah.SAGE: Which it will always be called ABN. And even though it stands for adult video news, it's so outdated, but yes.And the difference being that one side is just sort of casual porn watcher. Doesn't take it seriously really. And just uses it to like masturbate and get on with their f*****g lives versus people who invest their time, who become like attached to particular performers, seek out their work and and then, like patronize their websites and stuff like that, or they follow the particular brands or companies that they like the work that comes from them.And what they found is that. So the casual watchers are, tend to see women or view women in these more misogynistic ways. They like, when they were asked these questions, sort of questions like, do you think we should ever have a woman president or their answer would be no. Then, but then when they interview these people who actually sort of invest in us as people, they were like, yes, of course.Why couldn't a woman be president? Like all their views were more. Humanizing of us. And I can tell you that just from my, I can tell you that just from my personal experience, like when I go to an event like AVN, let's say I'm sitting at a booth and I've got pictures to sign or even if I don't, it's like people can come up and take pictures with me and they can interact with me in person, face to face.I have been told the most amazing things. I have been told that. I helped people that, I inspire people to live their truth more. I've been told [01:16:00] that, me and my wife were, my, my wife and I were having some difficulties and just sort of, we learned to be more intimate together from watching your work.And Like paying attention to what you say and the things you talk about and the things you are in your interviews and on your on Twitter and, places like this. And so it's like, when those people come up to me and they're expressing their admiration for me as a person, they are humanizing me.And, I'm humanizing them. I'm not like, Oh, this is just a fan. It's like, this is a person who is telling me that my work is meaningful to them. And that is meaningful to me. So like, I think that's huge. And I think it is that it's almost, they respect women on a level that I think the casual viewer.kind of dismisses and I think that the narrative focuses on things that are just demonstrably false. It's frustrating.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. No, it's true.Why intimacy and attraction are essential to high-quality pornSHEFFIELD: And like, and you've talked about this on your own podcast somewhat about how that. You feel like that, having somebody who is straight when they watch same sex porn of the opposite sex that it, helps them have a better appreciation for the opposite sex and like what they want out of intimacy and who they are.And, and like, and you, I mean, like you had talked about that. Yeah. Yeah. With Anna Fox, like in terms of like what, like how women or how men should learn, to, perform oral sex. Like don't watch it, don't learn it from a straight, a guy, girl video. Don't watchSAGE: hetero porn the way guys hate Christian hetero porn.it's, ghastly.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And yet, like, so it not only gives you as a, gives a straight person a better sense of the opposite sex. She's like. [01:18:00] I, I know a number of women, like the only porn they watch is gay porn. That's what they like.SAGE: Lesbians, like watching gay male porn.AndSHEFFIELD: well, I mean, the ones I'm saying are straight, but yeah. Okay. It could be that too.SAGE: I mean, for sure. YouSHEFFIELD: could do that too. Yeah.SAGE: but the, like my theory behind that is that it has to do with the genuine Attraction and passion. And in a lot of straight porn they're just I mean, there's, I've watched a film I've filmed it.I've like, I don't do boy, girl porn with anybody except my partner, but there's just, there's some scenes where they're very connected and it's great, but I feel like that's more rare, which normally seeing as a very paint by numbers scene happening. We need to get a few minutes in this position, a few minutes in this position, a few minutes in that position.And everybody can go home, and I just think that's not what women want to see. So whether it's lesbians or straight women watching it, they're, watching the gay porn because they're like, these two human beings are actually really f*****g hot for each other. And like, if that's what I want to see in porn.And so there's actually like this little thing that I'm kind of proud of, even though it was very, long time ago at this point, but cosmopolitan magazine wrote this article and it was just for their online magazine, but it was called the straight girl appeal of lesbian porn. And the way that, you know, when you're opening an article, a great way of doing that is sort of telling a little story.And so, the article opens talking about this girl who she lays down in her bed and she picks up her phone and she's scrolling through porn. As she's going through lesbian porn and she stops on this dark haired beauty with a big butt. And the name is Sin Sage. And I was like, I literally mentioned my work in this article.And that she picked me because it's, cause f*****g I make really good lesbian porn, but it's because [01:20:00] It's a similar thing, that desire that like, when I approach a scene, I'm, looking in my body. Like I want this girl, and I go based through that. And so what the girl who was watching the porn said, she's like, when I watched this type of porn, I can put myself in either position.So in the one direction, I'm getting my pussy eaten in the one direction. I'm getting my pussy tripped on in the other direction. I'm still the one getting my pussy eaten, by someone who looks like they really want to be f*****g eating my pussy. And if that's what we do when we watch porn, sometimes it's like we would put ourselves into that position to fulfill the fantasy of good feeling.Then that makes sense. You'll start to see why even though like, I don't, well, I identify with my dick, my psychic dick, but a feminine person who maybe doesn't identify with their psychic dick would watch gay porn, but still just being like, maybe I don't put myself in the position of being a man.But I put myself in the position of being desired in the way that these two men are actually desiring each other and having that level of passion. And I feel like that's something that's just kind of missing from a lot of people's sex lives is that, passion, that's what they're seeking when they're watching porn.I mean, and that was something that, yeah, just again, like coming up in the porn and That I knew what I liked and what I wanted. And so even though it wasn't with a guy, but it was like my early days, I would do more bottoming and now it's like, no, I am the top, but and I would do fetish scenes where I wanted to get.Hits with the flogger on my back. A lot of times I wanted to feel that or I wanted someone to make me eat their ass or whatever. Like I, I liked that. And so even though it was something that was definitely, this was the [01:22:00] word degrading, like people