The real threat to liberalism does not come from Trump / Populists / The Right / etc. The reality is that liberal governance is sinking and failing and anti-liberal governance is rising and succeeding.
Some history may help here.
Around 1840, a small liberal (by the standards of the day) island waged a war against a vast empire on the other side of the world. This was of course, the Opium War (a vile undertaking to say the least). The liberal island (the UK) won both the first and the second Opium Wars. China was decisively defeated.
These days the world has been turned upside down. My favorite quote on this is
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”.
Of course, dams in China are only one example. How about high-speed rail lines in California. The US tried to build one and failed. China has built 25,000 miles of high-speed rail.
In 1968, the US was in the final stages of the Apollo program (which would succeed in 1969) and China was starting the debacle of the Cultural Revolution. Stated differently, the US was arguably among the most effective nations on Earth and China was among the least effective nations on Earth. What about now?
In 2021, this isn’t so clear. Let me use one of my favorite examples. California tried to build a high-speed rail line and failed. Costs in 2020 were estimated at $80 billion and possibly as high as $99.8 billion. The project collapsed under its own weight (cost). The nation of Spain built an HSR from Madrid to Barcelona at a cost of $6 billion. By coincidence, the distance is about the same.
Of course, California has substantial mountain ranges as you approach San Francisco (from the south) or Los Angeles (from the north). Conversely, the Central Valley of California is one of the flattest places on Earth (way flatter than Spain).
The details here are not really that important. The important fact is that the US/California is now a place where things don’t get done (other than PC enforcement).
Yes, Lee, results. Many would say that Putin wouldn't have invaded Russia if not for the weakness he perceived in this administration. So, there are many perspectives and realities to consider.
I didn't read all 392 comments but I read enough to know that I was more impressed with most of the comments I did read than I was with the discussion of the two guest speakers. I found the conversation somewhat disturbing. I think the content of the conversation was more representative of why the country (and ultimately the world) is in the mess it is today.
The question of this podcast "Is Freedom Good for Us?" certainly is the right question to ask. The answer is yes. As one of your guests pointed out, the idea of freedom goes way way back in time. So, it seems to be commonly understood that freedom, maybe more that any other social condition known to mankind, has been a condition all people have always strived for. If that is the case though, why don't we have it? I would point out that the reason we don't have it ( and we never have had it) is because we have never created it and the reason we have never created it is because it has never been defined properly which means it has never been defined in absolute terms. The idea and the claims of freedom are thrown around a lot and have been in this country since it's beginning. Still few people know what it is. Your guests don't. You don't. Who does. I do. How can two or ten or a whole nation of freedom loving Americans have a meaningful conversation about freedom if they can't agree on what it means.
Why do I know what it means and you don't? Because I studied freedom from Andrew J. Galambos who knew more about what it means than anyone. He knew what it means because he defined it in absolute terms, not relative terms. Do you know the importance of the difference between the two? Galambos defined it in his inovation of Volitional Science also known as V-50. He defined freedom in terms of property, another term for which an absolute definition is necessary.
"Property is an individuals life and all non-procreative derivatives of that person's life" hence,
"Freedom is a societal condition that exists when every individual has full (100% ) control over his or her property. "
I am not sure if you can quickly comprehend just how intellectually significant these two definitions are in terms of social structure so consider this. Galambos didn't just define these terms. He properly created an entire social science structure design to answer and solve the issues your two guests couldn't possibly understand.
I won't go on any farther at this time but to say that Andrew J Galambos is to social progress as Isaac Newton is to physics.
This is a very important discussion with two articulate and interesting points of view. Please everyone, don't judge the discussion without having at least sampled it, and ten minutes is just past Bari's introduction. Give it a chance and be open-minded.
Freedom or the freedom to make choices is dangerous because man is born sinful by nature, meaning unable to keep the 10 Commandments, if you believe those commandments represent the definition of sin. Or, if you don't follow the Bible, another way to say it is you are prone to lie, lust, gossip, be self centered and self absorbed, worship idols like money and possessions, be vain, etc. If you do follow the Bible, these human attributes are described in the Book of Galations, Chapter 5. The sin problem of mankind is the reason why Socialism will never work on Earth - we are not willing to work for others, or to love others like we love ourselves.
Bret was asked to step away from the WSJ Op-ed page where he had become completely unhinged re; Trump, thats how he wound up at the NY Times. btw......hardly the unbiased 'intellectual' I would ask to post re; populism nationalism, liberal demo. etc etc...
Now, understand me, Trump aint my cup of tea, this isn't a defense of him,just pointing out that as many have mentioned already below, you have to buy the premise first, before you sample the argument..
The premise is typical of the bed-wetting bubble class you find writing at the NY Times, WSJ, Post etc.....please, you can do better than this... this was a complete waste.
Thanks Bari, I spent the time to listen to this and enjoyed the discussion. I give my nod to Brett as the victor as his approach is more grounded. Patrick made some good arguments along the way, but Brett’s rebuttals were always brilliant. Patrick argues that where we are is an outgrowth of liberalism, the ultimate extension of it, which came from within. While Brett argues that we have arrive at a place that was influenced from without, Marxism, et al. I think Brett is more accurate in his characterization of where we are.
Please, please, Bari - have Brett back to discuss a very difficult subject, the Iranian nuclear deal (JCPOA) currency under consideration. There has been a lot written on this topic (i.e., see Tablet Magazine). What I am interested in most is Brett’s point of view about President Obama’s worldview of the Middle East, where Mr. Obama sees a strong Iran to police this region so the United States can walk away. You’ll need someone to argue for and against the current debate on this topic. Perhaps someone in government can explain why it makes sense to give Iran nuclear capabilities. They have plenty of oil, so their nuclear ambitions cannot be just to generate electrify.
I have never been more frustrated than with Bret’s insistence that if the right starts using political power for their societal wants and needs then it is a road to eventually handing the scalpel to the left one day. The left has been using this tactic for years now!! They already have the scalpel! Patrick is 100% right that the right needs to match what the left has been doing to bring order back. Bret is “just a lib” if he fails to see that the left is already using political power for their social gain. Patrick did not push this point hard enough against Bret and it was infuriating.
Bret Stephens is more conservative than Jen Rubin, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks, but he’s no conservative. He’s just less big-L Liberal (hence “more conservative”) than they are.
Skimming the comments, it is unfortunately obvious the vast majority of commentators did not listen to the podcast.
Yeah, both panelists may seem pointy-headed, but this was a REALLY interesting argument about whether unfettered / unmoored freedom actually leads to social collapse.
Thanks Bari for continuing to put forth interesting and thoughtful content. Although VERY long, I found the debate to be informative and thought provoking. Keep up the “ground up” efforts to bring critical thinking alternatives to the public
I like that this is a discussion, but unfortunately the phrase "liberalism" is a dirty word in the US. I get called a liberal and get trolled for espousing anything but GOP talking points. In my view liberalism mostly misunderstood as a set of social values associated with permissiveness, not a philosophy of government which supports the use of government to achieve specific ends. Many US citizens who benefit enormously from government programs and policies deride these very programs. So, it's no wonder that people won't even read a reasoned argument for and against liberal programs.
Every negative outcome seems to be attributed towards "liberalism" from racial unrest and urban decay, increasing unemployment and inflation, to high costs of gasoline, even though these things have little to do with specifically, liberalism, and more to do with other factors. Their occurrence simply plays into a narrative based on speculation and not facts.
I agree with some of the readers that a Q&A styled debate would be too much for most conservatives to stomach, with so many ideas flying in the face of the current narrative. Even libertarians and independents like me prefer more sharply drawn summaries and less investment in time.
The real threat to liberalism does not come from Trump / Populists / The Right / etc. The reality is that liberal governance is sinking and failing and anti-liberal governance is rising and succeeding.
Some history may help here.
