The Future of the American Right - Emily Jashinsky | Maiden Mother Matriarch 46
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- My guest today is the journalist Emily Jashinsky, culture editor at The Federalist, and senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. We spoke about the fallout from the Dobbs decision, Republican attitudes towards pronatalist policy, and whether or not Donald Trump is representative of a post-Christian future for the American Right.
In the extended version of the episode we also spoke about the New Right's 'woman problem.'
01:08 - The relationship between income and attitudes to abortion
09:18 - Pro-family policy on the American right
18:27 - The unintended consequences of obscure policies
23:05 - Trump, the political realignment, and the decline of religion
39:00 - America’s culture of aspiration
43:50 - Do Donald Trump’s flaws make him more appealing?
The MMM podcast can also be found on Apple, Spotify, and all other streaming platforms: linktr.ee/maidenmothermatriarch
Follow Maiden Mother Matriarch on social media:
Twitter: / maiden_podcast
Instagram: / maiden_mother_matriarch
TikTok: tiktok.com/@maiden_podcast
#LouisePerry #DonaldTrump #MaidenMotherMatriarch
I discovered Louise fairly recently. She is very pretty, but the main thing that has struck me is the sound of her voice. I'm not only talking about accent, I'm talking about the actual sound of her voice. She is absolutely mesmerizing to listen to, almost hypnotic. I have only heard a couple such voices in my life that were so pleasurable to listen to.
Her perspectives are interesting, nuanced, sometimes unexpected, and frequently original.
Louise Perry is brilliant. You need to read her book 'The Case Against the Sexual Revolution'.
100 percent. Someone pay this woman to voice over audio books.
I've thought the same thing. I could listen to her read a recipe book and find it soothing.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
01:12 🤰 *Jashinski discusses media's portrayal of working-class views on abortion.*
05:50 👥 *Poorer women's complex stance on abortion.*
09:30 🤝 *Pro-life advocates emphasize post-birth support.*
13:25 💰 *Jashinski on conservative challenges in promoting family-oriented policies.*
16:26 🏛️ *Debate on tax cuts, government intervention, and pronatalist policies.*
23:21 📈 *Conservative shift initiated by Trump in 2016.*
25:55 🎭 *Challenges for the conservative movement in the post-Trump era.*
27:05 🌐 *Cultural push in 2020 creates unexpected alliances.*
33:36 🎤 *Trump strategically appeals to the Christian right.*
35:24 🏆 *Trump's success lies in intuiting popular will and overturning norms.*
38:48 💼 *Trump's success rooted in working-class cultural instincts.*
43:01 🤝 *Trump's relatability enhanced by personal flaws.*
46:24 🍼 *Upper classes' contrast in values and lifestyle.*
47:13 💔 *Trump exposes upper class with shameless transparency.*
Made with HARPA AI
Based. Thank you
THANKS!
Once upon a time, abolitioning slavery was associated with the fundamentalist Christian position, even when it could easily be viewed as a secular human rights matter. The same should be the case for abortion, rather than the issue being viewed, at times perjoratively, as unpopular because of its Christian associations. Would love for Louise to interview Lila Rose.
Lila rose interviewed Louise Perry not too long ago. It was a little awkward when Lila was asking pointed questions.
@caffeinated_chesterton yes! I saw that on TH-cam after leaving this comment. Haven't watched it yet though. What you said doesn't surprise me. Thanks!
Its not the same logic to me. Slavery was the degredation of human to non human status, to animals or even lesser. The problem always was that intelligent life shouldnt be enslaved, torutered nd killed as it is the same as us, according to the bible. Abortion isnt about yet at the same level of humans, as it is not able to survive without a womb. It would be different if we had artificial wombs and the embryo could get transfered there to. But just the case of a rape pregnancy takes away the agency of the "mother" and it would be abuse not just from the "father" but also parasitic behavior from the "baby". To me abortion still falls under the idea of self defense against unwanted use of an individuals body.
I do agree that overall abortion just because someone doesnt want a child is morally wrong. I dont see it the same way when it comes to rape, or in case of safety of the mother in cases where she needs chemotherapy or the whole pregnancy would mean that she gets devastating long term negative effects that will impair her physical well being.
I would never be able to go through abortion even if I was raped (though certainly if I was sick! I would rather survive and have the unborn die than to die for the unborn), however on a logical "I stand for freedom point", there has never come a good enough argument that would speak against abortions even in cases when the woman just doesnt want the child. To me a woman is always in the power position to decide upon who is gonna come into life and who isnt. It's not Gods decision, it is literally the woman's. God just offers the possibility.
I guess what I would be onboard however is a praise for those women who decide upon having a child eventhough they would rather not have it and then put it for adoption. I can't really see the praise for the disabled child, as if she puts it for adoption, it will raise costs for the general public and she just frees herself from the guilt of having had an abortion. I do believe in souls and that souls need a functioning body, not a disabled one. So if a baby gets aborted the soul can still enter another body that is healthy and just gets born a bit later but in a different body.
Without Christianity, there would have been no 19th century abolitionist movement. Without Christianity, it's just an opinion. Likewise, there's no purely atheistic argument against abortion. Indeed, most charity is an echo of Christianity.
Yay - love Emily. The podcast hasn't even started yet but I know I'm in for a good one. Happy new Year, ladies!
The Child Care Subsidy (CCS) in Australia you can only get if your child is fully vaccinated with childhood vaccinations
As an Australian I was thinking the same thing.
You also have to use it to benefit, although using childcare is not best for the child.
Two of my favorite podcasters. I was incredibly excited for this collab and I wasn't dissappointed
Despite being a moderate liberal, these are my two favorite conservative ladies. Nice.
Emily’s so excellent! Glad you had her on. This one got me to subscribe to MMM! ❤️✨🥂 Happy New Year, team Louise!
Amazing episode, Louise! Really interesting conversation!
Happy new year😊 congrats on a successful year in the podcast space. Your discussions have been a blessing. Cheers
I could listen to Emily on any topic, she is so smart and caring......
Would be interesting to watch Alex Kaschuta interview Emily Jashinsky 🤔
Immediate subscription earned. Glad to discover you.
Great item guest was great
Peter Zheihan had an interesting video recently, about Israel in a post-American world. He references the Haredim and their local community organization. Ben Shapiro mentioned the same, his last visit on Triggernometry Platform. Ben said the Amish do the same: localism, pro-natal policies. The spectacular thing about the Israel example:
Women fully participate in their Israeli economy and education system, but not all women. Those that want family life and lots of kids, have that option too. So for me, a post feminist world is about more options, not fewer. Trump said he wants to rebuild 10 American cities. The thing I don't like about cities is they seem to be unsuited to families. My guess is new cities can be pro-family. Put Ivanka in charge of that.
Women are 55% of voters. Republicans do a great job catering to well off women, but a poor job of arranging things so all women have better options in life. So they abort, then go off and toil for the corporations and convince themselves this is what freedom looks like. If the right is to have a future, they have to come up with better ideas, to help women have the kinds of lives they want.
Good comment. Although, Zeihan also mentioned that the Haredim are a major tax burden for Israeli economy, which will present a problem long term. I accept that religious structures help particular social groups with forming community. But, I don't think there should be special tax exemptions, specifically for belonging to a particular religious sect, there are other non sectarian ways to support communities. Granted, Israel is different from the West/Angloshpere where I live, to a significant extent, they actually happen to be a religious ethnostate.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy Tax burden is not something we understand well. There is an inter-generational aspect to it. Same with understanding what economic productivity means.
An old friend from childhood was a lady named Charlotte. She was a clever girl, had 5 children. She never had a career, but did contribute 5 humans to the economy. One was a doctor, another an engineer and another a mechanic and two school teachers. Did Charlotte contribute to the economy? I think so.....via a lifetime of useful activity by her children.
Charlotte's childhood friend was Melissa, who stayed single and childless, but had a great career. Now in her old age, Charlotte's children and now grandchildren are paying the retirement pension for Melissa, who supposedly was the one making the big economic contribution. Our understanding of tax burden is too short term a perspective.
Are the Haredim a tax burden on Israel? Short term, yes. Long term? They are a very large net tax benefit.
I agree on not giving religious communities a special tax break, over the secular, even though my inclination is religious. My point is both secular and religious who want kids, both be given tax breaks. There are public housing units in Denmark, little villages within cities, that are doing this. Most people are non-religious in Denmark.
@@TimBitts649 Right. I’ve been reading about Israel’s cultural and political landscape. I think it’s something we should definitely be inspired by.
This is the problem with democracy. Women will almost always vote for what is in women’s favor and never consider how badly it affects men. Since they make up the majority of voters, any politician that considers a man’s need or wants to any degree is likely to lose. Women have become supremacist.
Decent convo thnx. But still, I think we're doing lots of work here, to try to identify and discuss Populism. Pls have on Michael Lind.
I think the bolder text on your new thumbnails are a nice upgrade, they pop more. But the saturated backgrounds juxtaposed with a bad choice in portraits is a downgrade from the previous black and white portraits which looked more flattering, imo. Outstanding content though!
It's self evident that no politicians in the US actually give a damn about abortion. It's amazing how expensive a pregnancy and baby food and check-ins are here. And there is no effort from any politicians in either party (apart from Bernie and the Squad who want abortion to be legal but at least would guarantee maternal healthcare through Medicare for All) to fix any of that.
One of my coworkers at a hotel, who like me is pro-life, is facing thousands of dollars (maybe tens of thousands) in medical costs as she carries her baby to term at age 18 and gets little if any support from the government. She's had a few minor complications which necesitate more doctors visits than normal. Her saving grace is that her boyfriend (and now fiance) is about a year out from hopefully getting a job as an engineer out of college. So they are depending on their familes and eating through their savings until then. And then they'll pay off their medical debt and his student debt and take care of their new baby off his salary. And since there won't be a chance in Hell of affording child care, she and her parents are going to have to split taking care of the baby as she tries to keep working just a little here and hopefully eventually find a job she can do from home. If any politicians gave the slightest damn about the unborn and their parents rather than simply seeing it as a political football to punt, there would be ample funding for having a child not to wreck people's lives.
While I am probably not by nature sympathetic to many views of conservatives, I find that the right is generally more open to engaging with the opposition and having polite debate on difficult subjects. It's almost as if losing the culture wars was to some extent liberating for it. Meanwhile, on the left, there seems to be a terrible orthodoxy about many issues from race to religion to LGBTQ+, to the point that dissenters will find themselves cancelled and their livelihoods threatened. The left appears to be trying to hold on to its cultural victory with an iron hand.
At about 45:00 Perry mentions how Trump is relatable in a way Romney is not. While he is genuinely deranged by Trump, Sam Harris did have one moment of insight when he said that Trump is not capable of judging anyone who supports him. As compared to the left, who only has the harshest judgement for Trump's supporters.
10:38 Is the opposition to the 1st child out of wedlock, or the 2nd, 3rd and more? The opposition is the "lack of required learning from experience" and the Poll questions are structured where this question is the closest response?
Both "sides" of the dabate are guilty of "massaging" the questions.
All polling is almost useless these days.
❤
Great.👍 Both left and right are more damentalist than Fun 😢
The world is actually becoming more religious not less. Eric Kaufman’s articles and talks and Stark’s the Triumph of Faith, a book on population statistics. Religious people have more children and the more conservative the branch or religion, the more children. The Amish for example are doubling their population every 20 years.
nope, christianity is dying out, and birthrate is under 2 for nearly every country so not sure how you got to that, and kids aint as religious as their parents
I remember back in 2011 or 2012 when the US Congress voted to defund Planned Parenthood and in the same meeting voted to cut funding to WIC, an aid program for Women, Infants, and Children.
I remember that too. Now, they’re basically just investing a lot in adoption resources/information at pregnancy crisis centers. Poor women will basically just be surrogates for wealthy families at this point.
“Pro-life” is bullshit is why. They’re simply pro-control. They don’t give a damn if the babies they force into the world against women’s wishes actually survive and thrive; they just want to ensure the women are duly punished for the crime of sex.
One doesn't sail the oceans if the oak sapling is destroyed.
Feel like I'm seeing more fellow Wisconsinites showing up in random places lol
Has she had Whitney Webb on her channel?
Here's where I start to check out: everything that has any kind of Christian precedent, is reducible to that precedent, this is Louise's contention. Sure, precedent matters, and I like Louise and Tom Holland just fine, but when one of their main recurring arguments is fallacious, then there are swaths of their work where I start to tune out. I've recently rebranded this the Holland fallacy (sry bruh) but I promise you, it's rly called the genetic fallacy. Look. It. Up.
Holland's fallacy is especially annoying to me since it suggests that Christianity is something pure and separate from all earlier traditions. On the contrary, Christianity emerged out of a matrix of pre-existing faiths and philosophies. It was influenced by hellenistic thought and developed out of forms of apocalyptic Judaism that had drawn inspiration from Persian religion and Zoroastrianism during the exile. In other words, even if one accepted Holland's thesis that more or less all that's valuable in western ethics comes from Christianity (a thesis I don't accept), one would also have to acknowledge that Christianity itself has many roots and drew from pagan religion and philosophy. It's not some ethical first cause that came out of nowhere. Holland says 'it all came from Christianity,' but seems unconcerned with explaining where Christianity came from. Finally, Yahwism, which developed into Judaism, was itself merely a form of henotheistic paganism that originally co-existed with the adoration of many other ancient palestinian deities (Moloch, Baal, Dagon, El, Chemosh, Melqart, etc.); so that rather than being the polar opposite of paganism, the entire Judaeo-Christian tradition is in many ways an outgrowth of (and variation on) earlier pagan practices and ideas. Its very existence is inconceivable without their influence.
@@gsdavis91 I take your point. Holland would point out, all those historical precedents were not consolidated, and made coherent specifically in such a way, that they shaped the mainstream culture of the Western world (continuing through present day) before the Christian revolution. He'd probably acknowledge that small, atomized groups could retain more/less comparable value systems to this one, before, during and 'after' Christianity, but he'd maintain that the mainstream culture could not.
There are definitely places where I agree with Holland, but there are some problems here. There are clearly certain positive ways that Ancient Greece has influenced modern culture. Must we worship Zeus forever to retain these? No, straw-man, he doesn't say we gotta be devout. Now, to counter the steel-man: do we need to explicitly, and precisely reiterate these customs, to generally retain their overall positive influence? Should we go to a Greek temple and larp Zeus worship? Must this exact precedent be iterated in our legislation?
I acknowledge an important aspect of Holland's argument: Christian influence is more recent, all encompassing, thus a more salient precedent for Western culture that must be more directly acknowledged/reiterated. Fine, you could consider me a defacto Christian Atheist, same for most ppl in our countries. However, this doesn't rebut the above Greece point. He's got the "Christian" half, he's missing the "Atheist" half. It's fine to assert that Christian precedent pervades lots of things. But is this the inescapable arbiter? Necessarily underlying all our modern disputes? No, this is clearly giving too much weight, to a nevertheless important precedent.
Why am I, for example, in favor of 1st tri abortion only? Because the church says so? No, because perceptual and cognitive development has rly begun around second tri. Key delineation for Holland: why do I VALUE this? Because Jesus has seeped into my bones and I don't even realize? Nothing against the general 'Christian valuing human life' cultural influence, but ultimately, it's more basic. Humans live in groups, why would I want another human with cognitive/perceptual capacity, to be eliminated? Does it serve me? No. Does it bother me? Pre-Christians had basic empathy, and were not all sociopaths, so yes, both they and I are most likely bothered by this notion.
In spite of the human capacity for (at least in-group) empathy, there used to be things like human sacrifice, etc. Christians did large scale 'bad things,' though arguably contradicting their code. Other groups might have had less adaptive codes of ethics, but perhaps did less large scale 'bad things'. Maybe a small enough tribe could do less damage, but I'm not seeking a perfect historical example to make this clear point.
The point is: Christianity's one heuristic system. An especially prevalent and important one. But the real arbiter of how we conduct ourselves in a functional modern society, is not this dogmatic artifact, it's clear thinking. Holland says we couldn't value rationality before Christianity. Wrong. Smarter than average ppl, non depressed who valued themselves, always valued this by any other name. He implies we couldn't apply rationality at scale before Christianity. Clearly wrong, doesn't seem to require explanation. He wants to assert, that rationality doesn't or needn't directly facilitate ethics. This is like "ought from an is". Many ppl think this, all I can say is, if you don't have a rational argument for why something's right or wrong, I'm not interested.
Did Christianity innovate such things, was society completely incapable of applying them before, and are they inseparable from the Christian precedent? No, and Holland's definition of Christianity is too robust. Because it necessarily, and EXCLUSIVELY includes, EVERYTHING WE ALL CARE ABOUT. Seems like a neat trick? It's merely a category error.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy I think we're largely in agreement so I'll be brief. Christianity did consolidate those elements, but that makes it a mere vehicle (though a highly effective vehicle) for pre-existing ideas rather than a true originator, which is a much narrower claim than Holland's. As I see it, the merciful component of religion is a product of human cooperative instinct rather than a cause of cooperation. If that instinct didn't exist, merciful religions wouldn't come into being or be widely adopted in the first place. The extent to which that instinct expresses itself in actual behavior will depend upon historical circumstance, but the potential for it no doubt long predates Christianity. I think your last point about Holland's all-inclusive definition of Christianity is key. Since virtually everyone in western civilization till practically yesterday was nominally Christian, all western accomplishments since late antiquity can be blandly attributed to "Christianity," which might as well be meaningless.
@@gsdavis91 Yeah I completely agree, I'll also just say, I understand why the Rechristianizers want to sort of reintroduce nominal Christianity as a kind of cultural bootstrapping system, for lots of our more adaptive social behaviors. Even with someone I personally consider an excellent Historian like Holland, I just don't want fallacious arguments, let alone resurgent dogmatism of the more fundamentalist variety, to get mixed in with this nascent movement. To be fair, though I've been a long time New Atheist fan, I think one must acknowledge certain narrow criticisms. This is one, how they argued that religions could never properly serve as a cultural mechanism, for bootstrapping adaptive behaviors. I agree with TNA, that an intelligent, modern society has better options on offer to serve such a purpose. But, how intelligent is our society now? How modern, as it were, vs postmodern? I don't exactly consider myself a Utilitarian, but I don't mind the utilitarian argument for the recapitulation of Christian Atheism.
This is my first time listening to Emily Jashinsky. I'm still deciding if I like her.
Please include trans widows in the conversation. Data on 56 of us who refused to live with a suddenly crossedressing husband at channel in handle here,
Lower income families don’t pay federal income tax. So a tax credit helps middle class families. 😊
Even if you don’t have to pay federal income tax, can’t you still do a return and get a credit?
That's why the child tax credit expansions that have been proposed and implemented briefly during the pandemic were refundable - so you could get them even if you don't pay income tax. Effectively, they function like Milton Friedman's negative income tax.
But that was killed off because politicians in the US actually don't care about abortion or kids growing up in poverty.
Can't talk about Trump without talking about Race
Couldn’t find your channel last night
There are choices that do not require the barbarism of an abortion procedure. Family planning is what you do to avoid pregnancy thereby not necessitating this brutal attack on your defenceless infant. Contraception before sex, or adoption after it, or abstinence all along. Women know sex creates babies. If you don't want to have a baby, do not have sex. *If the RIGHT is gone, all that will be left is the WRONG.*
AMEN!!!
That's a pretty deep voice for such a cute girl..
She is. I used to watch videos and day dream I’m being honest but no attachment. The hill is different if I never went jail and had more money I would actually meet her but forget about that I know someone from my area
First I stopped watching The Hill after Breaking Points started, then recently I stopped watching Breaking Points, since they went hard anti Israel.
I feel you about Breaking Points, Krystal is so annoying.
It's endless clickbait anger porn. A lot of news media has become that way.
I hardly watched Breaking Points after they got started. Even though I might agree with a lot of their broader points still they've become insufferable.
'Breaking Points' is excellent. 👍
I say screw Israel, screw Palestine, I am sick of the USA being burdened with the world police.
All day tomorrow
You got them to meet blonde women from megyn Kelly I think
Did well to convince me about children until I realised
anti-abortionists should never be allowed to describe themselves as 'pro-life',. if you have a religious bias, and your religious beliefs are the primary reason for being 'anti-abortion' , you should say so
My religion values human life at all stages, so yes, I call myself prolife.
@@blondetapperware8289 so you are an anti-abortionist because your imaginary god in the sky told you?
I am pro-life not from a religious perspective, but from a human rights position. So if you are against human rights just say so.
@@grannyannie2948 if you think a fetus is a person, that is your religion telling you that
@@laug66 Not so. I've seen too many gestational scans, to deny their humanity. And I've carried babies in my womb. I'm probably from a different country, but mother's are the biggest demographic against abortion. It's hard for any woman who has given birth to a child, to believe it was not a human baby.
I’m going out
Why does this woman whisper? *Speak up, girl!*
I’m not watching politics tomorrow
You really need someone to challenge the tired (and wrong) framing around a lot of this conversation. You've done well to break through the class bias but you're still bound by the feminist and secular biases.
So much talking, absolutely nothing said.
They were not speaking to you.
yeh, boring woman