are like, Oh, you're degrading yourself. And I'm like, Sometimes I want to feel degraded.It makes me the horny. Like sometimes I want that. And are you telling me that I shouldn't have what I want? Like I want, you know what I mean? And so that That aspect of it. It's just important to remember that like, when you do watch porn and you're looking at it and you're like, Oh no, I'm like worried about this girl.Cause she's really being degraded right now. Just remember that girl was probably like. Oh, f**k. Yeah. Today I get to go to work and be degraded and get paid for it. I am so stoked about this. And so while there's definitely stuff happening where it's like, there's so much, we talk about this as though it's like, there's some shadowy cabal of pornographers who are like, come on, kid, don't you want to f*****g be a star?Like that's just not how things are really. And there's so much economic reason. So it would be nice if everybody did their job just because they loved it. But that's totally unrealistic in the current structure of capitalism that we live under. And so,SHEFFIELD: yeah.SAGE: And so it's like, yeah, sometimes there is economic coercion to do a porn scene.And but that is still a choice that person. Is making because they're like, I do want that paycheck because it's going to help me live. And so itSHEFFIELD: isn't the last. Yeah, and is it more degrading than, going and picking a minimum wage job and working that for 6 months? Is that?SAGE: Yeah, 6 months.Is thatSHEFFIELD: bigger morally?SAGE: Yeah, and I would argue that no, it's not. And I don't, and this is the thing too, I don't ever want to talk about people's jobs in a sense of that, like, Like working at Walmart is [01:24:00] degrading. Like, I don't think that it's working at Walmart or working at McDonald's or cleaning toilets is not degrading.Yeah. But what is degrading is that it is so f*****g devalued that it is like you doing this for an hour is worth less than the hamburger at this f*****g store, an hour of your life. Like what is degrading is that people's lives are so devalued that an hour of their life is worth seven f*****g dollars.Like it just, and then to people look at that s**t, all these sex trafficking, savior companies, like nine and a half out of 10 of them are just taking those profits and building the company. paying for lobbyists who are going to destroy porn in this country. They are not actually providing tangible help to people who want to get out of the business.They hand them 300. If someone's been arrested for working on the street or something, that they'll. Rather than go to jail, maybe they'll be like, Oh, you could go here. They'll give them 300 and say like, good luck. They still don't have housing. They still don't have work. Like, so it's just, that's notSHEFFIELD: fixing the underlying reason that, if they didn't want to do it, like if, and maybe they wanted to do it, like you don't even know why they did it.WeSAGE: all have a price for pretty much everything. So it's like, I will say that. I don't know. I was about to use anal, but I don't think I could do it. Even if it was a million dollars, like, let's just say that it's, it is something like how much for me to take a s**t on someone's chest.I w I don't want to do that. I don't want to f*****g do that. I have zero interest in doing that, but do I have a f*****g price? I got a price.But I'm just making an overall point about like economics, about capitalism, about the reasons why we do anything that we do [01:26:00] about labor, the way we look at labor, When we talk about sex work slash erotic labor, it's like, for some reason, this work is so moralized by people who have very particular set of morals when no other labor is really moralized in that way.I mean, F**k man, I, when I call my health insurance company and I talk to these people, it's like, I know that they're just working a job trying to get their f*****g bills paid, but I'm like, how can you work for this company? Cause this s**t is evil, because they also have to. Pay a mortgage themselves or have a roof over their head.And so to judge particular jobs as somehow being, more morally.SHEFFIELD: Unless you work for Donald Trump, that's different. Probably.SAGE: yes. That's a job that I would say morally, like, what the f**k are you doing? Like, this is bad. Yeah. In the same ways, but, like. But I would say too that, well, everything is gray area.Nothing is black and white. And we try to put this black and white moral lens over literally f*****g everything.SHEFFIELD: AndSAGE: it's just, when we do that, it, it destroys people. It destroys a lot of lives. It hides them away. It it's really problematic.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Although sometimes you have to draw the line, like doing a scene with Brandi Love.SAGE: Yep. Got to draw my own lines, got to do that.Artificial intelligence and the future of pornSHEFFIELD: Yes. All right. Well, you know what? This has been so awesome. Um, Can we just, I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't ask you about AI and what you think about AI uh, because I think obviously everybody is [01:28:00] against deep fake.Unconsensual and thankfully people, thankfully there are now some laws that are being passed against that to make that a crime. And it needs to be a crime. It needs to be a crime. But you know, like aside from that side, I mean, I wanted to say that upfront just in case anybody had any, there's no ambiguity for us here in that So, but like, what about this whole idea that.A lot of studios because like, I mean, this was a point of contention in the, actor's strike that was just a couple of, a few months ago was like, actors were like, wait a second, you're going to scan my whole body and then use me forever. And I don't get paid for it. Like it's not going to happen in porn.What do you think?SAGE: I know for a fact it's going to happen in porn and I've already gotten offers. They'll pay you X amount to scan your body. And I was like, I would f*****g never like, and the crazy thing is, so this year at ABN at the actual awards show ceremony they always do these little like, look, Well, breaks and skits in between, just this is like any other award show and one of the things like the lights went down and they show like a little thing, a little video that they've made and it is for AI porn.And. It was one of those things, literally everyone in the audience, like we all, this is what we do for a living. And we, everyone was just like, the f**k? Do you think we're on board for this? Like, this is how we make a living. Like, and if AI is taking over. What are we going to do? Uh, you know, It's still, it's interesting.I mean, there are ways that AI can be [01:30:00] useful for us as creators, but those ways are more about like marketing and writing descriptions or just like stuff like that. Whereas,SHEFFIELD: or well, face filters are one.SAGE: Yes, I know. Okay, but I'mSHEFFIELD: sorry. I don't want to, we're not using,SAGE: we're not using any of those here.Not today. No, I mean, And to be honest, like, do I use the face filters? Yeah, I do not every time when I take a picture. Cause like, it's also