Resistance is NOT Futile – Part 1

“Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.” Russell Kirk – Ten Conservative Principles

Awhile back I wrote a brief series on the conservative principle of variety, noting how Star Trekforetold a future in which barriers of culture, religion, class, nationalities, and politics had given way to global uniformity. This conformity was often celebrated in the series as a noteworthy achievement in the advancement of the human species.

Interestingly, the series depicted another kind of uniformity that was portrayed as diabolical. As one of the most memorable villains of the Star Trek franchise, the Borg represented an existential threat to the utopia humanity had achieved. The Borg were cybernetic organisms, linked in a hive mind called "the Collective". They forcibly and relentlessly transformed other life forms they encountered into the Collective through a gruesome process called “assimilation" which striped the individual of their individuality in body, mind, and spirit. Their infamous greeting warned of their malicious intent:

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

Humanity had achieved a post-scarcity economy. As such, the inequalities that had plagued human history had melted away and humans were “free” to unify under a single, benevolent state called the Federation. Now that humanity had rid itself of all bigotry and inefficient variety, all was well with the world. But not quite. For this new utopia was threaten by many outsiders who didn’t share in this unifying vision, not the least of which were the tyrannical Borg who would stop at nothing to achieve their goal of perfection.

Juxtaposed Uniformities

Star Wars presents us with two radically different visions of what it means to live in uniformity. Two competing ideas are at work here that are universally apprehended: 1) humans yearn to be free individuals, and 2) humans yearn to be in community. The Borg were depicted as evil because they forsook the former to achieve the latter. The Federation were depicted as virtuous because they held to a semblance of both.

Deep within our core we know there’s something wrong with a world of absolute uniformity. And yet, there still exists fierce disagreement over what balance between individuality and community is ideal. The Star Trek universe could answer the question in the same way it explained the technological advances of the future: it bent reality. How was the Enterprise able to travel faster than light? Dilithium crystals. How was humanity able to achieve a utopia that ended poverty and bigotry? Delusionary thinking.

Star Trek may have something to say about the inner yearnings of humanity, but it has nothing to say about the practical realities we face. Science may some day advance to the point we can beam humans across great distances in a matter of seconds. But human nature will never evolve to the point we enter terrestrial utopia. Science is inherently progressive. Human nature is inherently constant.

The point is, when dealing with the ideal aims of striking a healthy balance between individuality and community we must first rid ourselves of hopelessly wishful visions of a utopian future. Communities will never be perfect. Nor should we demand perfection before recognizing the powerful bond of community. And that bond can provide an individual a sense of purpose and a greater understanding of who they are.

Amish Debaucheries

This powerful bond is easily seen in close-knit communities. Take the Amish, for example. The Amish are a Christian sect known for their plain living and unwillingness to use modern technology. Such that many Amish forego such conveniences as electricity, telephones, vehicles, and even insurance. As a result, the Amish, depending on one another for their basic needs, form communities with that are very strong yet very lacking in the basic amenities many Americans would be devastated to go without.

Personally, I find the most fascinating thing about the Amish to be the degree to which they’re willing to allow their children to experience the worldly pleasures they so carefully avoid. When Amish children turn 16, they’re permitted—nay, encouraged—to enter the broader world around them and partake in whatever carnal pleasures they desire in an unusual practice called Rumspringa.

Teenagers, laden with hormones and insufficiently developed brains, are set free from their insulated life and, for the first time, turned loose to enjoy whatever they may. It’s difficult to wrap one’s head around the cultural shock that would follow someone who’s led such a sheltered, simple lifestyle experience the temptations of this world in full force all at once. The 2002 film Devil’s Playgroundgives us a sense of what this looks like.

The idea behind Rumspringa is that Amish children are far more likely to remain Amish if they’re given a choice. Those who have experienced all the pleasures the world has to offer may freely choose to turn back to the life they had always known. And that choice will be permanent. What’s even more remarkable is that 80 percent of Amish youth do choose to return to the Amish lifestyle!

