Meet the ‘Angry, Aggrieved’ New Right
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2023
- The New Right has been associated with everyone from Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri to right-wing influencers and Catholic integralists. The breadth of the term can make it hard to define: Is the New Right a budding ideological movement or a toxic online subculture? What does it mean if it’s both?
Stephanie Slade is a senior editor at the magazine Reason, and has covered the New Right extensively. She argues that the New Right subverts the conventional left/right political binary and is better understood as the illiberal backlash to classical liberalism.
This conversation is a tour of the New Right. The guest host, David French, talks to Slade about the politicians who have been attached to the ideological movement; why the New Right is critical of Reaganism; her problems with its self-branding as “common good conservatism”; how the Ron DeSantis “Stop Woke Act” signals a diversion from conservative free speech values; why the New Right is so angry; how online factions of the New Right are often in a delicate dance between flirting with bigotry and actually aligning with the provocative beliefs they post; why Catholic integralism matters, even if the average Catholic might have never heard of the ideology; and much more.
This episode was hosted by David French, an Opinion columnist at The New York Times. Previously, he was a senior editor and co-founder of The Dispatch and a contributing writer at The Atlantic.
Mentioned:
More information about Ezra’s lecture at UC Berkeley (calperformances.org/events/20...)
“The Lost Boys of the American Right (www.nytimes.com/2023/08/13/op...) ” by David French
“Both Left and Right Are Converging on Authoritarianism (reason.com/2022/09/13/the-aut...) ” by Stephanie Slade
Book Recommendations:
Radicals for Capitalism (www.hachettebookgroup.com/tit...) by Brian Doherty
The Ethics of Authenticity (www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.p...) by Charles Taylor
War and Peace (www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2600) by Leo Tolstoy
Thoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.
You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast (www.nytimes.com/column/ezra-k...) , and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-... (www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-...) .
This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Kristin Lin. Fact checking by Michelle Harris. Our senior engineer is Jeff Geld. Our senior editor is Annie-Rose Strasser. The show’s production team also includes Emefa Agawu and Rollin Hu. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Sonia Herrero.
Great episode! I was pleasantly surprised by the careful, thoughtful, i -depth analysis with a minimum of opponent demonizing.
Holy crap, Stephanie! I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!!
Love this episode! Thanks!
-Boomer leftist coping with the fact 3 leftist activist were murdered by the demographic of love last week
This was very enlightening! Thank you.
"The right and liberalism sound like an oxymoron"
Ouch. I know she clarified that right away and that it's not her opinion - but rather an attempt to convey the impression of the American voter. Still, "ouch."
I'm from Europe. Our political scene is... boring. Nothing kills fun better than French idealistic chaos crossed with German love of bureaucracy. So, like everyone else, I listen more to American podcasts. It just goes to show the interesting dominance of American culture, which appeals to a wider audience than one might think.
Our public space, for example, often adopts topics that are debated in the US. So when you were addressing abortion? While no one wanted to regulate them here - not surprising in the Czech Republic, the most atheistic country in the world - yet our progressive left took up abortion and began attacking our confused Christians who didn't understand what was going on.
The problem is that we also tend to assign roles when taking up issues - i.e. you're a leftist, you're pro-choice. And you're a right-winger, you're playing conservative. Here's your set of arguments and hooray!
But our right wing... is not very conservative. The political mainstream, the sort of "middle" in our country is the liberal right-wing voter. In both cases, with the caveat "moderate".
And on the other hand - we do have a certain new progressive left, it's just that they may be noisy on Twitter, but realistically they are the group everyone in our country sincerely hates.
The mainstream left in this country is the spiritual successor to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And it is a conservative party of the grossest extreme.
If I lived in the US, when trying to decide between the Conservatives and their regulation of abortion and denial of global climate change, or the Liberals and their absurd pursuit of justice that will inevitably end in tyranny... I would really suffer as a voter in your country. Then again, I'd be far from the Russians, so... I guess you can't have everything.
We in Europe certainly have more experience with extremes in the past, so up till now everything is more moderate and less emotional, when making a choice. The tribalism haven't instilled it as much and while being more traditionally conservative and rational, we can avoid extremes in ideologues. Untill we can't.. Given that, thankfully in general even our right and far-right is more moderate and borderline rational than in US. We also have suffered less, educated ourselves more and thus suffered less from undermining by nefarious actors sponsored by autoritarian-axis (Russia, Iran, up to recently Muslim propaganda, China etc.) We know a bit about history and are obliged not to repeat it. Some exception to these detractors and backdoor infowar influence is UK, but they stood overall better than rest in face of Rashist propaganda (but were pushed in Brexit, weakening EU and EEC, so i guess learned their lesson). What US is seriously underestimating is the influence of their enemies simmering below the surface - Russia and China is spending billions on subtle infowar both online and in medias - both far right and left. Power of discourse and internet echochambers when manipulated is catastrophically dividing US society and politics. Enemies don't care what agendas domestically gets pushed, as long as it divides and weakens "the collective West"(sic). This is happening in Europe too, and have reaped their fruits in Slovakia, Brexit, Netherlands and especially Hungary, to name the worst (even Polish farmers got caught up, even if they have a point, even immoral). EU is far from homogenous federation, bit overall up till now have kept enough common sense to stay united in face of immediate threats from the old enemy Russia and new attacks by teocratic Muslim countries. Some part is always clueless about being used against their own and general implications of their actions, but reason should prevail. Never since WW2 we had need to be maximally united as now, i hope we'll manage.
*excuse the spelling and grammar errors, can't edit or see my writing beforeposted without YT app on my reserve phone.
@dannydetonator your far right is nore moderate? There's right wing parties in alot of Europe that couldn't even get a serious platform in the US generally speaking lol
Ah, 'good journalism' here. Name calling is your best argument.
I'm usually right, rarely angry, never agrieved
I like to say that half of all Americans are more conservative than the other half, and that both need equal representation if we're going to maintain a democracy. The true enemy to our little experiment of self-governance is illiberalism.
"and that both need equal representation if we're going to maintain a democracy" The problem with your premise is that the "right" has been hogging representation for 400+ years -- so there needs to be progressive REDRESS in order for there to BE equal representation. If the fascists & fascist enablers are permitted to continue to suck all the air out of the room we will never GET to equal representation. th-cam.com/video/GeRwa_GQzS8/w-d-xo.html
Great and very insightful guest.
Trump 2024🇺🇲
This is the Alt Right, not the Neo Conservatives or Neo Liberals.
...like changing the interpretation of "freedom of religion" from freedom of choice of what religion an individual follows to the freedom of the individual to discriminate against groups of people based on the individuals religion?
The Biden white house has rebranded censorship of social media as "helping with content moderation" so there's problems on both sides.
38:23 38:39 colorblindness AND reparations. It is not appropriate to expect whole groups to not desire overdue acknowledgement of past bad behavior - even if it is a generation or more old.
14:09 the state does lean, and the goal should be balancing; aim for kindness, common good more & less abuse of power.
24:09 yikes - this doesn’t bode well for democracy.
Ezra Klein is out of touch of reality. The guy probably has never lived in such difficulty in his life.
On the face of it great policies ; but I would be reluctant to drop my guard with these people and so become a Conservative cultist ; they probably need a large island to retire to and work out their frustrations .
Bizarro World - accusing your opponents of what you are doing and thinking.
Elaborate. Who are you accusing? For what are you accusing them? What evidence do you have for whatever that is?
IOW, if I'm reading your vague implications correctly; I'm calling you out for an empty rhetorical nonresponsive response that is emblematic of New Right.
You got me.
Nice work.
I bow to your superior intellect.
@@kylenolan3138 He's outing the Kochapparat - Fux, newsmak, bitefart, et al; DeStalin, Abbottoire, et al.
@@kylenolan3138No, this is a tactic taken right from the left’s playbook. Jagoff pos.
@@kylenolan3138I'll happily engage. They are calling out the new willingness of strongly conservative people to wield state power to advance their aims while studiously ignoring the fact that the left has been (and is) perfectly happy to do the same to achieve THEIR societal goals. Not hard to understand except for people who are either unintelligent or willfully blinkered and partisan.
11:27 Barak Obama "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends"
That quote started with Obama.
In what context did this quote appear ?
@@jimsilvey5432 It will appear in the context of a Google search if you can be bothered.
This is why many of us don't hesitate to call call it "fascism". It's not because we want to be inflammatory or don't understand the historical context. It's because we DO understand the history of the reactionary culturally conservative fascist movement as it developed under the ideas of Evola and Mussolini, and we think this is the same phenomenon happening in an American context, under the same sort of anti-liberal ideology.
The fact that people don't see that the right is seeming to literally be following the roadmap of the rise of fascism in Europe in the early 30's is dumbfounding to me. If you go down the list of the classical tenets of how fascism assumes power; if there's say 10 steps to fascism, they've checked at least seven boxes so far. And honestly, I'm not resting easy even if trump goes to jail because wasn't Hitler jailed for an attempted coup? But then got out and was successful the second time?
Agree. But it didn't come up in a vacuum. Neoliberals and the woke has created perfect conditions for fascism. Stop outsourcing American jobs to illegal immigrants and China, stop holier-than-thou posturing around race that does nothing to help blacks, stand up to fringe far-left lunatics and actually represent all Americans. Bring back the middle class. Have inspiring non-senile leaders and fair primaries. That's the only way not to prevent fascism.
Yes, as I'm listening I want to ask the simple question -- why don't we call them fascists?
Nothing you described is happening in America.
We understand the history that was written by the victors and wholeheartedly believe every ounce of propaganda been told😂😂😂
Very good but troubling!!
The framing of the fight for gay rights as simply a fight for family and rights completely ignores the actual activism that took place and totally whitewashes the struggle for rights that remains unfinished.
This guest leans toward grouping the new right as a group with the more mainstream right. She might build a better formed perspective if she didnt say, this group thinks this or that. She is doing what the right has been doing for decades, which is lumping the most extreme points of the left, with the main stream left.
The right and the new right has a spectrum just as is the left and far left does. There are differences and overlapping opinions with many aspects in politics and of culture.
Btw, I am a Reagan republican that voted for McCain, and then Obama then Biden. I would vote for Biden again or kamala Harris or Nicki Haley.
Interesting perspective but i guess its our way of communicating the parts that are different or distinct..
in your case it would be interesting to understand what lead you to shift around - i suspect its a complex play of factors. sometimes moving towards ideas and individuals ideas that resonate and sometimes a reaction against others. I suspect you are like many a centrist at heart but sometimes feeling the need to rebalance the position .. i suspect the more you move along the continum its less ‘noticeable ‘
@@victory-phoenixrising4498
I agree, as a Northeast Republican, I can be more liberal than the more conservative west and south. I try to vote a combination of political issues and a candidate that I believe is a honorable person. I would never, in my worst nightmare ever vote for a lowlife, miserable individual like Trump.
I now lean much further democratic since he entered the political arena.
@@bernardzsikla5640 FWIW, Reagan's "success" was luck. The USSR had been openly deteriorating economically since Khrushchev, then the Politburo's rapid flushing through Andropov and Chernenko exposed the overall deterioration.
Reagan's economic success is even more "illusory". OPEC's stagflation of the 1970s began collapsing in 1981; by 1986, OPEC was "powerless".
@@jcbjcb2 So obviously we don't have parallel views of the Reagan administration but to further fill out my perspective.
The US had 8 years of straight economic growth (82'-90') the longest period of growth in US history.
Your statement of "Luck" regarding the USSR collaspe is a huge underestimating of his administration.
Minimally speaking, his administration hasten the decline of the Soviet Union by years, if not decades. George Schulz was a very tough anti communist foreign policy, and the USSR just couldn't complete militarily with our technological advancements and investments.
I lived thru that time, and there were huge protests. That real lucky part was the liberal left just couldn't convince enough Americans that not being firm with communism was the correct course of action. If the Soviets put intermediate ballistic missiles in East Germany, America did the same. A very skillful game of brinkmanship.
The failures of his administration were not being honest with Congress and I believe that was a huge mistake.
So basically Pro Israel, Pro War machine
Funniest thing David French has done in a decade.
Agc Andy on TH-cam may classify as one of these angry man productions
Do I have to meet them? Ugh. They’ve always been angry and aggrieved. Im kinda sick of it
The "new right" has been angry for at least 15 years.
Believe me, we've met.
So the "new right" is basically the "old left" from a cohesiveness perspective. Back in the Obama years the right's tactical advantage was the fact that they marched in lock-step on every issue. Ask ten of them a question and you would get one almost verbatim answer. Ask ten Dems from back then a question and you'd get ten different answers.
Love that you make up new boxes with your own definitions and place random people into them. You really need to speak with actual conservatives and realize that their world view is vastly different from yours and though we have common terms it probably has a different meaning in different contexts.
You assume they haven't talked to actual conservatives lmao
Also, everything they said was fucking true! They are identifying laws that have been passed and quotes that have been said. Regarding the politicians themselves (not necessarily the followers of the political party), they are spot on. Don't like it? Maybe reexamine who you vote for then. That's no one else's problem.
@@alligatorsarecoming78 This podcast is hysterical propaganda.
@@alligatorsarecoming78They havent no they never do and its obvious
@@alligatorsarecoming78Spot on with what?
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
In any competition between two parties, in this case Political Movements, a party's actions should be evaluated through the lens of what is the other party doing. If there is a "New Right", then what is the Left's role in creating this "New" version of their opponent?
Hilariously naive
The Right is always angry.
Take people at their word. If they tell you or show you that they're an asshole or racist, etc .....believe them. Hold them to their word unless there is an apology or mea culpa.
Why should someone apologize for being an a hole or racist?
@@fredgarvinMP Fred, exciting news, you get today's troll award.
@@garybowler5946 The Times is trolling you.
@@fredgarvinMP If that is your opinion of the Times what are you doing here? Just trolling? Right.
@@garybowler5946 I find propaganda fascinating.
I don't think the objection to identity politics as done by good faith actors on the left has been well articulated at all. And yet there seems to be a consensus in conservative thought that it represents a problematic clash of identities. I was disheartened to hear the guest talk about "color blindness" as it's limitation seems to be that it favors majorities and disfavors the minorities, because knowledge of the experiences across identities often illuminates disparity that favors the majority.
So the pendulum is swinging the other way now. What did you think was going to happen when you let identity politics center itself in modern politics and culture?
Identity politics is not real but we’re glad it’s happening.
@@nickporter574 Your comment doesn’t make sense logically or grammatically.
Everyone plays the identity politics game, if you let your enemy play it for you you'll get crushed as we've seen j ws take over America in virtually every domain. You're a white guy (I'm assuming based on pfp perhaps naively) so it is in your interest to work for white interests and to remove j wish power in America and destroy the intelligence agencies they control and move against your interests with. NYT is itself us intelligence propaganda, and us intelligence is run by blackmail networks like epstein (for example cia director william burns was a regular on the pedo child slave island) so naturally they're terrified if they lose control they're all fucked, because quite frankly they would be.
It's not that there was no identity politics played before and now it's center, it's that all the other groups except whites played the identity politics game successfully, and now us whites are being disempowered and targeted by our enemies because of this stupidity and weakness. We are programmed by intelligence agencies to behave individually, whereas every other group is told to behave tribally often against our interests.
Get with the program white boi, we have a lot of ground to gain since we've been taking L after L since 1945.
So identity politics made them racist? 🙄 But for "identity politics", Nick Fuentes would never have spoken a racist word, huh?
@@onedroprule Identity politics for the most part is racist. Kendi and Fuentes are no different from one another . By platforming the ideas of people like Kendi gave the green light to Fuentes and others that this type of thinking was ok.
This program is so biased it reeks.
You don't need a nose like Ezra's to sniff that scent lol
Haha. Yea. Their bias is so thick like a cloud of smoke they cannot see 10 feet in front of them.
Can you point out some examples of what you think is biased about this. I am just starting my listen. I would be genuinely interested in your views.@@barrybonds6070
Well, he does work for the NYT. He tries hard (I think he is earnest) to be fair but like the truly faithful cannot step outside his own worldview. Thus, everything he makes has a heaping tablespoon of progressivism mixed in. He truly cannot understand people who do not share his worldview and thus inevitably creates distorted caricatures of them.
He views with alarm that some conservative people are now seeking to use the power of the state to advance their goals without noticing that the left has been doing so for many years. He just doesn't notice when his side does it because to him of course thats what the government is for.
Progressives like Klein (he is not an old school liberal) relentlessly push for society to move left, expecting conservatives to simply hold the existing line as long as possible until they give ground under pressure. it's shocking to him that some conservatives are now saying "No, we've moved too far left and now we are going to work just as actively to push it in tbe direction WE want it to move." The left is not used to this and reacts with the old "fascism" scare tactic. The name calling is everywhere. If you oppose their policies you are a (pick from the following listl: racist/sexist/xenophobe, Islamophobe, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, fascist, someone who wants to control women's bodies, starve the poor, climate denier, etc etc etc. And they wonder why this radicalizes people?
Skip the first three minutes. Pretty solid from then on. One of the great puzzles is why the women of the Red States are still willing to vote for Trump. It's a "stand by your man" logic that defies understanding.
'Punish enemies and reward friends'
That's been mentioned twice, and that quote came from Obama.
I'm no fan of the neo-fascists, but the 'left' needs to own their contribution to this problem.
😊.
Regan as a liberal conservative? As someone who lived through that period, I can tell you that you're dead wrong...
You think it's wrong because you don't understand what "liberal" means. But that's understandable, because the word has been bastardized in the vernacular. "Liberal" does not actually mean "progressive".
@@TaumpyYou're correct. He was small l liberal conservative. He could and did party with Tip O'Neill. But the D party refuses to acknowledge that the right backlash is just that- a backlash against the hard leftward movement of the D party, which refuses to draw a line on its own left fringe. Take away critical theory, cultural Marxism, trans, etc and the right moves back towards the center again. People like Klein never seem to remember that conservatism is naturally a status quo position and is thus always a reactionary movement to leftist shifts.
43:04 another yikes. This also appears to be Jehovah’s Witness group
50:00 agreed 😢,,, stop the punishment. Reaching agreement on gay marriage was beautifully done.
I appreciated this conversation... even what I considered to be a faux psychoanalysis of the New Right as a "masculine" movement, for example. What I didn't appreciate at all was the entire lack of discussion of the economic motivations driving the defacto leadership of the New Right--a still-unclaimed space, where Donald Trump and Mark Meadows can, for now, coexist with Amy Coney Barrett and Fr. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame.
Jenkins stands out to me as a useful case to examine what the New Right is really up to, and how much its effort depends upon the propagandistic re-definition of terms and concepts that in the past would have been seen as the neutral vocabulary of civilized political speech. Jenkins and his storied predecessor, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, would no doubt sound quite a lot alike if somehow we could magically summon them both together to discuss the effect on society of the pronounced drop-off in church membership in the United States, for example. Both would appeal to the social value of educating children in such public virtues such as honesty and respect for the country's founding principles and traditions, alongside private or religiously-grounded virtues such as modesty and humility. But they would mean entirely different things.
In no way would Fr. Hesburgh be comfortable with the hard right ideological bent of Fr. Jenkins, which goes hand-in-hand with his regressive views on the role of personal conscience in the exercise of one's Catholic faith and on matters of public interest and debate, like the use of tax dollars to fund private schools. When Fr. Hesburgh referred to the country's founding principles, he would be citing Jefferson and Adams. When Jenkins spoke, he would be summoning an ideological narrative that is at odds with the actual facts of history, but which represent "alternative facts" that those of his class would like to bring about. Put together on the same stage, Jenkins and Marjorie Taylor Greene would be indistinguishable from each other on the question of whether or not the United States is a "Christian country," for example.
What would be the reason for such a divergence of actual views between the two men, under cover of the same public terminology? I am tempted to chalk it up to Fr. Jenkins' loss of his priestly vocation; but instead I'll say that he, like Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, has spent too much of his life ministering to older, wealthy patrons who, like the elite within the New Right, yearn for nostalgic and largely fictional version of a better past, which they desire to re-create by force. They have rejected the realism of living in the present moment and engaging with its needs, which is what Fr. Hesburgh always did and most certainly would be doing now, if he were alive today. Perhaps without understanding what they have done, Jenkins and Cordileone have found the path of Catholic nostalgia and illiberalism as the surest way to financial abundance. It just so happens that this path also supports both men's will to power.
If you want to know what's happening with those young seminarians holding such revanchist--indeed 19th century--positions on church doctrine and social issues, there is your answer. The New Right is about re-exerting its will upon an increasingly secular and egalitarian society, with the goal of restoring the old social controls of class, race, and morality that have historically permitted the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. Unfortunately, we don't have Fr. Hesburgh with us to call out the fundamentally bad faith involved in embracing ideas that deny freedom, autonomy, and equality to human beings, in the name of God. But we do have Pope Francis, and he is doing so, with increasing candor and urgency.
The same needs to happen in the political sphere, Mr. French and Ms. Slade. The New Right is about re-rigging a system that the rest of us want more quickly to be completely taken apart. If you desire to have a legitimate seat at the table as the country comes to grips with the identity crisis roiling the older, white, conservative half of our country, you could start by understanding better "the quiet part" that New Right political leaders like Josh Hawley and conservative elites like Fr. Jenkins are not yet quite brave enough to say out loud.
You are right about the new right not being masculine. You don't have to be male to an asshole.
you have a fundamentally deluded view of "class" as being based on resources purely without any intrinsic metaphysical element, and without any metaphysic your epistemology and therefore your praxis becomes totally incoherent, resulting in the ridiculous trans and other movements which derive from a lack of understanding of categorization and taxonomy as more than just an arbitrary signifier
Class is both a material and metaphysical phenomena. Some men are better than others, more beautiful, more talented, more fit to be leaders. Others are inferior. This hierarchical aspect of reality can't be erased, and when you try to ignore it like liberals, leftists do you result in dumb governance which quickly implodes, as we've seen with modern neoliberal and previous leftist regimes. Furthermore, the people currently in charge feed off the leftist, liberal ideas that wealth/leverage rules as it perpetuates the notion that nobility is merely a surface level thing and is arbitrary, and so naturally in such a society you get scumbags taking the top positions, since there's no societal expectation for power to be anything other than raw power/resources. This is also why liberals, leftists are always cynical about the future, since they're incapable of characterizing the world in any other terms, and why their entertainment is so depressing and quite often dystopian. But if we lived in a society where everyone believed that nobility was more than just fancy clothes, cars, items and power itself, that social expectation of leadership would prevent atrocious psychopaths like the current regime from ruling, since the people would kill anyone who deviated too much from moral norms previously established. Which is what we saw in Europe prior when kings and nobles went full psycho mode, they were often killed off by their own royal guard and couped by a noble more fit to rule who would stabilize things. No such dynamic exists now, as the "royal guard" are also themselves psychopaths like the cia, fbi, dhs etc. who due to the same lack of societal expectation have managed to get those positions and make for the perfect scumbag soldiers for the guys at the top to backstab society broadly.
So if you want to stick it to the "bourgeoisie" you should realize the only type of society in which they are killed and eradicated as a group is in far right societies, like the Third Reich where industrialists conspired to kill mustache man due to being cucked by the state. In communist states unlike in fascist regimes we saw the proletariat revolutionaries simply replace the bourgeoisie and move into their mansions and buildings of state and changed policy to micromanage the economy. Functionally wealth might not have been the power base there, but the cynical liberal/leftist power heads remained. @@winterprocopius5399
older conservatives
Bruh what a waste of my fucking time this 9 page essay was
The youngsters are faaaaaar more rightwing than the boomers
@@winterprocopius5399Lmao more useless babble
Everyone is dancing around the 800 pound gorilla in the room. All the academics, reporters, pundits are BLIND to the final overarching keystone in the long arch of the explanation of what is going on. For once in my life, I am now the smartest guy in the room.