a lot of work to like put it on every single f*****g picture, but but yeah, like especially with a live thing or whatever, if there's an option, I'm going to take it, but I do still think it's bad.I think it's really bad for culture and society. Again, because it's, we, want to be the things that we see when we talk about media just like growing up in the nineties and the whole being a waif. The culture of you gotta be skinny as you could possibly be. It does not matter if health, none of that, like it's all about being skinny.Watching my mom. Just constantly never end it to this f*****g day. Like still talk about her weight, obsess over it, obsess over the things she eats. Like, and I've just like, that's so f*****g toxic. And now it's, like faces. It's, like, you can't just have a human face and it's just.That's, and I'm caught up in it too. Like I'm looking in again like eyelid surgery and like, maybe I will get a shot of Botox here after all. Even though I said I will never do this, it's just because we do, I am a part of this culture. I live in it. I'm on camera. I will start to look like the weird one of not doing that.Not, and I don't know, it's just, it's so many things. Like I like to sit here and feel like I'm above it somehow, but I'm f*****g in it. So. and I think. Yeah, but is this all just inevitable anyways? I don't know. So the thing with the AI, [01:32:00] right. It's like, it's one of those things about progress, right?There's two different kinds of progress. There's like, industrial progress. Right. And then there's like progress, like what we talk about where it's like, we're, progressives because we think people should, I don't know, have rights. So, And I think when it comes to this, like industrial or technological progress, that is a, wheel that will move forward and cannot be stopped.So I think that AI was, I saw this really great. Like tweet that was like, I wanted AI to do the dishes and the laundry. And this was the promise kind of a future technology, right? Especially like in the post war era and stuff, the robot does the dishes and the laundry and cooks the meals so that you can write poetry and paint pictures and make art or play in a field or whatever, right.But with the system of capitalism, the way that it is. You are devalued if you are not you're dehumanized if you are not working for the machine. And so what's happened, but anyways, what's happening instead is the opposite of that. The AI is now making the art and writing the scripts and making the paintings and we still have to f*****g sweep floors and clean toilets.And so that's, when I think about the promise of It's just more money for the billionaires, us having less access to even be able to do jobs to make an income. And I just see this future world where it's like well, a lot of Black Mirror episodes for sure. But I watched this movie now I can't think of the f*****g name of it, but it has Bruce Willis.It's called Looper.SHEFFIELD: And theSAGE: movie is about whatever, like all [01:34:00] kinds of s**t. But it's in this future world, right? And in this future world, you have everybody living on the street. And then a few people in high rise f*****g mansions, and that is all of society and a couple of people that can live out on farms in the middle of nowhere.And I, and the first time I saw that scene of their streets, I was like, Oh, that's us. That's our future. That's probably like. 40 years away. Like I just, unless something changes, not so sure if we're heading that direction, but I've talked about AI in this sense of things. Like I, I don't see it as like a hopeful future.And when it comes to AI and adult, it's just the same idea. Like I don't. Think it's good. Don't like.SHEFFIELD: All right. Well, I think that's, that's don't you make a lot of great points there. So this has been a lot of fun and for people who want to. Up with what you're doing. what's your recommendations for them?SAGE: Yeah, I have a million different things. So rather than sit here and list them all off, I'm going to say sin dash sage. com. I still Sinn with two N's, so it’s sinn-sage.com. And from that website, you can find all of my social medias where you should definitely follow me. And you can find all the places where I sell my wares and you can find all the information about my podcasts and I do college speaking engagements. So if you work for a school or any sort of thing where you'd like to bring me in for any reason to talk about these issues, you can find that information there as well.So yeah, sinn-sage.comSHEFFIELD: Okay, well, you should plug your podcast name, like, we've talked about it at length here, we should at least say the name, [01:36:00] come on.SAGE: So my podcast is called “Sage Advice with Sinn Sage,” and I do have a sex worker on every week or someone related to the sex industry. We have a nice interview and we get real deep on some of this type of stuff we were talking about today.And then at the end of the episode, I have two advice, two advice questions that my guest and I answer that have been emailed in. And they are related to sex, relationships. It's porn. If you have any questions about porn, any questions about sex work, we'd love to answer it. And yeah, that's my podcastSHEFFIELD: and it is, and it's worth checking out. I recommend people do that. So all right. Well, awesome. Yeah.So that is the program for today. I appreciate everybody joining us for the discussion, and you can always get more, if you go to theoryofchange.show, you can get the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you're a paid subscribing member, you have unlimited access to the archives.Thank you very much also for your support. And please do also check out flux.community, where you can get this show and a number of articles and my other podcast, Doom Scroll, which I invite you to check out as well. So that's it for this one. I will see you later. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityEpisode SummaryIn public opinion surveys, people who are gay and lesbian tend to overwhelmingly back the Democratic party. According to Gallup, 83 percent of both groups identify or lean toward Democrats. This seems like such an obvious preference given the Republican alternative, but the extremely lopsided support that Democrats get from gays and lesbians is actually a relatively recent development.Although the contemporary Republican Party is known as an identity group for straight White Christians, long before Stonewall, more than a few gay politicos thought that shrinking government generally was a way to keep it out of the bedroom as well.That viewpoint very clearly does not belong in today’s Republican party of Donald Trump and JD Vance with its hateful obsessions over imaginary pedophiles and trans athletes, but it’s still important to learn about the gay Republican experience, not just because it gives us a fuller picture of the past, but also because it may give some guidance as to where the far-right is headed in the future.I’ll be talking about all of this with my guest in today’s episode, his name is Neil J. Young, and he’s written a very interesting book called Coming Out Republican: A History