Roots

While their reasons for doing so may be many and complex, it would seem evident the strong bond of the community Amish children had known their whole lives plays a vital role in their decision. Community trumps conveniences. Russell Kirk observed a certain desperation for this level of community in the modern age: “Man’s longing for community is among his deepest impulses, and this yearning often is frustrated in the twentieth century. If the need of the eighteenth century was for emancipation, the need of the twentieth century is for roots.”

Americans see the benefit of community, and conservatives do not believe that the best possible society is the society in which everyone is looking out for themselves, with no interest, compassion, or duty to anyone else. A sense of community—that we’re in this together—is essential.

The question is, what kind of community? Is it voluntary or involuntary? The Amish have so little to offer in their primitive communities. Yet they rarely lose converts. The Borg boast of technological advances beyond our understanding. Yet we instinctively fear this kind of belonging. What are the markings of a genuine, healthy community, and what are the warning signs of a mere collectivism that destroys our individuality and crushes our spirit? Those are the questions we’ll seek to answer in Part 2 of this series.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

How does a Conservative differ from a Moderate? – Part 3 (How We’re Different)

Moderates—as we’ve shown in Part 1 and Part 2—have much in common with conservatives. Both recognize the dangers inherent in radicalized ideologies and stand athwart political extremism that seeks to undermine the rule of law and natural rights.

While conservatives and moderates may differ on which political policies they advocate, the true difference has less to do with policy squabbles or how strongly they hold their convictions, but in their understanding of the nature of humanity and the role and necessity of institutions. This difference is best reflected in how the conservative and moderate approach radical ideologies.

How We Approach Ideologies

To rehash where we left off in Part 2: the moderate nullifies ideologies and the conservative negates ideologies.

The moderate—seeing both the good and the bad in differing ideological perspectives—seeks to smooth out the rough, radical edges. What’s left is a nullified ideology, a sort of canceling out of extremisms. The moderate doesn’t reject or repudiate ideologies so much as they find a neutral path between them. The conservative, on the other hand, negates ideology. That is, the conservative actively denies the evidence or truth of ideological certainties. This is not a radical position, but it is also not a neutral position.

In this respect the conservative takes an active stance against ideologies whereas the moderate takes a passive stance. I don’t at all mean to imply that moderates are lazy or apathetic (though some are), or that taking a passive stance means they don’t object to ideological extremism strongly enough. Rather, I mean that the moderate seeks to deal with the symptoms whereas the conservative means to cure the disease.

The Disease of Ideology

In Part 2 I borrowed English philosopher Roger Scruton’s explanation for just what makes ideologies dangers: “[an ideology] occupies the space vacated by religion, and in doing so excites the true believer both to worship the…idea and to seek in it for what it cannot provide—the ultimate purpose of life, the way to redemption, and the consolation for all our woes.” Ideologies may be well thought out, complex, and persuasive. But because humans are spiritual beings, those who look to an ideology to provide the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything are ultimately going to be just as disappointed as Arthur Dent was when he was told the answer was 42.

The point is that one cannot simply rectify the problem by eradicating harmful ideologies and expect all to go well. One must replace ideology with a greater and healthier system of beliefs, worldview, religion, institutions, and cultural norms. That’s a tall order, but a necessary condition to avoiding the trap of the eventual radicalization of a population that’s roaming amok without sound, spiritual footing.

The great American experiment is a prime example. Our nation was founded on the notion that a secular government could govern a diverse population without some epic Ragnarök confrontation with warring religious factions. But our secular system was never designed to govern a purely secular population.

“It is crucial to the lives of all our citizens, as it is to all human beings at all times, that they encounter a world that possesses a transcendent meaning, a world in which the human experience makes sense. Nothing is more dehumanizing, more certain to generate a crisis, than to experience one’s life as a meaningless event in a meaningless world,” wrote journalist Irving Kristol. Kristol was concerned about a world sanitized of all undesirable religious authority. For a world cleansed of religious orthodoxy was a world vulnerable to the disease of ideological certainties.