Hello
I am a lifelong liberal and I see Disney as being in the wrong as you describe it. (7:40) I do not think "gender identity" is something that should be taught in public schools. I see it as part of a sort of secular religion. I see gender ideology as counter-factual and a threat to liberal values.
Ms. Slade is a journalist not a historian, so it's understandable that she doesn't know that illiberal conservatism goes back to at least William F Buckley Jr. In his book, God and Man at Yale, Buckley rejected the idea of politics as a compromise between opposing parties.
Lolberts are just the worst.
"Freedom is not enough. We need fewer freedoms for 'those people'"
-Marco Rubio, my satirical interpretation
RE: NatCon 3 quote:
"The institutional left does not intend to leave anything behind. . . scientific inquiry".
And that, to this professional scientist, is bunk. There are a few critical areas that are causing discomfort for religious fundamentalists.
A) The universe is big and old and humans can't possibly be the center of it all
B) Life on earth (including humans) evolved from primordial cells, driven by mutations and natural selection
C) LGTBQ+ are caused by a person having a differently-built brain. rather than a personal choice caused by a moral failing or hatred of God.
D) climate change is caused by humans.
Other than that, right wingers are plenty willing to avail themselves of the latest chemotherapy drugs, hop on board a composite aircraft, get a new iPhone, use the internet, etc. All of these things are the result of scientific inquiry, right? Pew tells us that roughly 6% of the people who developed all of these things are evangelicals. The rest, are not. All these wonderful things conservatives are happy to use were developed by people who don't think the Bible is the literal word of God that is to be followed to the letter. But the first four are what these "anti science" people disagree with.
It's a real head-snapper for this scientist.
All cope
A “more muscular conservatism?” Call it what it is: Fascism.
😤😤😤😤😤😤😤hypocrisy sophistry survailence capitalism.. 😳😳😳😳😳😳😳
P
Great show. Thank you for the careful detail and analysis. The radicalized right are not conservatives, at least within the constitutional American sense. They’re fascists, Nazis (being a certain subset of fascist), anarchists, and etc. They don’t subscribe to our 230 years of liberal, republican constitutional norms. Thus, not conservatives. As for Vermeul, how Harvard gives someone who rejects our fundamental constitutional structure a platform to teach Constitutional Law to law students is entirely beyond me. He’s not qualified. Simple and clear.
You were most likely rejected from UC Berkeley because you’re not Black or Latino
///so, essentially you are saying their is a strong Confederate strain in this land of ours? The rest of us must defend against the results of this thinking and acting. Sadly, today, veterans are at an all time low percentage (0.5% of population.) Who, now will save you? You will have to fight on your own protecting and defending the U.S. Constitution and your freedoms, are you willing?
There is a model of social change that is positive sum and involves inclusion and disarming rather than a metaphor of war or fighting. If these young disaffected men were given opportunities akin to Roosevelt's new deal work programs their anger might dissipate some. Make society so coherent and strong that the Confederate dissidents look like outliers and fools. I think the more you come at them with threats and talk of conflict the more power you give them, they thrive off feeling like victims.
@@ericbray4286Nah they lost all credibility anyone with two braincells calls this garbage what it is Jewish propaganda
Stifling sad laugh as you work your way through behaviors common among dysfunctional families. Nothing new, unusual or unexpected here. Some of us know the behaviors intimately. Child abuse and neglect training more of them every day.
America First is inevitable
Josh Hawley, lol okay sure.
Holy cow!! Slow down when you speak!! The lady sounds like she took some kind of stimulant drug before this interview
She probably takes adderal
Garbage propaganda. I know, I know, time to censor my comment for naughtyspeak.
I'm not impressed by psychoanalysis of the stupidest angriest people who attack your ideological culture. Not helpful to having real debate about what's going on in the country and the world.
The another Jewish show
↑'The' another non-anglophone paid ttroll, by methodics posing as justified antisemite. Seen this one around.
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
The show has become pure propaganda