Wisdom of Crowds

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live The Crowd returns triumphantly this week, for a rollicking conversation with one of Twitter's brightest and most iconoclastic personalities, Phillippe Lemoine. Phillippe writes the War on Science newsletter for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, and is also working on a book on the recent history of Russo-American foreign policy. We begin the show talking about direct democracy, and whether "the people" are worth listening to. Should we actually want the vox populi to weigh in on, say, American policy towards China, or public health? Maybe not—but does the educated elite have a much better track record? Phillippe tells of his personal encounters with motivated reasoning, ideologically driven conclusions, and just plain stupidity among epidemiologists and statisticians during the pandemic. We also discuss how deeply felt "wokeism" is among younger generations. Are we doomed as generations turn over, or will the ideological fever eventually break? In Part 2 (available here for subscribers), we dig into that final question—the fate of the Great Awokening—even further. What is it about social media that makes us crazy? We ask Phillippe how he stays sane, and protects himself from the pressure to conform ideologically. His answer shows just how far gone Shadi and Damir really are. Required Reading: One of Philippe's many articles critiquing conventional modeling of the Covid pandemic (War on Science). The study Philippe criticized, “Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe,” by Waxman et. al (nature). Scott Alexander’s rundown of Covid models and their critiques, including Philippe’s (Slate Star Codex).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live The Crowd is back to two members this week, as we sat down to talk about Elon Musk's recent takeover of Twitter and what, if anything, it means. One of Musk's first posts as the owner of Twitter was retweeting a conspiracy theory about the recent attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband— is this a sign that Twitter will become more like Parler, or significantly less-censored corners of the internet? Liberals are furious about the Musk takeover of Twitter. We discussed what a mass exit from Twitter, or some other series of events that leads to its decline, might mean for broader politics. Will the "dreampolitik" that otherwise quite banal liberals act out on Twitter spill out into real life, if its digital cage erodes? And why are mainstream liberals obsessed with labeling the spaces they create as "nonpartisan?" In Part 2 (available here for subscribers) we branched out to discuss the ways in which political balkanization has reshaped the boundaries of religious identity and tolerance. Dr. Oz is angling to become America's first Muslim senator, and his religion is almost a nonissue in the campaign— have Muslims quietly become part of the American mainstream? Shadi also shares his insights into why ethnic minorities are shifting to the right— "personal stories of radicalization," as he puts it. As the twin issues of crime and gender identity become more personal, whether experienced in major cities or in schools, will previously staunchly Democratic ethnic groups become ever more alienated from the left? And as these voters, from the privacy of the ballot box, threaten to punish Democrats in the midterms, will liberals react by questioning the legitimacy of elections? Required Reading: Shadi tweeting about Houellebecq. Shadi and Mehdi Hasan arguing about American democracy. Youssef Chouhoud’s tweeting about how Shadi and Hasan's argument was a sign of progress. “Dearborn divisions over LGBTQ books spur national debate as candidates compete for votes,” by Niraj Warikoo (Detroit Free Press).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live American men are struggling across the board. Falling behind in school, rapidly shrinking as a share of students in higher education, overwhelmingly the victims of violent crime, males in the United States are increasingly alienated and disconnected from our economy and society. That's the argument of Richard Reeves, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and author of the acclaimed new book, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why it Matters, and What to do About It. The book is making waves across liberal and conservative media, and we were thrilled to have Richard on to discuss it with the Crowd. He has sharp criticisms for both sides of the culture war: the right weaponizes men's struggles without providing realistic solutions, and the left simply refuses to admit there is a problem at all. We pushed Richard on his proposed solutions of technocratic reforms in areas like education and family law: should we seek to restore social norms around marriage instead of consigning the institution to the past? How do we provide useful social scripts for young men to follow, in a society weighted towards brain and against brawn? In Part 2 (available here for subscribers) we talk about the deep differences in social development between boys and girls. For example, Richard's childhood in England included playing chicken with passing trucks, while schoolyard rock fights were a daily occurrence during Damir's time in Croatia (hailing from the gentler culture of the Philadelphia Main Line, Shadi is shocked). More seriously, we also discussed the way that the right has monopolized thinking about the effects of cultural and societal norms: how do liberals relearn discussing the importance of culture? Can a broken dating market be fixed? What does it mean if alienated men increasingly turn to illiberal movements and cultural figures like Jordan Peterson? And finally, why is Richard cautiously optimistic about the long-term prospects for men? Required Reading: Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why it Matters, and What to Do about It, by Richard Reeves (Amazon). Rethinking Sex: A Provocation, by Christine Emba (Amazon). Our podcast with Christine Emba. The Center for Arabic Studies Abroad.