Overly Idealistic Multi-Level Marketing PR Reps

Moderates rightly recognize the dangers in overzealous ideologies, but wrongly miss the root causes: a crumbling social order, loss of orthodox religion, institutional decay, and political movements that seek to undermine all of the above. I don’t at all mean that moderates aren’t particularly religious or appropriately affectionate to cultural norms, but that their religious convictions and cultural proclivities are largely separated from their understanding of how the world works. Their response to a world bereft of conservative institutions is insufficiently alarmed to do much about it.

Institutions require blood, sweat, and tears to endure. The moderate is content to believe all will be well so long as we chart a course between extremism; the conservative is convinced the only path between extremisms—the only path that secures an ordered liberty—runs directly through healthy institutions. It’s not that moderates are anti-institution—as so many on the political Left may be—it’s that they misunderstand the degree to which vigor and vigilance is necessary to maintain them. I shan’t launch into a lengthy defense of the necessity and importance of institutions in our lives—a subject I covered here.

In Part 2 I used the Niskanen Center’s Rules for Moderates to examine where the moderate and the conservative see eye to eye. And, while there is much common ground, the moderate’s clamoring for the middle approach comes off a bit like an overly idealistic multi-level marketing PR rep:

“We are globalists who share progressives’ desire to robustly address economic and social inequality, liberals’ commitment to toleration and civil liberties, moderates’ embrace of empiricism rather than dogma, conservatives’ belief in the wealthcreating power of free markets, and libertarians’ skepticism about the ability of technocratic elites to solve complex economic and social problems,” boasts the Niskanen Center. Seeking the good out of every side is commendable, but not always reasonable. Sometimes two points of view simply cannot be wed together in some cosmic middle approach. And some things aren’t deserving of compromise.

Extreme Moderation

Author and theologian G. K. Chesterton warned of viewing reality through the lens of absolute moderation: “What we need is not the cold acceptance of the world as a compromise, but some way in which we can heartily hate and heartily love it. We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at once as an ogre’s castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at evening.” Again, I do not wish to imply moderates aren’t adequately passionate in their beliefs; but their passions are often directed at nullifying extremism rather than examining when action that may appear extreme is warranted.

Senator Barry Goldwater was roundly criticized when he said, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” as he was accepting the Republican nomination for president in 1964. But this is the mark of a virtuous citizen. The act of laying down one’s life for the cause of liberty is heroic, just as waffling on the issue of slavery due to economic expediency is inexcusable. Extremism in the abstract—extremism within one’s political views or approach—is of equal concern to the moderate and the conservative. But extremism melded with discretion, purpose, honor, justice, love, reason, courage, and ten thousand other virtues is necessary for establishing order and liberty in a world naturally inclined towards chaos and bondage.

“No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?” asked Chesterton, “A man belongs to this world before he begins to ask if it is nice to belong to it…our attitude towards life can be better expressed in terms of a kind of military loyalty than in terms of criticism and approval. My acceptance of the universe is not optimism, it is more like patriotism. It is a matter of primary loyalty.”

The Conservation of Conservatism

At the core of conservatism is an attitude that can be universally apprehended: the things we love are breakable and require effort to conserve. At issue is what exactly should we love and what efforts are required and appropriate for their conservation.

It’s easy to point out the dangers in radical ideologies. It’s more challenging to identify the dangers—and there are dangers—in the moderate’s worldview. And the danger in the moderate’s worldview is not in what they do, but in what they do not do. Centrism could work if things stayed the same. But the conservative worldview offers the greatest argument for progress: things do not stay the same. Things break down. If we hope to conserve the slightest bit of order or familiarity or value, we must do just that: conserve. There is no middle approach. To do nothing, or to strike a middle path may avoid the pitfall of heading down the wrong path. But reality is not a path; it is quicksand. It does not maintain itself; it requires diligence and vigilance.

The central disagreement between the conservative and the moderate is on the nature of humanity. Can humans coexist in harmony with nothing more than reason to guide them? Is liberty self-sustaining? Or is there something fundamentally flawed about the human machine that requires more than good intentions and good philosophy to hold ordered liberty together? Conservatives are convinced humanity is not basically good, and that institutions have developed historically to put a check against our base desires. However much moderates may agree with bits and pieces of this basic understanding, they do not recognize the necessity of these institutions, for they do not recognize the depravity of their own nature.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 15 - Prolife Matters with Kerry Baldwin - Part 1

What does it mean to be prolife? What does it really mean?