Around 1840, a small liberal (by the standards of the day) island waged a war against a vast empire on the other side of the world. This was of course, the Opium War (a vile undertaking to say the least). The liberal island (the UK) won both the first and the second Opium Wars. China was decisively defeated.
These days the world has been turned upside down. My favorite quote on this is
“China is very good at building dams, the US is very good at enforcing PC. Which system will prevail in the 21st century?”.
Of course, dams in China are only one example. How about high-speed rail lines in California. The US tried to build one and failed. China has built 25,000 miles of high-speed rail.
In 1968, the US was in the final stages of the Apollo program (which would succeed in 1969) and China was starting the debacle of the Cultural Revolution. Stated differently, the US was arguably among the most effective nations on Earth and China was among the least effective nations on Earth. What about now?
In 2021, this isn’t so clear. Let me use one of my favorite examples. California tried to build a high-speed rail line and failed. Costs in 2020 were estimated at $80 billion and possibly as high as $99.8 billion. The project collapsed under its own weight (cost). The nation of Spain built an HSR from Madrid to Barcelona at a cost of $6 billion. By coincidence, the distance is about the same.
Of course, California has substantial mountain ranges as you approach San Francisco (from the south) or Los Angeles (from the north). Conversely, the Central Valley of California is one of the flattest places on Earth (way flatter than Spain).
The details here are not really that important. The important fact is that the US/California is now a place where things don’t get done (other than PC enforcement).
Yes, Lee, results. Many would say that Putin wouldn't have invaded Russia if not for the weakness he perceived in this administration. So, there are many perspectives and realities to consider.
I didn't read all 392 comments but I read enough to know that I was more impressed with most of the comments I did read than I was with the discussion of the two guest speakers. I found the conversation somewhat disturbing. I think the content of the conversation was more representative of why the country (and ultimately the world) is in the mess it is today.
The question of this podcast "Is Freedom Good for Us?" certainly is the right question to ask. The answer is yes. As one of your guests pointed out, the idea of freedom goes way way back in time. So, it seems to be commonly understood that freedom, maybe more that any other social condition known to mankind, has been a condition all people have always strived for. If that is the case though, why don't we have it? I would point out that the reason we don't have it ( and we never have had it) is because we have never created it and the reason we have never created it is because it has never been defined properly which means it has never been defined in absolute terms. The idea and the claims of freedom are thrown around a lot and have been in this country since it's beginning. Still few people know what it is. Your guests don't. You don't. Who does. I do. How can two or ten or a whole nation of freedom loving Americans have a meaningful conversation about freedom if they can't agree on what it means.
Why do I know what it means and you don't? Because I studied freedom from Andrew J. Galambos who knew more about what it means than anyone. He knew what it means because he defined it in absolute terms, not relative terms. Do you know the importance of the difference between the two? Galambos defined it in his inovation of Volitional Science also known as V-50. He defined freedom in terms of property, another term for which an absolute definition is necessary.
"Property is an individuals life and all non-procreative derivatives of that person's life" hence,
"Freedom is a societal condition that exists when every individual has full (100% ) control over his or her property. "
I am not sure if you can quickly comprehend just how intellectually significant these two definitions are in terms of social structure so consider this. Galambos didn't just define these terms. He properly created an entire social science structure design to answer and solve the issues your two guests couldn't possibly understand.
I won't go on any farther at this time but to say that Andrew J Galambos is to social progress as Isaac Newton is to physics.
This is a very important discussion with two articulate and interesting points of view. Please everyone, don't judge the discussion without having at least sampled it, and ten minutes is just past Bari's introduction. Give it a chance and be open-minded.
Is this even a serious debate? Without freedom we are done as a country.
Freedom or the freedom to make choices is dangerous because man is born sinful by nature, meaning unable to keep the 10 Commandments, if you believe those commandments represent the definition of sin. Or, if you don't follow the Bible, another way to say it is you are prone to lie, lust, gossip, be self centered and self absorbed, worship idols like money and possessions, be vain, etc. If you do follow the Bible, these human attributes are described in the Book of Galations, Chapter 5. The sin problem of mankind is the reason why Socialism will never work on Earth - we are not willing to work for others, or to love others like we love ourselves.
Thanks, Sam. Too bad so few people understand how "mother nature" works.
Bret was asked to step away from the WSJ Op-ed page where he had become completely unhinged re; Trump, thats how he wound up at the NY Times. btw......hardly the unbiased 'intellectual' I would ask to post re; populism nationalism, liberal demo. etc etc...
Now, understand me, Trump aint my cup of tea, this isn't a defense of him,just pointing out that as many have mentioned already below, you have to buy the premise first, before you sample the argument..
The premise is typical of the bed-wetting bubble class you find writing at the NY Times, WSJ, Post etc.....please, you can do better than this... this was a complete waste.
Thanks Bari, I spent the time to listen to this and enjoyed the discussion. I give my nod to Brett as the victor as his approach is more grounded. Patrick made some good arguments along the way, but Brett’s rebuttals were always brilliant. Patrick argues that where we are is an outgrowth of liberalism, the ultimate extension of it, which came from within. While Brett argues that we have arrive at a place that was influenced from without, Marxism, et al. I think Brett is more accurate in his characterization of where we are.
Please, please, Bari - have Brett back to discuss a very difficult subject, the Iranian nuclear deal (JCPOA) currency under consideration. There has been a lot written on this topic (i.e., see Tablet Magazine). What I am interested in most is Brett’s point of view about President Obama’s worldview of the Middle East, where Mr. Obama sees a strong Iran to police this region so the United States can walk away. You’ll need someone to argue for and against the current debate on this topic. Perhaps someone in government can explain why it makes sense to give Iran nuclear capabilities. They have plenty of oil, so their nuclear ambitions cannot be just to generate electrify.
I have never been more frustrated than with Bret’s insistence that if the right starts using political power for their societal wants and needs then it is a road to eventually handing the scalpel to the left one day. The left has been using this tactic for years now!! They already have the scalpel! Patrick is 100% right that the right needs to match what the left has been doing to bring order back. Bret is “just a lib” if he fails to see that the left is already using political power for their social gain. Patrick did not push this point hard enough against Bret and it was infuriating.
I did make it to the end. Great interview. Can't think of another major journalism outlet where such a conversation would take place.
10,000 Bari Weiss's! 10,000 Common Senses! I agree with Deenen overall, but this idea from Bret sounds great to me.
Bret Stephens is more conservative than Jen Rubin, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks, but he’s no conservative. He’s just less big-L Liberal (hence “more conservative”) than they are.
Skimming the comments, it is unfortunately obvious the vast majority of commentators did not listen to the podcast.
Yeah, both panelists may seem pointy-headed, but this was a REALLY interesting argument about whether unfettered / unmoored freedom actually leads to social collapse.
Thanks, Bari, for putting this together.
Live Free or Die.
Thanks Bari for continuing to put forth interesting and thoughtful content. Although VERY long, I found the debate to be informative and thought provoking. Keep up the “ground up” efforts to bring critical thinking alternatives to the public
I like that this is a discussion, but unfortunately the phrase "liberalism" is a dirty word in the US. I get called a liberal and get trolled for espousing anything but GOP talking points. In my view liberalism mostly misunderstood as a set of social values associated with permissiveness, not a philosophy of government which supports the use of government to achieve specific ends. Many US citizens who benefit enormously from government programs and policies deride these very programs. So, it's no wonder that people won't even read a reasoned argument for and against liberal programs.
Every negative outcome seems to be attributed towards "liberalism" from racial unrest and urban decay, increasing unemployment and inflation, to high costs of gasoline, even though these things have little to do with specifically, liberalism, and more to do with other factors. Their occurrence simply plays into a narrative based on speculation and not facts.
I agree with some of the readers that a Q&A styled debate would be too much for most conservatives to stomach, with so many ideas flying in the face of the current narrative. Even libertarians and independents like me prefer more sharply drawn summaries and less investment in time.
I will buy and read both of these books, though.