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live It’s been a turbulent few months for the United Kingdom: the scandal-ridden departure of a prime minister, the death of a beloved queen, economic woes, and the accession of a less-beloved king. We decided it would be best to have an actual British person on the podcast to discuss it all with, so we invited Josh Glancy, columnist for The Sunday Times. We began by highlighting the strange contrast between the recent upswell of support for the monarchy and Britain’s parlous economic state. Does having a monarchy suppress public discontent by deflecting its attention, and is this a good thing? Also, how can Americans wrap their heads around the monarchy’s function in Britain? Shadi, Damir, and Josh discuss whether the Constitution or Presidency might serve a similar role. Then, we discussed the monarch who now rules over Britain. Will (now-King) Charles be able to preserve the apolitical, broadly popular place his mother carved out in British life? Or is the institution doomed to become politicized and controversial? The answer, we surmise, might lie in how similar British political culture is to America’s. In Part 2 (available here for subscribers) Damir asks the question that's on everyone’s mind: is Prince Charles a secret Muslim? Shadi has his thoughts. More seriously, we discuss the religious role of the British monarch, as the head of the Church of England, and how much Christianity shapes public life there. In a relatively irreligious and diverse country like Britain, are average citizens affected by Christianity’s presence in the state? And does the United States, a far more religious country on paper, “feel” any more Christian? Required Reading: Adrian Woolridge, “How a Journalist, a Bureaucrat, and a King Invented British Majesty” (Bloomberg). Josh Glancy, “Divided America Needs a Dose of the British Royal Family” (The Times). Josh Glancy, “How the British Royal Family Became a Very American Obsession” (American Spectator). Josh Glancy, “King Charles III: A New Era Begins With the Most Gloriously Elaborate Piece of Box-Ticking” (The Times). Josh Glancy, “Even Now it’s Still Good to be Jewish in the U.S.A.,” (The Jewish Chronicle) Josh Glancy, “Party of a Lifetime for the ‘World’s Grandmother’” (The Times).Damir tweeting about the crypto-Islamism of King Charles.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live The Crowd is flying solo (duo?) again for this week's episode, focusing on recent developments in the war in Ukraine, Iranian protests, and Europe's under-the-radar political upheavals. The Russian government recently declared a "partial mobilization" to aid in the war effort, and Vladimir Putin threatened to defend Russia's gains with nuclear weapons. How much affect will mobilization have on the course of the war? What kind of precedent does it set to seize territory, then defend those gains with nuclear threats? Then, we turned to the recent protests shaking Iran—and a larger discussion of how authoritarian regimes hold onto power. Have governments become better at crushing dissent in recent years? And why do dictators seem to love running a dictatorship–an often unpleasant job–so much? In Part 2 (available here for subscribers), we talked about the recent success of far right parties in Europe. The Sweden Democrats, a party with roots in neo-fascism, have become the second biggest political party in Sweden's parliament. If Sweden is as tolerant as many Americans would like it to be, what explains their rise? The country's recent rise in Muslim immigration, as well as crime, might point to an answer, although we disagree on the "solutions." Can a crackdown on crime forestall a far-right backlash? Is Muslim integration helped or harmed by such methods? And why do hobbits come into it? Required Reading: “'Nothing Has Really Changed': In Moscow, the Fighting is Worlds Away,” by Valerie Hopkins (The New York Times). “Hobbits and the Hard Right: How Fantasy Inspires Italy’s Potential New Leader,” by Jason Horowitz (The New York Times). “How Italy is facing a crucial election,” Gideon Rachman’s interview with Nathalie Tocci (The Financial Times). “Will Jean Monnet’s Vision for Europe Win Out?” Damir’s interview with Nathalie Tocci for the Atlantic Council. The Happiness Lab’s episode on Denmark. “Europe’s Growing Muslim Population,” a report from the Pew Research Center. “Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element,” Kevin Drum (Mother Jones).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThis podcast came after a whirlwind few weeks for the Crowd– Damir returned from his odyssey through the Balkans, and Shadi was the recipient of several Twitter pile-ons. Oh, and the Queen died.Before getting to all that, though, we ramble through a potpourri of other subjects. Damir gives relationship advice.  Shadi tells us why he's against pets and hiking. A conversation about whether animals have souls turns into a discuss of creationism and free speech, touching on some recent arguments in the pages of The Atlantic.We also continue our conversation about national conservatism from last week, addressing statements made by national conservatives about the nature of rights in the international system. Are rights only real if they're enforceable? And if not, should the very concept be thrown out the window?In the full episode (for subscribers only) Damir discusses some of the takeaways from his trip to the Balkans: what he saw on his travels made him wonder whether authoritarians like Vladimir Putin imposed themselves on unwilling societies, or if "the people" were more active participants in the process. In other words, are the Russian people as victimized as Western media makes them seem? Finally, Shadi shares his surprise at Britons; depth of feeling for their monarch, as well as his thoughts on what role monarchs play in Western democracies.