The abortion debate is one that often evokes knee-jerk reactions. For some, it is THE issue that defines their political biases. It’s paradoxically of the utmost importance but extremely difficult to have an in-depth, frank discussion about a matter that excites such passions and deep convictions.

Joining the podcast today is Kerry Baldwin, an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Kerry grew up closely with the prolife movement and was a strong activist in prolife causes. However, dissatisfaction with the political realities of the abortion debate and life circumstances made her question the movement’s methods and goals and led to a decade in which she did not participate in prolife rallies or causes.

Earlier this year, Kerry broke her silence when prolife activist Jeff Durbin joined those calling for women who have abortions to be charged with first-degree murder. You can get a sense of Durbin’s stance in this interview he did of Vice President of National Right to Life Tony Lauinger.

Though she continues to be staunchly prolife, Kerry believes the efforts of many in the prolife movement are counterproductive in ending abortions and ultimately destructive to the women who seek abortions. She offers an alternative path forward that she believes holds the hope of saving lives of not only the unborn, but those among us who are neglected, abused, and desperate.

Kerry’s website, MereLiberty.com, boasts of two podcasts: Dare to Think and Flashes of Liberty (coming soon). She is also a regular contributor at the Libertarian Christian Institute. Her writing focuses on libertarian philosophy and reformed theology, aimed at the educated layperson; challenging readers to rethink prevailing paradigms in politics, theology, and culture.

Kerry is a single, homeschooling mother of three. She is the librarian for her congregation. She enjoys outdoor activities in the Jemez mountains near her home, and stereotypically introverted hobbies such as puzzles and brain teasers, reading, and learning more about herbal and nutritional medicine. She enjoys studying Reformational Philosophy by way of Roy Clouser, and appreciates the theology of Meredith Kline, Lee Irons, and Aimee Byrd.

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Sasse Strikes Again!

I'm taking a break from the regular weekly blog post this week but didn't want to leave you empty-handed. Senator Ben Sasse--one of the few elected officials in Washington actually saying things worth listening to these days--made headlines with his scathing critique of the Senate's unwillingness to perform its Constitutional duties during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings. If you haven't heard it, do yourself a favor and check out the video below:

Then, earlier this week, Sasse again made headlines. When Jake Tapper asked "Why stay a Republican, why not be an Independent," Sasse responded, "I probably think about it every morning when I get up." An admission that he followed with a scathing review of the GOP.

Sasse represents a truly independent voice in the party. He represents the "outsider" and the "swamp-drainer" that we desperately need over those who are just playing the part. He's introduced legislation for draining the swamps that would actually accomplish something beyond empty promises.

With both parties broken, it can be difficult for a conservative to know what to do next. Some have left the party, some have stayed. Some believe the party has lost its way and are working towards its restoration, some are satisfied with the legislative victories under President Trump.

Senator Sasse represents a curious mixture of all of the above. Here's hoping for a brighter future where the way forward for conservatism isn't quite so murky.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

How does a Conservative differ from a Moderate? – Part 2 (How We’re Similar)

“Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries.”

Thus begins Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles, which, in my humble opinion, is the best and most succinct description of what conservatives believe. Kirk was admitting there was no official text—no holy Scripture or political manifesto—that perfectly embodied the conservative worldview. Instead, he would rely upon what “leading conservative writers” had “professed during the past two centuries”.

The modern conservative worldview formed when Edmund Burke penned his Reflections on the Revolution in France. And conservative thought can be extracted from the writings and teachings of those who followed in Burke’s tradition—which is precisely how Russell Kirk set out to examine conservatism in his masterpiece The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. But one cannot do the same in attempting to define the worldview of centrism. The modern political moderate was not begotten of some godfather such as Burke. Conservatism means something specific, however difficult it may be to fully comprehend what that something is. Centrism does not.