of the Gay Right, which is now available.The video of this discussion is available. The transcript of audio is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text.Flux is a community-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, please stay in touch.Related ContentHow an oversharing Christian blogger unintentionally created doubts about his sexualityWhy far-right Christians are using sex to sell religionHow a silly video of women dancing to a rap song caused a nationwide Republican freak-outJewish gay fascists and Christian incels are battling for the future of the American rightHow social movements can be exploitative and empowering simultaneouslyHow MAGA is becoming a sexual fetishThe ‘world’s oldest profession’ is attaining new relevance in the internet ageAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction03:20 — The closet was a bipartisan thing in the beginning05:51 — Libertarianism and gay Republicans09:51 — Anti-communism and the closet14:23 — Marvin Liebman and William Rusher's hopes for limited government27:10 — Ronald Reagan's more libertarian term as California governor34:15 — Terry Dolan and the gay DC Republican subcultureThe chapters below are for paid subscribers only. Please support the show and get full access!41:02 — How concerns about a possible “gay gene” motivated some activists against abortion rights43:38 — Arthur Finkelstein, influential gay Republican activist and fundraiser46:21 — How mainstream media became the only real place for gay conservatives52:01 — LGBTQ media's response to the Christian Right takeover of the Republican party56:26 — The bipartisan spirit of early LGBTQ political organizations58:54 — Did bipartisanship make same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination laws easier and more secure?01:04:07 — The precarious position of right-wing drag queens01:10:54 — Today's gay Republicans are much more extreme than their predecessors01:15:00 — How hyper-masculine gay reactionaries are reaching out to fundamentalists and incels01:32:20 — Conclusion and further resourcesAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So this is a book that I think is long overdue because gay and lesbian people in the Republican party have always been some of the highest and most influential operatives and activists.And yet most people are not aware of that. Like if you live in DC and you work in politics there, you know that, but most people outside of that very limited world are not aware of any of these stories or any of these people. Or at least the, their personal lives, we'll say they, they might know them from their professional achievement, shall we say?But your book starts off with the concept of the double life, which would seem inevitable, for somebody working in a reactionary political movement who is not heterosexual.NEIL J. YOUNG: Yeah. I mean, I think one of the big themes of this book is the ongoing presence of the closet. And I think people who follow the news probably can think of some recent examples of that. I mean, it's a, it's a fairly, I think regular feature of political news in this country that, Republicans get outed as gay where it's Larry Craig or Aaron Schock after the fact, or there's some sort of more recent ones.But I was impressed to discover how much that was the case, even more so than I expected. And one of the things I realized if the history of the closet was going to be such a huge [00:04:00] part of this story, that it actually made sense to begin in the era of the closet and sort of mid century America.Where everyone was closeted for the most part, and that being closeted wasn't a condition of one's politics as much as it was just the state of life at the time in the 1950s and 60s. So, I thought this book was going to begin in the late 70s, and that's in fact where my book proposal started, but as I really delved more into the history, And realized again, the importance of the closet as this ongoing aspect.I want to just start in the air of the closet when one, no matter if you're a Republican or if you're a Democrat your life is really closeted because I think there's just this conception people have that like Republicans. Not gay, anti gay, and therefore anyone who's associated with it had to be closeted, and there's a very different history for the Democratic Party.And so I wanted to start in a period of time in which that, that difference wasn't the case and what does it mean for Republican men? in the 1950s to have been homosexuals.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And and it's true. I mean, in, in essence, in a lot of ways, this was the same starting point for both left wing and right wing gays, basically.That's right. Exactly.Libertarianism and gay RepublicansSHEFFIELD: Um, and, and, and in some sense because in, in some sense, because the in the mid 20th century, there was, the development of, of libertarianism as, kind of a, a right wing form of liberalism. And that some of the earliest the earliest libertarians were in fact atheists.And so in some sense, like there. For some people, they may actually have started, had a little bit easier freedom of movement to be gay, if not, to the public, at least have it be known, within the movement that they operated in. Do you, would you agree with that?YOUNG: [00:06:00] Yeah, I think a lot of gay men in the fifties and the sixties who are sort of right of center, they found libertarianism particularly.Useful for sort of, I think, understanding their life and as a sort of model for what they hope the nation would pursue politically, because their sort of sense of, especially at the time, the 1950s, I mean, this is the Cold War era, right? So huge federal, governmental repression and criminalization of gay people.And of course this was happening in a bipartisan effort. Democrats and Republicans alike were joined in creating, what historians have called the lavender scare this cold war repressive state that sought to, especially in DC and in, in the, in the in the, within the federal government to root out and find homosexuals and to fire them from their jobs and really to ruin their lives.But that wasn't just the case in D. C. It was the case all across the country. I mean, law enforcement everywhere was targeting homosexuals. And so you have a good number of people who I was really surprised to discover how many there were of gay men who said, okay, the path to freedom here is through Curtailing government power through restricting the powers of the government and that sort of libertarian vision of how the government should operate was one in which they imagined freedom for the, for themselves which is, of course, different than the sort of rights based civil rights connected.Notion of freedom and equality that's developing on the left for gay persons.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that's right. And and this, this moment in time, also the, the mid 20th century was kind of when there was the, the bifurcation of liberalism into progressivism and Libertarianism, right? And and it's, it's interesting because I think even today, a lot of people who [00:08:00] identify well, who, who very obviously have right wing libertarian views like Joe Rogan people in his orbit, they actually think that they're, On the left, it's kind of incredible, but, but, but you can see the starting point, like, for instance, in the, the whole in the hippie movement and some of these, kind of, I mean, like the phrase, if it feels good, do it.That was both that was a ended up being more about. Personal liberation in the views of some people and less about political liberation,YOUNG: right? Right, right. Yeah. These different sort of notions of freedom that could operate in this period that aren't necessarily tied to one partisan position or another, but like serve as sort of an imaginative, an imaginative theory of the world.And also as a really I think useful discourse but like tweaked in different directions depending on sort of the larger political commitments.Anti-communism and the closetSHEFFIELD: so obviously on the right, while there was this kind of burgeoning libertarian tradition, there was Joe McCarthy, who was really the biggest perpetrator of the lavender scare. And, among other things, he made it very clear that he, not only was he trying to root out. Supposed communist in the government.He was also going after homosexual men. And so, and then of course he had a gay man on his own staff. Let's maybe talk about Roy Cohn in that context. We'll have, we'll come back to him later. I don't want to talk all the way about it yet. But he's certainly an interesting character and very emblematic to this story.YOUNG: Yeah. And I don't really write about Conan the book because he's been covered so much. But he's obviously relevant to this history here. And I actually focus on some. Some characters who are less well known to most readers but the, who do have connections to McCarthy some of them directly, some of them just are sort of aligned with him politically.And it took me a really long time to even figure out what [00:10:00] is this about? Because I think. You have someone like Cone, who's like a complicated psychological figure, right? Like, there's, and, and, a lot of people have sort of wrestled with him and his psychology and what that means for his period of history.But for some of these other folks who, are not as well known and who I didn't necessarily have access to, their personal papers as much as to really delve into like, what is their inner psychology of this? But I wanted to make sense of like, why would they be aligned with someone like McCarthy?Why would they, why are they not also libertarians? Like, why do they have what is seen as more of sort of hard edge conservatism in this period? And one of the things that I, I sort of discovered and and that I make an argument of this section of the book is that a lot of these guys. found that sort of fierce anti communism as a way that they actually maintain the closet for themselves.And so in some ways that seems a little bit contradictory. You would think, why would you want to be aligned or close to a person like this? Because wouldn't you be worried that you would be exposed, right? But I found that a lot of these figures their way of sort of maintaining their position and even their idea of how they might gain power and in Washington, D.C. was to assist this anti communist fervor, even as it had a sort of anti homosexual focus, at the forefront. as a way that they themselves passed. And I think, does that make them hypocrites? Does that make them sellouts? Like, yes, probably. But I don't think that's necessarily even the most interesting thing that we can understand about these folks.Although it's certainly relevant, but I think sort of understanding how. In a period of heavy repression and heavy fear that some, a lot of folks actually used this anti communist fervor and sort of the ugly [00:12:00] dimensions of this politics as their own way of building as their way of building their particular closets.SHEFFIELD: Well, and also I think to some extent. It seems like they also thought that they could steer things in a more, as you were saying earlier that a more limited government direction. So, because like, I mean, originally, for instance, when you look at William F. Buckley's, God and Man.At Yale book, that book is extremely, right wing Christian, social conservative book including it calling out, people for, if I forget how many people specifically he called out as gay, but there were a couple that he did and said that that was nefarious. But, like, and then he wanted people to be fired for saying Jesus didn't rise from the dead and various things like that.So, but, but eventually he, he fell in with William Rusher, who is one of the, one of these people that you're talking about as kind of a post McCarthy figure him and along with Marvin Liebman.Marvin Liebman and William Rusher's hopes for limited governmentSHEFFIELD: Um, so, For these, both of these guys are not very widely known now. So why don't you tell us a little, for those, for tell us who they are and what they, what they did.YOUNG: Yeah, so Marvin Liebman is a huge character of my book. He's a really important figure. He was born in Brooklyn. His parents were Jewish immigrants from Poland, from Eastern Europe, who'd come to the U. S. in the early 20th century. And he grew up in Brooklyn, and in a very sort of immigrant area of Italians and Poles and a large Jewish community.And he As many people in his community did in this period of time in the 1920s and 30s, he became very active in the Communist Party, USA, first through an organization and his high school, and then ultimately he was very active in the Manhattan chapter of the Communist Party, USA, and he went off to war.He served in World War Two. He [00:14:00] was outed and discharged because one of his commanding officers read some letters that he was writing to another day soldier. And he came back home and in the 1940s he was involved in fundraising efforts on the left, but he slowly moved to the right. And especially as, and I think a lot of, as, as most people who know this history know, a lot of people broke with the communist party.USA in the late 1940s because of the stuff they were learning about the atrocities of Stalin and Stalinism that were coming out of the Soviet Union in the time. And so by the late 1940s, he's sort of moved to a right of center position and becomes increasingly anti communist in the 1950s. And through that development of his politics, he becomes connected to William F.Buckley and Buckley, he meets with Buckley when Buckley has this idea to launch the National Review and Liebman doesn't think that the National Review is going to work because it's You know, he thinks there's not really a conservative movement in the country and this at the time, and like, who would read this magazine but he's, he's committed to helping Buckley, and so he provides a lot of the early fundraising that keeps the National Review afloat in those early years, and, a lot of people have said that if it hadn't been for Liebman's fundraising prowess the National Review would have never made it through those early years. He ultimately helps Buckley and he considers William F. Buckley his best friend. So he's very close to Buckley and his wife. He helps Buckley found the American Conservative Union and the Young Americans for Freedom organizations that are developing in the 1960s that are really foundational institutions for the rise of modern conservatism.And he's closeted, he's a closeted homosexual this whole time and mostly [00:16:00] living in New York. And so in New York, he's able to have a little bit more personal freedom than a lot of the folks I'm writing about who lived in D. C. and, and had to guard their sort of personal lives a lot more closely but he's a fascinating figure and, and he, he continues through the book and we can talk more about sort of where his life heads in the 1980s, but that's sort of the period we're talking about here with, with his close association with Buckley in the 1950s.And then William Rusher is, is who Buckley hires to be the publisher of the National Review and did that job for a very long time. Rusher is someone we don't necessarily know. is definitively gay, but someone who other historians have speculated was probably gay. And I did a really close reading of his correspondence.And especially, I mean, there's thousands and thousands of letters of his at the Library of Congress. And I knew the sort of speculations about him and even the stuff from his own personal biography. He never married. When he eventually retires from his job as the publisher of the National Review, he moves to San Francisco, and he had said that this was a lifelong ambition to move out there.And I was even, I didn't put this in the book, but I was even able to find in public records that he lived in San Francisco with another man for A very, very long time. And that man was one of only a handful of people that was at his burial when he died. But I do a sort of close reading of his correspondence and again, of his biographical details to, to say that I think there's a, there's a strong reason to believe that he was also a, a closeted gay man.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, that's right. And, and, and I mean, it was obviously. Something he felt was a need to guard that as a secret, whatever the answer was. I mean, never, he never denied it or said affirmatively in any, in any way.YOUNG: Yeah. And I think a lot of these guys sort of have this [00:18:00] personal philosophy of like, this is my private business.And it doesn't really bear upon my public life. And of course, that's a sort of conservative worldview, right? That aligns with a larger conservative politics. But certainly I think was, and that again is a position that a lot of gay men had regardless of their politics for much of the 20th century.It's just one that had, I think, Had less and less purchase on a lot of gay people's lives as we move into like the 70s and the 80s. But for these right of center conservative folks, I think it aligned with sort of traditional or conservative notions about like public versus private.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, yeah. And.Yeah. And you don't talk too much about this or maybe at all. I guess you don't, I don't think in the book, but like the part of the, perhaps part of the, the turn against communism or leftism on the part of Liebman and some of these other guys might have been the fact that Joseph Stalin criminalized homosexuality.Yeah, absolutely. In fact, Conducted a pretty extensive persecution of gays within the Soviet Union as well, including putting them in concentration camps.YOUNG: Yeah, I mean, that certainly wasn't what they were publicly arguing as a chief reason to oppose communism, right? But I do think it actually, shaped a lot of their thoughts.And someone like Liebman, who actually was, a member of the Communist Party USA, he says in his memoir that that was sort of his one objection to communism when he was, a full fledged member of the party was its, opposition to homosexuality. And often when he was a teenager and he was coming in to the city and to Manhattan from his Brooklyn home to, Purportedly go to these communist party meetings in midtown Manhattan.He actually wouldn't go to the meetings. He would instead go to, like, the department store bathrooms at Macy's and other places where he knew, homosexual men met up. And [00:20:00] so, He was sort of already leading this, I think it's just worth remembering that, people were living all sorts of divided lives and it wasn't because they were Republican.It was because they lived in a time in which homosexuality, no matter what sort of community or what sort of politics you were associated with was, frowned upon or, or worse. And so, so that was definitely the case for Liebman. And I think in the example of some of the other folks they're anti communism.Part of what they thought was they had to defeat this threat to freedom. And if they did that, then maybe eventually things in the U. S. would be different as well, including around questions of sexuality. Yeah,SHEFFIELD: yeah. And, and it is interesting, those social conservative views that were prevalent in the Soviet Union during so and so.Mm hmm. They're kind of, they, they're echoing in the present day now, actually, when you look at some people who call themselves tankies, quote, unquote, that they have in many cases, some of the spillover that happens and, people have this idea of horseshoe theory and whatnot. So whether that's true or not, but it is.The case that for several of these people who have flip flopped from, identify calling themselves communist or whatever, and then now saying that they're pro Trump and they love fascism. The one thing that a lot of them have in common is that they hate LGBTQ. Um, And this same idea of, degeneracy, quote unquote, it never fully went away on the, on the extreme left, because, everything has to be about economics and the class struggle. And so, talking about sexual liberation or the freedom to live your personal life, that's a distraction. It's wrong.YOUNG: Right. Yeah, I think especially when sexual, sexuality and sexual identity is tied to notions of personal freedom, the politics of that become pretty complex, or at least that we can see sort of a far right and a far [00:22:00] left having having sort of objections to that, or having a politics that sort of brings them in alignment even if they can't see, even if like they wouldn't see themselves as allies in any way.I mean, one of the like wonderful challenges of this book was, and I didn't anticipate this when I started it, was there were too many people for me to write about and so, I mean, there's lots of like out gay Republicans and out gay conservatives that I just didn't get to include in this book because you have to, make some decisions there.And so, that was the case for again, people who are publicly out. And then there were lots of folks who were in the closet, or I assumed were in the closet. And I could only selectively write about some of them. But it was a good problem to have. And certainly when I was starting out for this project and worried about the opposite situation.I'm not having enough to enough to write about. That, that was definitely not the case.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. No, there, there is just a lot. And one of the other kind of in these earlier years before the, the rise of the evangelical, right. There, there, I think there was more of a, A freedom of movement.Paradoxically, even though society as a whole was much more repressive toward homosexuality, the Republican party was not run by, basically confederate Christians. And so, so now it's much more difficult to be a gay Republican nowadays, I think in some ways. And we'll, we can get into that later, but I mean, just keep it to the current The older period.I'm sorry.YOUNG: No, but I think again, that's why I wanted to start the book as early as I did in the 1950s because, really a question that I was sort of writing against or this sort of overwhelming assumption that I knew is out there and that I had to tackle is, is this question of like, why would any gay person belong to the Republican party?And I think, anyone sitting here [00:24:00] today, like, That's an understandable question and understandable assumption given, the last couple of decades of history, but I, and in order to, to really confront that question, again, I wanted to start at a time and place when it didn't make any more sense to be a gay Republican than it made sense to be a gay Democrat, that both parties were inhospitable to the homosexual.And so that one wasn't, Aligned with either party because of their sexual identity, but in spite of it and to start at that point, so then you can see how history is evolving within both parties, how things are changing and how that sort of decision in that calculation really changes over time.Ronald Reagan's more libertarian term as California governorYOUNG: But one of the things that I found really interesting was in writing in the 1970s which is when in the late 1970s is when the first gay Republican organizations Begin these early grassroots groups that ultimately in 1990 coalesce into the national organization known as log cabin Republicans, which is the oldest and largest gay Republican organization in the country.But that starts from all these grassroots groups that start springing up in California in 1977, 1978, in response to a ballot initiative on in the state that would have made it illegal for any gay person to work in the public school system. And all these gay people and the Republican Party in California start organizing these grassroots groups to fight back against the Briggs Initiative.That's what the, the, the Bell Initiative was called, Proposition 6, and also to ensure that the Republican Party continue to be the party that they believed in, that they believed was the sort of it's historic commitment to issue to things like freedom, equality, liberty and it was fascinating to look at this organization moment of these groups and the things that they were saying in their meetings where they were basically like, who are these Bible beaters that are trying to come into our political party and take it over?And as someone who wrote my first book about the [00:26:00] rise of the religious, right. It's, I think it's often hard to imagine and to remember a Republican party that isn't controlled by white evangelicals, even as a historian who spent a lot of time, writing a book project to show that that wasn't an inevitable development.So to, to be in the 1970s and to see these guys saying like, This is our political party. This is our, we are the best embodiment of conservatism and republicanism, right? Who better than us who wants the government out of our life in every form, out of our wallet, out of our bedroom. We are the true embodiment of a libertarian, freedom oriented entrepreneurial spirit like Republican Republican politics and these Bible beaters who want to moralize and to bring their, their ideas about morality into the public square.They aren't conservatives. They aren't Republicans. And I love seeing that at work, in their minds and in their organizational strategy, strategies in the late seventies and also knowing. What else, what, what more is going to happen and how history is going to shift so much in the coming years.It was sort of fascinating just to, to observe and to think about the Republican party through the vantage point of these gay Republicans.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it's, and that struggle is one that really did continue from that moment, in, into the present and I mean, and it, but it, and it's something that distinction you're making there, it is one that I think a lot of people don't get that these Bible thumping evangelicals who came in and took over the party, they weren't conservative.In fact, they were. Reactionaries, like reactionaries, conservative is somebody who wants to, keep things the same basically. And a reactionary wants to roll them back and to some halcyon day of your whatever that might happen to be [00:28:00] is different. But yeah,YOUNG: and also to use the federal government for expansive purposes.I mean, this is one of the arguments gay Republicans make. In the late seventies about the Briggs initiative. And this is how they actually bring Ronald Reagan over to stating his opposition to the Briggs initiative. In 1978, Reagan obviously was the former governor of California. Everyone knows he's about to run for president in 1980.This huge figure, both in California and in national politics and gay Republicans make this argument and they're sort of public campaigning against the Briggs initiative and also. They make it this argument to Reagan and Reagan echo, voices this in an editorial that's huge, has a huge impact on on the Briggs initiative being defeated at the ballot box that year, but their argument is if something like this is created, if the Briggs initiative passes, This will create an enormous federal bureaucracy whose job will be to surveil its citizens to determine whether or not they are homosexual and to, root them out of their jobs.And that's a huge expansion of government power. That's an abuse of and a bureaucratic use of government. And also it's going to. Take people out of their professions and we shouldn't be, we shouldn't be harming people's professional careers as Republicans. And so there were all sorts of ways they made these conservative arguments against the social conservative model of how.The religious right wanted government to be used that again, had a lot of effectiveness in these early years. Ultimately they, they don't win because they don't have the numbers. I mean, religious conservatives take over the party because there's, there's more of them. But it was interesting and fascinating to watch the gay Republicans making these conservative arguments against the religious right types who they saw as reactionary and as not conservative in terms of how they anticipated and plan to use government power.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, [00:30:00] yeah, no, exactly. And I mean, and this is unfortunately one of many stories, though, in which the more moderate Republicans became overwhelmed by the reaction. I mean, that, that is the story of the Republican party beginning in the mid 20th century that happens every few years, uh, into all of them.And. But, but they, they never seem to learn, they don't know their own history and so that the more moderate ones never band together or, try to create some sort of alternative media. I mean, like that's, that is the thing is that in the Republican party, all of the media is on the far right.There isn't, any sort of gravitational center pole. And so these conversations just are never had anymore. Like they were in the, in that 20th century or let's say let's say maybe 1970s up until the nineties. Like, everything kind of ended maybe at least in terms of the philosophical debates.Yeah. And then, think other things were details. All right. Well, so yeah, and you mentioned Reagan.Terry Dolan and the gay DC Republican subcultureSHEFFIELD: So, I mean, yeah, Reagan is interesting, I think, because as a governor, he. And not just on, on that issue, but also on abortion there were some, he, he did start off as more libertarian oriented compared to where he ended up obviously flip flopped on abortion as well once he became the president yeah, and so, but, he also did know, he, he, his rise was also related or somebody who was, who was Involved very heavily in that from also fundraising standpoint was Terry Dolan.Yeah, let's talk about him if we can.YOUNG: Yeah. So Terry Dolan was enormously important figure especially on the far right, and grassroots organizing and a closeted homosexual also his brother, Tony Dolan worked in Reagan's White House as a speech writer, but in the 1970s Terry Dolan helped found one of the most important organizations of the conservative movement [00:32:00] NCPAC the National Conservative Political Action Conference and in partnership with Jesse Helms and other figures on the far right.And this was really about, in the 1970s, sort of bringing together a national network of grassroots conservatives. And Really mostly on social issues. Things like anti busing pro school prayer anti abortion was really taking shape in the 1970s as a sort of, as a, as a politics. And certainly something that was organizing grassroots conservatives across the country.And Dolan Along with other, conservative figures in this period, really masterminded direct mail as a way of mobilizing millions and millions of Americans into conservative activism and into supporting the Republican party. And ultimately also in supporting Reagan's rise to the nomination in 1980, Dolan as a closeted homosexual, didn't want his organization to, you really do much about, I mean, he really tried to keep the organization away from, from talking too much about homosexuality.But it was, it was in the, the sort of group of issues that was important to this organization and important to mobilizing social conservatives in this period. And So he, he's, he's a huge figure and the rise of a far right conservatism in the seventies and the 1980s.And he contracts HIV, AIDS and, and dies I believe in 1990, so somewhere around the late eighties or 1990. And some of his friends out him once he's and the Washington Post does as well. There's reports about him being having been a homosexual when he does die and that he dies of HIV A's and his family gets especially his brother, Tony Dolan has a lot to say about that because they say, well, They never really officially recognized that that's what he died of, and they even go on to say that he may have been homosexual, but he had renounced that on his deathbed.But anyway, he's [00:34:00] a he's a really fascinating figure. One that I think gives us another example of a closeted person who's hugely influential on the right. And who unlike a lot of the other people who I'm writing about who are trying to sort of push the Republican Party in a more moderate direction, he very much is about pulling the Republican Party in a much more far right direction through this period.SHEFFIELD: Hmm. Yeah. And I mean, and what's your take on whether, how he, Reconcile that with his homosexuality.YOUNG: Well, he was an interesting figure because he was someone who would spend all day in his office sending out these, direct mailers about, the, the threat of abortion on the nation and then go to a gay bar that night.And and it was sort of known within Washington gay circles that. He was gay. And again, I think in the 70s and even into the 80s, a lot of people were living these sorts of lives where what they did during the day didn't necessarily connect to or, didn't have caused them the question of what they were doing at night or vice versa.I'm not sure exactly how he reconciled it other than I think he lived a really bifurcated life and his and that was true and sort of how he conducted his life. And I think it might have been true and how he sort of thought about it in his mind. Like I said, he didn't want the organization to focus on.Anti gay efforts. And there had only been like one mailer that his organization sent out that was ever, about the homosexual threat to the nation. And I, he said that he didn't even realize that that mailer had been developed. I don't think there's any way. That as the head of this organization, and it was a pretty small organization at the time in terms of its office, that he would have been unaware.But I interpreted that more as sort of an obligatory nod he gave to the anti or excuse me, the anti gay politics of the era to sort of like cover [00:36:00] his bases and probably also to, ward off suspicion about who he was. But he certainly didn't want the organization or, or the conservative movement to to focus on anti gay politics.And I think it's one of those really interesting things in this period where you have a lot of gay Republicans who are really involved in, or at least supportive of the anti abortion politics that are taking shape in this period, and also sort of privately saying to themselves, Well, the government or the, the conservative movement shouldn't be developing an anti gay politics because really we should have bodily autonomy and personal freedom and the way that they could, say that about abortion or, or, or have that view and not have it.Change their thoughts about, the abortion issue, even as they thought about what it meant for their own lives. I think it speaks to the way a lot of these guys compartmentalize both themselves and their politics throughout this period.How concerns about a possible "gay gene" motivated some activists against abortion rightsSHEFFIELD: I'm glad you mentioned the abortion question for a lot of these gay Republicans, especially in this time period. And, even now I hear it sometimes in the things that they say, like with the.One of their favorite arguments to make is that if there is a gay gene and abortion is legal, then gay people will be aborted. That is an argument that I have heard a lot from them, and so that's why they agree. For some of them, that is why they think abortions should be illegal.YOUNG: And actually, that was really prominent in the 1990s.I don't write about this in the book because this is another thing that I just didn't have the room to include. And maybe I'll do a standalone piece about it at some point because it was a fascinating history to uncover. In the 1990s, there was all this sort of speculation that science was about to reveal the gay gene.