We did something a little unusual for this week: a crossover episode. We sat down with Susannah Black Roberts and Peter Mommsen—the hosts of Ploughcast, from Plough Quarterly, a Christian magazine of ideas and culture—for a conversation about the "post-liberal" movement as well as broader questions of the "common good" (does it exist?).  All four of us are coming from vastly different perspectives and backgrounds, and that came out in our spirited conversation.Our conversation about the common good led to deep questions about the nature of politics and law. What are the practical implications of saying, as Martin Luther King did, that "an unjust law is no law at all?" If all humans have souls (even Damir) what does that mean about how we should organize political communities? And how can citizens with fundamental differences be reconciled?We also discussed the recently released National Conservative Statement of Principles: a manifesto signed by many leaders of the post-liberal right. All four of us had significant disagreements with the Statement—but for different reasons. Will its advocacy for a more robust role for Christianity in public life crowd out religious minorities, as Shadi notes? Susannah, as a self-identified Christian post-liberal herself, goes further, wondering if a Christian conception of the good can even be the foundation for an American political movement.We also talked about how Christian ideas of justice cohere—or don't—with liberalism. Damir makes a bold claim: articulating a "common good" can't be done without reference to religious principles, and anyone claiming otherwise is deluding themselves. Needless to say, everyone else on the podcast disagrees (the word "Satanic" comes up).  Required Reading:- The National Conservative Statement of Principles.- The open letter responding to the National Conservative Statement of Principles (The European Conservative).- “Our Post-Liberal Moment,” by Susannah Black Roberts (The Spectator World).- Why Liberalism Failed, by Patrick Deneen (Amazon).- The AP’s recent report on Canada’s euthanasia policies (The Associated Press). This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live Just as it has a past, liberalism has a future. The only question is whether this future will be compelling enough for those who have lost faith. We have our doubts. Which is why we wanted to talk to Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History and the Last Man and perhaps the foremost thinker on the development of modern political order. In his new book, Liberalism and Its Discontents, Fukuyama mounts a comprehensive and stirring defense of the liberal idea. But is it enough? We started by discussing Donald Trump—and other possible threats from the GOP to liberalism. Liberalism hasn't necessarily failed, but it has weakened. How and why did this happen? Is liberalism too "thin" to serve as the bedrock of American identity? Fukuyama argues that modern liberalism has become deformed and is no longer liberal. What would it mean to return to "classical liberalism" and is it even possible? In Part 2 of the conversation (available here for subscribers), Shadi questioned Fukuyama on whether ostensibly liberal states do in fact promote their own particular conception of the Good. For example, can state-enforced secularism, like France's, be reasonably considered liberal? Damir raises the point that the universalist assumptions behind liberalism may simply not be workable in a large, diverse, societies. Finally, we talk about the specific ways in which rising illiberalism could be beaten back. Fukuyama believes that the only way to defeat right-wing illiberalism is to defeat it decisively at the polls, through the Democratic Party moving towards the center and ditching its "woke" wing. In the long term, however, Fukuyama is optimistic about liberalism's prospects, and the chances for "partisans of human freedom" to succeed. Required Reading: “Paths to Depolarization,” by Francis Fukuyama (Persuasion). Liberalism and Its Discontents, by Francis Fukuyama (Amazon). The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama (Amazon). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy, by Francis Fukuyama (Amazon). The Transformation of Title IX: Regulating Gender Equality in Education, by R. Shep Melnick (Amazon). The Inheritors: An Intimate Portrait of South Africa’s Racial Reckoning, by Eve Fairbanks (Amazon).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live This week's episode features one of Twitter's more controversial figures: Jason Stanley, a professor of philosophy at Yale and author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. In true Wisdom of Crowds fashion, we wanted a more measured and wide-ranging exchange of views than Twitter could provide, so we invited Stanley onto the podcast to discuss Trumpism and the Republican Party, the use of the word "fascism," and the dangers of an emerging fascist international. While there were significant disagreements, our desire for more open and honest dialogue was richly rewarded. Stanley believes that the fascist mode of politics—a precursor to actual fascism—takes American form in Donald Trump and today's GOP. To what extent is Trumpism "legitimate"? Should federal prosecutors do all in their power put Trump away even if that imperils the legitimacy of our democracy? Under what conditions should a political party be banned for anti-democratic activity in the United States? In Part 2 (available here for subscribers), we asked whether Stanley's definition of fascism included things that many would merely consider illiberal. How does diagnosing fascism work in Europe, where almost every country's notion of belonging is at least partly tied to ethnic origin? Are modern notions of citizenship compatible with a non-fascist political philosophy? We also asked Stanley some more personal questions to close out the episode. Does he see his combative Twitter activity as separate from his academic work and his writing? What is the role of philosophers in the public sphere, and how would he like to be remembered in 200 years (or 50)? Required Reading: How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, by Jason Stanley (Amazon). How Propaganda Works, by Jason Stanley (Amazon). Jason’s 2015 article, “Democracy and the Demagogue,” where he describes the source of Trump’s appeal (The New York Times). “American Fascism?” by Jason Stanley (El Pais). “America is now in fascism’s legal phase,” by Jason Stanley (The Guardian). The Newsweek story about Sam Harris’ controversial interview (Newsweek). Emile: On Education, by Jean-Jacques Rosseau (Amazon).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThe FBI's surprise "raid" on Donald Trump's residence in Mar-a-Lago this week has been hailed in some quarters as a triumph for the rule of law, and seen in others as signs of a slide into banana-republic status. We invited Jason Willick, a Washington Post columnist who writes on legal issues, to sit down with us and discuss the deeper implications of the event.True to the Crowd's ethos, we focused on fundamental issues. Jason argued that the polarized reactions to the raid show the difficulty of having federal-level law enforcement in an increasingly divided political climate. Shadi and Damir went back on forth on the question of justice: should law enforcement be entirely impartial, or must prosecutors exercise discretion based on the political context? Does one side bear more blame for our current spiral of mistrust and polarization, or is the problem systemic?In the subscriber-only part of the conversation, things got a little heated, as we debated what might restore Americans' belief in democracy. Shadi went (in his own words) "unplugged," talking about his hopes for restoring democratic values. Might a South-Africa-style "truth and reconciliation" commission be appropriate? Damir is skeptical.And finally, the three conclude with a discussion of whether America can pull out of the spiral. Shadi believes that we need a recovery of civic virtue. Damir thinks the national culture is no longer able to sustain democratic values. And Jason raises the point that full scale democratic backsliding is unlikely, given the size of our country. Ultimately, the choice to reject the polarization cycle will be up to voters– a conclusion both optimistic and pessimistic.Required Reading:- "An Informer Told the FBI What Docs Trump Was Hiding, and Where," by William H. Arkin (Newsweek).- Bill Barr's speech at Hillsdale College.- "The Problem of Donald Trump Didn't Start with Donald Trump," by Damir (Gen, on Medium).- Jason Tweeting about the Espionage Act.- Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Tweeting about the American "regime."- "Is Trump Crazy— or calculating? His opponents have to decide," by Jason (The Washington Post).