It is for this reason my task of comparing and contrasting the conservative to the moderate is ill-fated from the start—for whatever definition of moderate I land upon will be agreeable to some and not to others. All that said, I will attempt to differentiate the worldviews using the Niskanen Center’s Rules for Moderates. A list of rules that—while incapable of defining a moderate perfectly—will do nicely for this short series.

Disclaimer

The Niskanen Center professes to be moderate in both means and ends. While I’ve know doubt they believe this to be true, their frequent and liberal mission of seeking an “open society”, their affection for Saul Alinsky (the father of community organizing), and their tendency to single out boogeymen on the political Right all suggest they are far more left of center than they are “moderate”. Nevertheless, I think their description of centrism is spot on. Perhaps their left of center description combined with my right of center perspective will land us appropriately in the middle.

Rules for Moderates

Rather than relist the lengthy Rules for Moderates in its entirety here, I will quote brief sections in red and include my thoughts:

Moderates defend the principles of an open society, civil dialogue, and constitutionalism. They have a primary commitment to creating and maintaining an inclusive community that comprises people with whom they disagree.

A lot of this hangs on how we’re defining things—but conservatism is a defender of a civil society that seeks to combine various factions together through protection of free speech and recognition for the rule of law. The idea of an “open society” is highly debatable, but it isn’t the case that conservatives simply want a “closed society” in the strictest sense of the word (though many claiming the conservative label do very much want this). Rather, conservatism seeks to balance the benefits of innovation and variation brought by the manageable flow of immigrants willing and able to assimilate into the dominant culture with the continued preservation of cultural norms and institutions held by those who are already here.

They are aware of human fallibility, ignorance, and the role of uncertainty in political affairs.

Principle #6 in Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles is the principle of imperfectability—the belief that human nature suffers universally from certain grave faults and that no perfect social order ever can be created among humans. While the conservative and moderate may be coming from different places—the conservative believing in original sin and the imperfectability of humanity and the moderate observing no political system to be perfect and, therefore, concluding everything is prone to human fallibility and warrants us distrusting dogmatic, abstract, political thought—we’re ending up at pretty much the same place. Neither conservatism nor centrism seeks to establish utopia but instead endeavors to make the most of the world as it is.

The universe as seen by moderates is not divided between the forces of good and the forces of evil. It is rather a world made of many shades of gray and lots of nuances, a world that is full of contradictions and tensions, many of which can never be fully resolved.

Here again, the conservative finds much to agree with—depending on how we’re defining things. Conservatism is a worldview of trade-offs and nuances. Conservatism isn’t interested in abstract visions of ideological utopia—such as the blind pursuit of liberty or justice or order—but demands to know what is meant by those abstract ideas, and what is necessary to sustain them if they are deemed worth pursuing. On the other hand, the entire worldview is built on the premise that there exists a moral order to the universe and—therefore—the forces of good and evil do exist in some ultimate sense. The question lies in humanity’s ability to distinguish good and evil; a task that is better suited to religious orthodoxy than political ideologies.

Moderates can be found on all sides of the political spectrum, not just the center. They are aware, in the words of Burke, that the activity of governing is founded on compromise and barter: ‘We balance inconveniences; we give and take; we remit some rights that we may enjoy others.’ Instead of asking whether the end justifies the means, pragmatic moderates prefer to ask, ‘Does this particular end justify this particular means’?

It warms my heart that the Niskanen Center evokes Burke here, but—again—the devil’s in the details. If by “all sides of the political spectrum” we mean those on the Left, such as classical Lockean liberals, and those on the Right, such as Burkean/Kirkean conservatives, then I wholeheartedly concur. And it is true that conservatism stresses a give and take between progress and permanence, liberty and order, pragmatism and principle.

Moderates know that the institutions of an open society can, at best, create an imperfect form of harmony in dissonance, and can never aspire to achieve a full agreement on the meaning of the good society. That is why moderates try to make the most of the tensions, conflicts, and contradictions that make up the real world. The most they can aspire to is a decent form of ‘reasonable inconsistency’.

Russell Kirk taught that we must take the world as it is, not as we’d like for it to be. Both the conservative and the moderate share a common problem—the challenge of attracting converts to a worldview that doesn’t promise utopia, but instead offers to strive for something a little bit better than what we have now. This lackluster vision pales in comparison to the promise of glory and conquest of the radical Right or equality and material prosperity of the radical Left. Yet these utopias always lead to hell on earth, whereas a more sensible, measured pursuit of excellence can lead to achievable improvements in our lives.

Democratic regimes cannot properly function without compromise, bargaining, and moderation; this can be a winning card if played wisely. Although it may not be sufficient to create a mass movement, moderation has the great advantage of being an optimistic virtue tailored to human nature, one that aims neither too high nor too low. Because it is neither a fixed ideology nor a party platform, moderation enables different people from many walks of life to take effective action in defense of freedom, toleration, pluralism, limited power, and the rule of law.

Perhaps the most striking thing that conservatism and centrism have in common is a refusal to follow an abstract ideology. Let’s look at that in-depth:

To Nullify, or to Negate: that is the Question

An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals that forms the basis of economic and political theory and policy. Taken in small doses, ideologies are harmless. But untethered from a larger system of beliefs or worldview, they soon take over and radicalize. English philosopher Roger Scruton explains the dangers inherent in ideologies well: “[an ideology] occupies the space vacated by religion, and in doing so excites the true believer both to worship the…idea and to seek in it for what it cannot provide—the ultimate purpose of life, the way to redemption, and the consolation for all our woes.”

Both the conservative and the moderate recognize the dangers inherent in ideologies. Both reject the radicalization of pure, abstract ideology. Their objections run parallel and the difference is slight—if you blink you’ll miss it!—but of stupendous importance. How do they differ?

The moderate nullifies. The conservative negates.

The moderate—seeing both the good and the bad in differing ideological perspectives—seeks to smooth out the rough, radical edges. What’s left is a nullified ideology, a sort of canceling out of extremisms. The moderate doesn’t reject or repudiate ideologies so much as they find a neutral path between them. To the moderate, a radical ideology is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The aim of the moderate is to defang the wolf and extract benefits from what’s left over.

The conservative, on the other hand, negates ideology. That is, the conservative actively denies the evidence or truth of ideological certainties. This is not a radical position, but it is also not a neutral position. The conservative isn’t interested in defanging the wolf; the conservative opposes the wolf.

I realize there’s a rich irony in describing how conservatives and moderates oppose abstractions by using abstract examples like wolves in sheep’s clothing. I’ll attempt to unpackage all that in Part 3, when we’ll turn to how the conservative and moderate differ.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 14 - The Price of Greatness with Jay Cost

Has American politics always been this divisive? Would you believe it was once much worse?

National Review columnist and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Jay Cost joins us to discuss how a difference of opinion in the early days of the American republic led to a fight that can still be felt today.

Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton and James Madison went from being close allies to bitter political opponents shortly after the nation was formed. Jay Cost’s latest book— The Price of Greatness–tells the story of how this epic rivalry between two great men laid the groundwork for much of our political strife today. His message is important in understanding part of what makes our politics so divisive and how we can overcome that division.

In addition to National Review and the American Enterprise Institute, Jay’s work can be found at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Weekly Standard, and various other notable publications. Jay has written three books: “The Price of Greatness: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the Creation of American Oligarchy”(Basic Books, June 2018); “A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of Political Corruption”(Encounter Books, 2015); and “Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic”(Broadside Books, 2012).

According to his AEI bio, his interests are broadly focused on civic republicanism in the United States, with emphases on the political theory of James Madison, the problem of political corruption, the role of political parties, the development of civic institutions over time, and the power and responsibility of Congress. He writes and speaks frequently on American elections, with a special attention on placing contemporary trends in historical context.

As will be evident throughout the episode—Jay has a commanding knowledge of U.S. history and its impact on our political world. If you enjoy the discussion but have an unquenchable thirst for more, I’d highly recommend you buy the book and then truck on over to the podcast Jay and his colleague Luke Thompson cohost called Constitutionally Speaking; a show about how the Constitution works and how it was put together.

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog