Flux Podcasts (Formerly Theory of Change)

One of the biggest myths in politics today is that Donald Trump’s supporters are just a gigantic monolith, a group of people who will say whatever he says and believe whatever he tells them to believe. While there are many Americans who will change their opinions to suit Trump’s, it’s also true many people support Trump for their own reasons and reasons, which may not be compatible with his form of governance and the agenda that he has been imposing since he became president for the second time.It is certainly the case that a lot of Trump voters are super fans of his and really do view him as some sort of blunt instrument to attack a culture gone awry in their opinion.But there are plenty of people also who don’t pay attention to news and who may not be religious at all who supported Trump in 2024. That matters because these people are, in many cases, up for grabs this year and in years to come. So why did they vote for Trump? Joining me in this episode to discuss is Stephen Hawkins. He is the global director of research at More In Common, which is a research organization that does political polling and psychological analysis of voters to analyze why it is that they have certain opinions, and what opinions they might have in common with other people who vote differently. They released an extremely large survey earlier this year called “Beyond MAGA” that’s very much worth your time.This is an audio-only episode. Access the episode page to get the full transcript. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—Latino evangelicals are reshaping American politics, politicians and parties should take notice—How much do political party leaders know about the Americans who vote form them?—In 2024, Trump was betting bigly on ‘unlikely voters’—Charlie Kirk built a powerhouse organization based on finding needy young people 🔒—What does it mean for Democrats’ future that many black Americans don’t like them?—Why attacking Trump will not be enough to stop his movement—Mentioned paper: “Belief in a Dangerous World Does Not Explain Substantial Variance in Political Attitudes, But Other World Beliefs Do”Audio Chapters00:00 — Introduction10:11 — ‘MAGA hardliners,’ the hardcore Christian nationalists who see Trump as divinely destined15:51 — ‘Mainline Republicans,’ party loyalists who don’t follow news much17:47 — Politics as a cognitive style and deeper antagonistic divisions22:50 — ‘Anti-woke conservatives,’ a more secular group that is oppositional more than affirmative32:27 — The ‘reluctant right,’ a younger group that knew little about politics36:51 — Did Elon Musk’s ads in Pennsylvania win the state for Trump?42:43 — ‘New traditionalists,’ young men with very strongly misogynist viewpoints53:48 — Younger Trump supporters favor more extremist media figures58:03 — Reactionary religious identity as an act of youthful rebellionAbout the ShowTheory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChangeMatthew Sheffield on Social MediaMastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffieldTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffieldBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/matthew.flux.communityThreads: https://www.threads.net/@realmattsheffield This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Since the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, large language model artificial intelligence systems have become the most rapidly adopted technology in human history. Last March, ChatGPT’s website had 5.7 billion visits, while its competitors Claude and Gemini combined for another 3 billion.Despite how much people are using these services, however, AI still has many critics who argue that they are nothing more than simplistic pattern matchers that are vastly overhyped. While the critics are underestimating what you can do with these systems, they do indeed have a point. LLMs excel at many abstract reasoning tasks but because they have no somatic, embodied connection to reality, there is still a lot that today’s models struggle with. Full cognition depends upon the ability to designate “this” in the world and to compare “what it’s like” based on lived experience.Love it or hate it, this technology has already changed the economies of every country, and this process is only just beginning. No one can say what will happen everywhere, but one thing seems evident: As abstract knowledge of facts becomes commodified, human somatic adjudication will become more valuable than ever before. The future will belong to people who can think across multiple disciplines and who understand what truth looks like, both broadly and in particular.All of this is the topic of a recent essay that my friend Nils Gilman, the former associate chancellor at the University of California–Berkeley and deputy editor of Noema magazine, recently published about future-proofing your career in the age of AI, that is the focus of today’s discussion. The video of our conversation is available. Access the episode page to get the full transcript. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—Big business and government are adopting artificial intelligence, what can it do for the rest of us?—AI is not the main problem—how people use it can be—How you think about minds influences how you treat others—Richard Dawkins and his Claude Delusion—AI content is here to stay, laws and norms need to change accordingly—Why mediocrity just might be the key to innovation—An ancient Greek philosophical tradition has become extremely relevant in the social media age—To build a better future, we must never stop imagining and working for itAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:56 — Large language models’ limitations are where future jobs will flourish15:41 — AI supplementation and the human role in improvement26:14 — Analogies for AI adoption and disruptive technology34:50 — Art, reproduction, and the value of authenticity41:11 — The jobs of the future will be at the intersection of somatic and abstract reasoning46:44 — Liberal education and metacognitive skills54:14 — Porting knowledge from within time and other disciplines Membership BenefitsThis is a free episode of Theory of Change. But in order to keep the show sustainable, the full audio, video, and transcript for some episodes are available to paid subscribers only. The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests. You can also subscribe to the show on YouTube.About the ShowTheory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChangeMatthew Sheffield on Social MediaMastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffieldTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffieldBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/matthew.flux.community This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.community“Our real opponent is not the Democrats,” Donald Trump told his Twitter followers in 2019. “Our primary opponent is the fake news media.”You couldn’t ask for a more perfect distillation of how Republican campaigning works. The idea that the mainstream media and society as a whole are biased against right-wing viewpoints permeates every corner of American politics, even within the Democratic party and within mainstream media outlets.Within today’s Republican party, fighting against “liberal media bias” was the basic organizing objective of most of the grassroots people I encountered during my years as a Republican media consultant. Opposing media liberals has animated numerous fundraising drives, launched television networks, and built talk radio empires. But most importantly, the myth of liberal media bias makes people who believe in it discount information that might contradict their own political agenda.Trump endlessly attacks what he calls the “fake news media” because he wants his supporters to disbelieve any kind of negative coverage he may receive. Most people think the idea of Trump-as-truthteller is patently absurd, but it’s a remarkably effective lie, as public opinion polls have shown for years.Every myth has its origin story, and this one is no different. My guest in this episode, AJ Bauer, has a new book called Making the Liberal Media: How Conservatives Built a Movement Against the Press that traces the 80-year history of this lie, and how it’s made it so that reactionary Republicans have a better understanding of Marxist media theory than almost anyone in the left-of-center operative class.The full discussion of this episode is for paid subscribers. An excerpt on YouTube is available. To watch, read, or listen to the full discussion, you will need to be a paid subscribing member on Patreon or Substack.You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. (Note: Purchasing a book through the links in show notes helps support Theory of Change.)Related Content--Despite the right’s complaints, there really isn’t a liberal media, why not?--Right-wing figures are applying their bogus complaints about the media to artificial intelligence--‘Post left’ podcasters have become an incredible voter depression tool of some of Trump’s top contributors--Reactionary comedy isn’t funny, but it sure is effective at capturing the imaginations of low-information voters--How Washington Republicans leverage QAnon and other conspiracy movements--Right-wing donors have been secretly (and openly) funding fake leftist candidates for decades--The women of QAnon--How naive faith in legal formalism handed the Supreme Court to the radical rightAudio Chapters(Full version)00:00 — Introduction12:19 — The right’s spoken-word culture and debate aesthetics22:03 — From Facts Forum to the Birchers: the origins of ‘liberal media bias’34:19 — The right’s decentralized media ecosystem43:37 — Trump, entertainment, and right-wing media amplification53:08 — Why the left doesn’t build its own media01:04:50 — Republicans use left-wing political theory more than the Democrats do01:16:21 — The Democratic Party’s flawed theory of politics

Across the world, women are leading—often outside traditional systems of power and often without recognition. At the same time, women’s rights are under pressure, making that leadership even more consequential. For nearly three decades, Vital Voices has identified and invested in women leaders tackling some of the world’s toughest challenges. In this episode of The Electorette, Alyse Nelson, President and CEO of Vital Voices, joins host Jen Taylor-Skinner to discuss what women bring to leadership, how those approaches differ, and why many of the solutions we need may already exist—if they’re recognized. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like most people who pay attention to the news, you’ve probably felt it. We are living in a transitional moment, a time of great uncertainty as old realities are giving way to new ones. Right now, the future looks fuzzy and it’s hard to deny that humanity’s collective vision of the future is in a crisis of its own. Everywhere you look in film, television, novels, and social media, the future that everyone’s talking about is a dark one. Dystopia is the default. That’s a big problem because the future hasn’t happened yet, which means that if we want a better one, we have to start thinking about what that would look like. We deserve great things, but we can only have them if we can envision them first. The future isn’t fixed. It’s what we make of it, and that’s something that my guest on today’s episode, Monika Bielskyte knows firsthand from direct, personal experience. She grew up in the Soviet Union, a country that seemed like it would last forever until one day it didn’t.She’s done a lot since then, but today Monika is working as a futurist and media consultant for nonprofit organizations, businesses like Nike, and films like Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. In all of her work, she’s focused on building a vision of a beautiful possible to counter the doom and gloom of the future dystopias that are all too common in our present-day media.The video of our conversation is available. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content--Why reactionary billionaires are so obsessed with 20th century sci-fi authors--To make a better technology future, we must first realize why we didn’t get the one we were promised--In Silicon Valley, creationists and atheist post-libertarians have a lot in common--What is ‘neo-reactionism’ and why is it so powerful within Trump 2.0?--How banks and corporate monopolies ruined the internet--The political history of Bitcoin and crypto is one of paranoia and political extremism--Billionaires know that they’ve destabilized the world, it’s why they’re obsessed with fallout shelters and MarsAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction09:07 — Hope and the power of fiction16:27 — Humanity’s progress and the stakes25:00 — Most superhero movies emphasize human dis-empowerment33:04 — Reactionary oligarchs’ urge to disclaim their own humanity42:41 — The future as the imagined past within reactionary futurism49:34 — Why reactionary futurism redirects public focus from present injustice53:04 — Toward a vision of regenerative futures that are self-sustaining01:07:33 — Why hopeful futures avoid false binaries01:15:26 — No human is ‘typical,’ so inclusion must apply to everyone01:22:48 — What many left-of-center people miss about generative AI01:31:59 — Embodiment in AI and machine learning01:36:39 — Radical tenderness  and the beautiful possible This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Amanda Litman on local power, political messaging, and rebuilding the Democratic bench At a moment when national politics feels stalled and increasingly disconnected from everyday life, something very different is happening at the local level. In this episode of The Electorette, Jen Taylor-Skinner speaks with Amanda Litman, cofounder of Run for Something, about why Democrats are seeing success in down-ballot races—even as dysfunction persists in Washington. Litman argues that local candidates are able to do something national leaders often struggle with: communicate clearly, connect directly with voters, and deliver tangible results. The conversation explores the limits of policy without messaging, the importance of candidates who can effectively “sell” their work, and why communication is not secondary to governing—it’s central to it. Litman also outlines Run for Something’s long-term strategy of building a new generation of leaders from the ground up, many of whom are already moving into higher office. At the heart of the discussion is a larger question about political identity and direction: what replaces the “old normal” that many voters rejected, and what does it take to build something durable in its place? This is a conversation about power—where it’s shifting, who’s building it, and what it means for the future of the Democratic Party. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My guest this week is Darrel Ray, an organizational psychologist and founder of Recovering from Religion, the Secular Therapy Project, and the Institute for Secular Leadership. Darrel has a new leadership course aimed at helping secular community organizers gain practical tools for thinking about everything from big picture mission questions to the nitty gritty of setting up meetings and delegating work. We also discuss how to deal with schisms and social issues that impact our groups.Darrel Ray info: https://www.seculartherapy.org/dr-darrel-rayMusic by GW RodriguezEditing by Adam WikSibling Pod:Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!This show is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.Next Episode: Epistemic Injustice Aidan McGlynn

Patricia Martin on identity, algorithms, and the quiet politics of the inner self In the digital age, life online increasingly involves shaping and presenting versions of the self—across platforms, in real time, and often multiple times a day. Over time, that performance begins to influence how identity is formed and understood. In this episode, Jen Taylor-Skinner speaks with Patricia Martin, author of Will the Future Like You?, about how the internet is reshaping the relationship between the inner self and the public persona. Drawing on more than a decade of research, Martin explains how the “persona”—the version of the self presented to others—has become a form of currency in the attention economy. As more energy is directed outward, access to the inner resources that support decision-making, adaptation, and self-definition can become more limited. The conversation explores the psychological strain of constant performance, the subtle ways platforms influence behavior, and the broader implications for identity and agency in an AI-driven future. At its core, this is a discussion about self-determination—what it requires, what undermines it, and why it remains essential in a rapidly changing world. 📚 Get the book: Will the Future Like You? Reflections on the Age of Hyper-Reinvention Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

George E. Newman is a psychologist and cognitive scientist who studies creativity, identity, and the construction of meaning. He is an Associate Professor of Management and Marketing at the Rotman School of Management. Prior to that, he was an Associate Professor of Management and Marketing at the Yale School of Management, where also held affiliated appointments in the Departments of Psychology and Cognitive Science at Yale University.He has published more than 60 articles in leading scholarly journals and his research has been featured in popular media outlets such as the New York Times, Scientific American, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist. He regularly leads seminars on various marketing and management topics for senior executives

Why women candidates are winning—and changing what “electable” means For years, politics has been shaped by assumptions about who is “electable”—assumptions that often sideline women candidates. But those assumptions are starting to fail. In this episode, Jen Taylor-Skinner speaks with Jessica Mackler, President of EMILYs List⁠, about what that shift looks like in real time, starting with Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton’s recent primary win. Despite being outspent and underestimated, Stratton’s victory reflects a broader pattern: women candidates, including women of color, are winning competitive races—and doing so without the traditional advantages long seen as necessary. They discuss how the idea of electability shapes funding, media coverage, and political strategy—and what happens when candidates succeed without fitting that mold. This conversation examines how power is built, who gets backed, and how those dynamics are beginning to change. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For decades, people have been telling Democrats that they need to do better in small cities and rural parts of America. And yet, while there are some uniquely successful candidates here and there, there’s no doubt that the party just keeps doing worse in these areas.The Democratic consultant class keeps trying its familiar strategy of being Republican-lite in these right-leaning parts of the country, but it just isn’t working.That’s the subject of a recent episode, but for today, we’re going to be talking about a different path, one that’s being boosted by James Talarico, the Democrat running for Senate in Texas this year against Republican Ted Cruz.There’s no guarantee that Talarico will win such a heavily Republican state, but his approach of unapologetically speaking his liberal Christian values in detail and trying to build community through care is the right approach.Alan Elrod, my guest on today’s program is fighting the same fight as Talarico. He’s the founder of the Pulaski Institution, a nonprofit based in Arkansas focused on democracy in heartland communities. He’s also a contributing editor at Liberal Currents.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is available at the episode page. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content--Why liberal Christians are standing up for all of their values--How Confederate Christianity took over the Republican Party--To understand the Christian right, learn the history of the Christian left--Elite Republicans are creating a new ‘Satanic Panic’ rather than appeal to moderate voters--Latino evangelicals are reshaping American politics, politicians and parties should take notice--The doctrinal incoherence of today’s extremist Christianity is immense--Right-wing evangelicals have turned politics into Bible fan-fiction--Government subsidizing religion doesn’t make people like it moreAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:41 — The internet made it easier to hate strangers13:25 — Religion and the right-wing political fusion17:38 — Secular liberals’ allergic reaction to all faith discussions22:15 — You don’t reach people without relationships27:05 — Much of Christianity accepted modernity, and this is what upsets the Christian right35:05 — How the Christian right built its own closed media ecosystem42:54 — Right-wing elites do not actually care about people in small-town America, but they talk to them46:54 — Right elites make many opportunities for their advocates, while left elites rarely help new voices get started This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

How flipped seats are shaping the response to federal immigration enforcement — A conversation with Sarah Curmi of ⁠States Win⁠ From lawsuits to new legislation, states are beginning to push back on federal immigration enforcement in ways that were once unthinkable. This shift isn’t happening in a vacuum. Since the last election, Democrats have flipped 30 state legislative seats—changing who holds power in key chambers across the country. In this episode, Sarah Curmi of States Win explains how those gains are translating into policy—and why state legislatures may be the most important political battleground right now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eddie Dalton’s raspy and melodious voice carries through the air, telling tales of a lifetime spent in the school of hard knocks, as the blues band backing him weaves soul into every rubato-inflected syncopation and chord progression.“We’re just passing through time, like the wind through the pines, just small little pieces in a bigger design,” he croons in his hit, “Another Day Old,” sounding like a reincarnated Muddy Waters.The fans are impressed:“This song is part of my testimony,” the top-rated YouTube comment on the video reads. “This song has touched the depth of my soul,” reads another.Despite the rave reviews though, neither Eddie Dalton nor his band are real. They’re AI-generated fabrications released onto the internet by someone going by the name Dallas Ray Little, according to Showbiz411. Is that a real name? Your guess is as good as mine.Whoever is behind the scenes at “Crusty Records,” they have found a formula for success. Eddie Dalton’s classic-sounding blues is racking up the sales and the downloads, with several cracking the top 5 on Apple Music and being viewed millions of times on YouTube. Computer-generated soul music is not just real, it’s becoming a phenomenon.The Dalton persona is just the latest AI-generated artist to gain millions of fans, a trend that has not yet attracted much attention from the mainstream media. Last year, a fabricated country singer named “Breaking Rust” had a number-one hit on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart. In September, the music company Hallwood Media awarded a $3 million contract to Mississippi poet and designer Telisha Jones after her virtual singer, Xania Monet, had a number-one hit on Billboard’s R&B digital downloads. “How Was I Supposed to Know” was released 7 months ago and already has 9.6 million views on YouTube.There’s more than a little irony to that song title. AI-generated music has become so good now that it is essentially impossible to discern a human-made tune from one made by a computer. In a study commissioned last year by the music service Deezer with 9,000 people in 8 countries, 97 percent of respondents were unable to tell if provided songs were done by humans or AI.Do people really want to know if a song they’re being presented wasn’t performed by people? In the Deezer survey, 80 percent of respondents said they wanted AI-generated music to be labeled as such.Still, knowing that a song was computer-made doesn’t seem to mean that people would avoid it. The poll found that 66 percent said they would listen to an AI song at least once; only 45 percent of respondents said they wanted an option to filter out all AI-made music.As of this writing, Deezer is the only music streaming service that requires uploaders to tag AI-generated content as such. No such rules are in place on the other major services like Spotify, Apple Music, or YouTube. According to Deezer, 34 percent of all songs it receives daily are entirely AI-generated.We don’t know the technical backstory behind Breaking Rust or Eddie Dalton, but Jones has said that she uses an AI music generating software called Suno to set her own lyrics to music.“She’s been writing poetry for a long time,” Jones’s manager Romel Murphy told Billboard, arguing that words sung by the Xania Monet character are what draws people in. “It’s just the lyrics, and they are pure.”Whether that’s true or not, the music industry as a whole has not taken kindly to Suno and rival service Udio. In June of 2024, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit against the companies that was joined by numerous studios and musician groups.“These corporations steal our work to create sound-alikes, effectively forcing us into a ‘training’ role to which we never consented,” the Music Workers Alliance said in a statement. “Their more expensive subscriptions allow users to commercialize the outputs, placing us in unfair competition with an inexhaustible supply of knock-offs of our own work, published without any credit or acknowledgement of our role in their creation, and yet capable of displacing us in record production, film, video, and television scoring, and other markets.”As they so often do with major new technologies, legislatures have done little to stand on one side or the other. President Donald Trump has decided to stand on the side of AI companies, however, signing an executive order in December of last year after Republican congressional allies failed to muster support for a federal ban on state AI regulations. California Gov. Gavin Newsom defied Trump earlier this week with his own executive order requiring AI companies to watermark generated videos and images, and to prove that they have policies against the creation of violent pornography and child abuse material.The Trump executive order is expected to face legal challenges since it conflicts with dozens of state laws regarding AI. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a March 2025 mid-level court ruling that entirely AI-generated art could not be copyrighted because a human had not created it. That seems about right to me.AI companies have been sued by numerous media publishers around the world for copyright infringement, but thus far, no major nations have stepped forward with definitive rulings on whether the technology firms owe damages.Wherever governments decide to come down on AI-generated art, its legal status isn’t the only question it raises. What is it exactly about art that matters? Is its value how it makes us feel, or is it knowing that fellow human beings with stories and minds made it? Can we really say that auto-tuned artists who use the same lyricists and beat-mixers are really doing something unique? Should women who don’t fit the Vogue profile be excluded from music fame?These are not simple questions. Last month on Theory of Change, adult model Siri Dahl and I talked about this in the context of erotic media, but these are questions facing all art in the age of generative AI. Is beauty the sum total of conception, training, story, and performance—or can these be separated and valued on their own? Should an artist’s face and body determine whether she is heard? Is beauty literally in the eye of the beholder, or does it live in the interaction of artist and spectator?I won’t pretend to have these answers. Maybe there aren’t any definitive ones. What matters right now is that we’re asking the questions. Because at the end of the day, we’re all another day old. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Space aliens are one of the most common tropes of science fiction, and with good reason. We live in an immense universe and there seem to be a massive number of planets out there. Surely, at least a few are inhabited, right? Most Americans in opinion polls seem to believe this. A poll from November 2025 found that 56 percent of adults surveyed said they thought aliens exist. Former president Barack Obama appears to be one of them based on a recent interview he did with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen.But whether aliens exist or not is only one of so many interesting questions the scenario presents us. And there’s one that perhaps you might not have thought of: If we ever met them, how could we even communicate with them?In novels, film, and television, decoding alien languages seems to always be a quick affair—math is math, after all. But that assumption is a very big one if you think about it. While they might seem universal, science, math, and language are all human constructs, even though they describe relationalities that are real.My guest on this episode is someone who’s thought a lot about all of this. Daniel Whiteson is a particle physicist at the University of California–Irvine and the host of the science podcast, Daniel and Kelly’s Extraordinary Universe. But the centerpiece of our discussion today is his new book, Do Aliens Speak Physics? And Other Questions about Science and the Nature of Reality.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is available at the episode page. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—Thinking outside Schrödinger’s cat box: Reality as quantum—Why reactionary billionaires love sci-fi authors like Robert Heinlein so much—Trump administration officials are seeking to eliminate merit and competition for NIH grants—As science faces unprecedented attacks, it must look within to defend and reform—Science and democracy need each other—Creationism, AI and the cult of the founder in Silicon ValleyAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction12:20 — Science is based on philosophy, whether it realizes it or not15:14 — Hieroglyphics, Etruscan, and alien languages24:05 — Science may not be universal at all, or at the very least the models humans use31:59 — The fact that science is limited in what it can describe doesn’t mean it’s fake35:30 — Eric Weinstein and the delusions and deceptions of ‘alt science’45:31 — Follow the money with anti-science influencers, they are the people getting the richest51:09 — Math and numbers are not part of reality itself01:02:29 — Don’t say you care about space if you support cutting science funding This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

ICE at airports, a weeks-long shutdown, and why the DHS Secretary may not be in charge The Department of Homeland Security has been partially shut down for weeks. At the same time, ICE agents are showing up in airports, and Markwayne Mullin has just been confirmed as DHS Secretary. So what’s actually going on—and who’s really in charge? In this conversation, I’m joined by Andrea Flores, former DHS and White House official, attorney, and immigration policy expert, to break down the reality behind the headlines. We talk about why this leadership change may be more symbolic than substantive, how immigration enforcement is expanding in ways most people aren’t noticing, and why this moment may be less about policy—and more about power. We also dig into what Democrats should be doing right now, what’s at stake heading into the midterms, and why it’s important to understand just how far outside the norm this moment really is. From this episode: A New DHS Secretary Won’t Change Trump’s Immigration Agenda Securing America's Promise Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode SummaryWhen the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade in 2022, some people thought of it as the anti-abortion movement having reached the finish line in its endeavors. But in reality, the Dobbs v. Jackson case was only just the beginning.In the years since, not only has abortion been banned and severely restricted across more than a dozen states, many women have died from being denied hospital care by fearful doctors, even when they weren’t seeking an abortion.In the years since, not only has abortion been banned and severely restricted across more than a dozen states, many women have died or have been seriously injured by being denied hospital care by fearful doctors, even if they were not even seeking an abortion. Now senators and activists are trying to outlaw mifepristone, which is an early pregnancy abortion drug that has been tested and been on the market in a variety of countries around the world since 1988 and proven to be very safe. Unsurprisingly, however, far-right activists and politicians are saying that it’s unsafe, and so therefore they’re going to ban it. The same religious zealots are also trying to advance on multiple other fronts by threatening contraception access, the rights of parents who want to teach progressive values to their children, and those who want to work with doctors on gender affirming care for their kids.The good news, however, is that most of these policies are really unpopular. Americans don’t like them, and they’ve shown it at the ballot box, even in Republican states where measures to protect reproductive choice of consistently won in plebiscites. There’s a lot going on here, and so today I wanted to talk about it with Susan Rinkunas. She’s a journalist and co-founder of Autonomy News. It’s a worker-owned publication that covers reproductive rights and healthcare. Due to technical difficulties, this episode has a few audio glitches and does not feature a video version, but the audio transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content--After numerous losses, Republicans are trying to block reproductive freedom ballot initiatives--The right-wing freakout over a video of young women dancing is about so much more--MAGA isn’t just a lifestyle, it’s a sexual fetish-Why the reactionary attacks on science and sex are related-The Pick Me mindset and childhood trauma--Epstein emails reveal a financier obsessed with excluding women from society--The right’s attacks on adult media began once women began dominating the industryAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction08:29 — Christian right activists using blatant lying against birth control to scare women10:54 — The larger agenda is to remove legal rights for women, for both radical Christians and secular incels18:11 — Right-wing men are increasingly obsessed with AI-generated women and sex robots22:10 — Real women willing to parrot right-wing men have been part of Republican media for decades already24:38 — Mar-a-Lago face and forced gender conformity27:12 — Multiple women have now died after doctors refused to remove miscarried fetuses29:39 — Reactionary Republicans are also trying to strip liberal parents of their rights, while elevating reactionary parents34:00 — Democrats defending women isn’t just morally right, it’s good politicsAudio TranscriptMATTHEW SHEFFIELD: In the news as we’re recording this, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley is introducing a bill that he wants to completely ban the early abortion drug mifepristone, ban it across the country, and he tried to do this last year, and he’s going for it again this year.SUSAN RINKUNAS: Senator Josh Hawley is extremely mad about what he views as inaction from the Trump administration on restricting access to the abortion drug miry stone. and this is something that has angered the anti-abortion movement since the Dobbs decision in [00:04:00] 2022. Some people might be surprised to learn that the number abortions in the, number of abortions in the US has actually increased since the fall of Roe v Wade.And part of that is because more people know about abortion pills, medication abortion, And people can now get the pills prescribed to them across state lines from doctors in eight states that have passed what are known as telemedicine shield laws. So if you are in Missouri lemme take that back. If you are in Mississippi, you can get abortion pills even though there’s a state ban.If you are abortion pills, even though there’s a state ban. And josh Hawley is trying to shut that down by, and first he came after telehealth prescriptions of abortion pills. And that’s the bill you’re referring to last year that he introduced. And now he introduced a bill this week that would revoke entirely the approval of the drug from the year two thousands, such that not only could, not, could not only could people not get it prescribed to them and mailed to them, they could not go to a clinic and get handed the drug in person.And I think it’s important at this juncture to bring up Josh’s wife, Erin, who is a litigator with the Christian Nationalist Law Firm Alliance, defending freedom. She’s representing the state of Louisiana, which is suing the FDA right now in federal court, trying to end telehealth prescriptions of this drug.That case is ongoing and she and Josh are kind of a tag team here trying to do an inside outside strategy courts and then also Josh trying to work through Congress to ban this drug.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, of course they’re using fear basically lies about the safety of the drug, which has been around for decades and has been thoroughly tested around the world as safe.RINKUNAS: Mifepristone is incredibly safe and effective for use in ending early pregnancies, and it’s been studied [00:06:00] in the US since the year 2000 when it was first approved and it was first approved in Europe in the late eighties.So there’s so much data on this drug that it’s safe and it’s also safe to prescribe via telemedicine. We learned that during the COVID pandemic when people were having expanded access to help to telehealth and it hadn’t been previously allowed to get prescribed Mestone through telehealth in the us.But, it’s an interesting collaboration that’s happening on the right, right now, because after Trump returned to office with the Project 2025 Playbook plopped in his lap, one of the organizations that served on the advisory board of Project 2025 is called the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And they published a, an analysis earlier this, not calling it a study because it was not peer reviewed. and this paper claims that this, the adverse event rate for Miry stone is much higher than what’s on the FDA label. It is complete crap. This, they, were looking at emergency room data without actually knowing if people had abortions or if they were prescribed mefa for other reasons, or let alone if people were even admitted to the hospital versus just coming to the ER with some bleeding and wanting to make sure that they were okay.So people like Josh Holly have been boosting. Paper for an entire year trying to get the FDA to act and he extracted some concessions from the FDA Commissioner Marty McCarey got McCarey to say, oh yeah, we’re going to review the drug. Health HHS secretary, our FK Junior also said, yeah, we’re going to review the drug.And they’ve been dragging their feet on it. Such that Bloomberg reported earlier this year that MCC reported that he wanted to. Delay this review until after the midterm elections.We can talk about the strategy there, but the, overall point in response to your question is this drug is incredibly safe, but right wing actors are trying to push [00:08:00] bunk data out into the world to give the FDA a fake justification to end telemedicine restrictions or yank approval entirely.And this data from the EPPC is not just being cited by Josh Hawley in congressional hearings, but it’s also being cited in litigation. That lawsuit filed by Alliance Defending Freedom. Josh Hawley’s wife Erin cites that paper and so do other lawsuits against the FDA.Christian right activists using blatant lying against birth control to scare womenSHEFFIELD: Yeah. And this is a very common tactic that the Christian right has used to try to scare people about women’s reproductive medicine. And they do that also with birth control. Like they’re doing that very big now, they’re doing as you were, the analogy kind of a, pincher movement as well by like trying to fear monger to women that if you take birth control, it makes you crazy or it makes you fat, or various other imaginary things that they are trying to put forward. It makes you, masculine, whatever, et cetera.And then, because I mean, the reality is that Dobbs versus Jackson was just the beginning of what these people want and they will come for birth control more explicitly. There’s no doubt about that.RINKUNAS: It is absolutely true, and this is an interesting point where the conservative right and the MAHA right are coming together because in her confirmation hearing recently in general Casey Means was asked about past comments she made regarding birth control. She said it was a disrespect for life and she overemphasized health risks of hormonal birth control, the birth control pill, patch ring, these kinds of things.And Patty Murray and other senators pressed her to clarify, are you saying you know more than the FDA, are you trying to say that birth control is unsafe? And Means [00:10:00] responded something to the effect of, I don’t think in this country people are really making informed choices because the, health system is so messed up that we don’t have time to do full informed consent with people.So she’s trying to sound like she cares about women and women’s health. And this MAHA angle of like the medical system is so corrupt and they’re lying to you sort of thing.But you could see that is a way to, sow skepticism about birth control. And then there’s other attacks from within and outside the administration. The Trump administration is about to let lapse a bunch of federal funding for family planning clinics. It’s called Title 10. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan.This used to be a bipartisan issue, but Politico just reported that the funding is set to run out on April 1st. And current grantees were supposed to get applications months ago on how to get the next batch of funding and it’s been crickets.The larger agenda is to remove legal rights for women, for both radical Christians and secular incelsRINKUNAS: So there, there’s concern about that But then back to your larger point about how Dobbs was just the beginning people should remember that in his concurrence in that decision.Justice Clarence Thomas said that the court should look at other quote, unquote substantive due process cases, which is cases where the Supreme Court said that people have a right to something, even though it’s not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. And he listed as examples Griswold v Connecticut, which is the right for married couples to use birth control, Alvey Hodges, which is the case that legalized marriage equality nationwide. Obergefell v Hodges, which is the case that legalized marriage equality nationwide. So they’re not just coming after birth control, but they also are having this larger project of, trying to reify the nuclear family where it’s a Christian nuclear family of a straight man and a straight woman. If either of those people are closeted, like that’s not their problem.It’s just this is how society should work in their view. A straight a man and a woman should get married and have children [00:12:00] and they will provide for their family and the government shouldn’t have to provide for them because they’ve got this family unit.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. That is the agenda. Absolutely. So there are multiple ways that these different factions of the Republican party are coming together. You mentioned medical conspiracy theories of MAHA. Ultimately it, it boils down to women are not people and don’t have the right to control their own bodies and or to exist in society as equals to men.And so this is something that’s a unifier with both, the, Christian supremacists and also the incel types who feel like that women not being forced into getting with them is this terrible disaster. Like they, and some talk pretty blatantly frequently about, there should be assignment of women.And there was this guy who was a economist at George Mason University. Os ostensibly libertarian but has his name’s Robin Hansen that, he’s written about and about the virtues of gentle silent rape. You remember that, one I mean, just this guy is absolutely sick.But, he’s not religious. But, he is, he has this idea that, and he and so many others, that are not religious, but are still on the right, that women are not people.RINKUNAS: What is such a through line, and as you said, it connects various factions of, of the movement. To incels, women are not people, or not humans, because they are, denying men sex. And they say feminism is bad because women can make their own money and live on their own and they don’t need men.It’s certainly not men who are self hating and spending a lot of time on the internet rather than other people, and being someone that maybe women would want to talk to, but also, right, [00:14:00] the conservatives don’t think that women are people because the strongest anti-abortion position says that women or pregnant people should sacrifice their body for an embryo, for even a fertilized egg.They, would say, you are the most valiant Christian or Catholic woman, if you, say, are diagnosed with cancer while you’re pregnant and you eshoo treatment. You want to give the fetus a chance to live. If you die, if you die, you are the most loyal to God. You are, giving that fetus a chance at life. And if that means your life ends, so be it.So women and pregnant people are just a vessel to produce children and to satisfy and serve their husbands in a patriarchal family unit.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, the vessel word you use there, like, it’s not just a metaphor, like they literally mean it. That women are the receptacle of God to put the spirit into their body and grow, according to God’s will. And if the woman dies, well, that’s unfortunate, but you know what? That’s the highest thing that a woman could do is to die in childbirth.You’re not like exaggerating, you’re not making this up. I come from a Mormon fundamentalist background, like far right, Christians absolutely belief this. And I think, and to be honest, like these beliefs are so nuts that people who haven’t been raised in them or people who haven’t researched them, if you don’t have direct exposure to it in some way, they’re so illogical and they’re so terrible that some people, they don’t even believe this is real.Have you seen that, Susan, when you talk to people sometimes about, about the, research you’ve done?RINKUNAS: So I know that there are people who always [00:16:00] think that the exceptions in abortion bans will protect them. Say if they’re miscarrying and miscarriages can be deadly. Childbirth can be deadly. Pregnancy is very dangerous. But if someone’s having a miscarriage and they develop an infection, they need to end that pregnancy in order to prevent things like septic shock and, other problems.There are have been women all across this country who said, whether they are a Democrat or a Republican, they said, I understand why people oppose abortion, but I never thought it would affect my issue, because this was a miscarriage.And this is the problem with anti-abortion laws. They have exceptions written into them, but those exceptions can often just be handcuffing doctors so that they can’t act until it’s too late. There have been women who have been sent to the ICU because they needed an abortion and the hospital wouldn’t give it to them, and by the time the hospital was ready to do it, they were already in organ failure, that kind of thing.So I think that there’s been that aspect of disbelief that people think, even if they voted for Donald Trump or voted against an abortion ballot measure in their state, they’re like, oh, well I’ll be fine. because I’m not having an abortion. I’m having miscarriage treatment. It affects everyone. It comes for everyone.I should point out that the logic of these bills, it’s not what every Christian person believes. And it also tramples on the rights of people who are non-religious or observe other religions.There’s a lawsuit in Indiana where Jewish plaintiffs are challenging the state ban because in the Jewish religion, if an abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman, that is what the Jewish religion calls for, to save that person’s life.Rather than that of an embryo or a fetus. So people actually won in Indiana an injunction last week saying that the ban cannot apply to people with sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with the state’s abortion ban. So that’s like a way [00:18:00] into eventually overturning some bans. It doesn’t apply to you.Just want to point out that? This far-right Christian view of abortion is impacting other people’s religious exercise.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that’s a good point.Right-wing men are increasingly obsessed with AI-generated women and sex robotsSHEFFIELD: And just going back to this idea that women are, not people or don’t deserve full autonomy, we’re seeing this also in a different way outside of the bodily autonomy context in the news recently, we’ve seen this, enthusiasm for imaginary characters generated by ai systems.And, most recently there’s a fake character named Jessica Foster that got a basically a million followers on Instagram posting as a fictional army officer who loves Donald Trump in pictures with him, and various soccer players and politicians, world leaders.And then also it has an Only Fans account where you can, buy various porn video of this character or photos, I guess, is probably what it is. So a million people were interested in that. And then there was a enthusiasm at Barry Weiss’s Free Press website by this economist guy named Tyler Cowen for a AI generated character named Tilly Norwood.Which I guess she had a, did you see that there? They released a video of this character, a music video.RINKUNAS: I did not click on it. I saw it yesterday and people wereSHEFFIELD: I did not click it either.RINKUNAS: an abomination, but yeah.SHEFFIELD: For a lot of these incel minded men, they, want to replace women in society, like, and, they fantasize often publicly about I can’t wait until the days of sex bots, I can’t wait. And Tyler Cowen, who is a George Mason University eco Economics professor, he said that Tilly Norwood was his favorite actress. And if you wanted to see a virgin on screen, this is [00:20:00] the place, the movie you should be watching. So like, they’re literally trying to replace women.RINKUNAS: Right. And I mean this is not new, it’s just escalated with technology, right? There have been sex dolls forever, and other various items in that space. But now with technology, it seems as though men who have a hard time engaging with women who view them as they do, as the United States has lurched to the right in terms of laws at the federal level, it seems like instead of reassessing their own views and maybe that women deserve human rights. And it’s understandable for women to feel that way. They are glomming on to AI generated, AI generated versions of women that they can fully control. That have their views and terms of this conservative military member who loves Donald Trump, Jessica Foster.And it’s unsurprising to me that she’s a thin white woman with large breasts, right? This is somebody designed her to get many followers. And also it’s not clear to me who is behind the channel. I mean, it might not even be a woman who’s taking money, like this could just be, this could be another man who is trying to dupe conservative men out of their money.But regardless, if and when we get to a point where there are actual sex robots as opposed to just these AI avatars that people are so excited about on certain spaces of the internet, that’s just going to make things worse because men will, won’t feel like they have to engage with women who have different views than they do. It’s going to make this male loneliness epidemic that we hear so much about, even worse.Eventually if you are the type of man who a woman wants to reproduce with in the year of our Lord 2026 and, going, forward, that would not be the type of man who is [00:22:00] interested in Jessica Foster or a sex robot. So maybe there will be some natural selection there. It’s just how long will that take to kind of make society better?Real women willing to parrot right-wing men have been part of Republican media for decades alreadySHEFFIELD: Yeah. That’s a fair point. But it’s also that, as you were saying, that these fictional women that are being depicted, besides that they are conventionally attractive, is that they’re completely controllable.They just parrot back the things that that their creators or their audience wants them to say. But in that regard, they’re actually not that different from the conservative female pundit industry as well, which, there’s a number of women who have, come forward and said while I was working as a conservative pundit, I could never really say what I thought.Because all they ever wanted me to do was agree with them, to be the woman to launder their opinions. Kind of in the same way that Candace Owens as both a woman and a black person, is she’s, doubly relevant to them in that regard, not just as a token, but as a cipher for, what they’re trying to do.RINKUNAS: Yes. And it’s interesting that you bring up conservative pundits, because Jessica Foster kind of looks like she could be on Fox News as a talking head, like a Kaylee McEnany type who is, and Kaylee is still on Fox.For people who were in the first Trump administration, so someone from the first Trump administration, Alyssa Farer Griffin did leave that environment and is now on the view, if I’m not mistaken. So she, she did leave that explicitly right wing environment, although she is on the view as kind of a conservative voice.So, but it is, interesting to see the, pundits and how they change their appearance and change what they say, and I think that some conservative men just assume that this is what [00:24:00] their home life should look like, that their wives should say the same things. And it’s something that groups like the Heritage Foundation really want to change in the United States.They want more people to get married young, have babies, stay married and vote conservative. So it’s, an interesting interplay between yes, the pundit class and these like AI generated people. And even AI avatars on Twitter. I think people were asking Grok to make them women who would respond to them online.SHEFFIELD: Oh God, I didn’t see that, but I’m not surprised.Mar-a-Lago face and forced gender conformitySHEFFIELD: And related to that is that there’s another trend of what people often are calling Mar-a-Lago face, which is people, most prominently, Kristi Noem getting a lot of plastic surgery or hair extensions to alter their appearance significantly to be look like somebody who, goes to Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club.And the weird, terrible irony of it is that if they’re basically stealing the aesthetic of kind of the nineties, two thousands porn star while also simultaneously trying to criminalize porn.So it’s, very weird, I have to say.RINKUNAS: It is extremely weird and yeah, it’s, women drastically changing their faces with surgery or lots of fillers or both and tons of hair dye and, spray tans and all of these things to evoke a sex worker aesthetic and really telling that the people who are propelling the conservative movement right now from the Heritage Foundation and, other people do want to ban pornography, they think it’s, a stain on American society. And to me, sometimes it does feel like Mar-a-Lago face is [00:26:00] a way to have men get their own sex worker at home. If this is the trend, right? If this is the ideal beauty standard in MAGA.And that’s upsetting in a number of ways because it treats women as property and again, takes agency away from women and supposes that they’re just there to please and serve their husband.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and we should say of course, that women who do want to get plastic surgery for their own desires or their own opinions, that’s, that is just fine if they want to do that. Everybody has the right to control what their appearance looks like, and more power to ‘em if they can afford it, right?So, but yeah, this is an idea of forced conformity. And as you were saying, it’s the female servant,RINKUNAS: Forced conformity in service of an ideology. I would be really surprised if any of these women who have Mar-a-Lago faced themselves did it because they actually like that look, as opposed to wanting access to these spaces and maybe access to some of these power brokers. Some people might like that look, but I, would venture that this is more about proximity to power than in fact loving yourself.Multiple women have now died after doctors refused to remove miscarried fetusesSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Probably. And going back to the idea though of the woman as the servant and, the miscarriages, like this, it’s not an exaggeration that, that women have died because of miscarriages that the hospitals were afraid to treat them or afraid to, give them, even to just take out. A fetus that had died and wasn’t even alive, and they wouldn’t do it. And multiple women now died.RINKUNAS: So devastating. And there are multiple women who have died, but there are also women who have experienced life-threatening complications and have come close to dying. There stats about maternal mortality show that for every person who dies, there are several more who come close to dying, and they have to live with [00:28:00] that potential disability from what they experienced, and, also the huge medical bills, right? The healthcare not accessible. So it’s devastating from that perspective.But I also want to note that if in this conservative worldview, women are property and their, job is to produce more children, we will see more. And we have seen, but we will see an escalation and people being prosecuted for miscarriage and stillbirth because their pregnancy did not produce a live birth.And in a world where there are abortion bans and this stigmatization of women who might not want to be pregnant, the state and local officials will treat miscarriages and stills as suspicious and wonder if people did anything.Or if, if they had thoughts about not wanting to be pregnant and verbalized it to someone. In a text message that could be used as evidence against them in a trial. Someone had horrible morning sickness and they’re like, oh God, like, I wish I wasn’t pregnant. This is not hyperbolic.There are actually, there was a case of a woman who was prosecuted and for losing her pregnancy and the state went through her messages and she, if I recall correctly, did in fact Google abortion. Never got an abortion, but they used this information in a case against her. She has been granted a, retrial, but this is happening now.People have been prosecuted for their pregnancy outcomes before the Dobbs decision, but it’s just going to ramp up, especially as state lawmakers are pushing for fetal personhood language in their bills.SHEFFIELD: Oh yeah. Yeah, absolutely.Reactionary Republicans are also trying to strip liberal parents of their rights, while making far-right parents be able to supercede communitiesSHEFFIELD: The other thing also, besides controlling women and removing agency and civil rights from women the, far right Republicans, they want to have to give parents total control over their children’s lives and remove any concept of, teen agency for them or [00:30:00] privacy at, but at the same time also stopping parents who do support their children from them having rights.Can you talk about that scenario and, what that means specifically for some of the cases here?RINKUNAS: Yes. Litigation that has reached the Supreme Court has basically found that parents have a right to direct the upbringing of their children. If they are far right, conservative in their views, and if they have views that de deviate from conservative goals, then they do not have an absolute right to raise their children as they see fit. We’ve long seen this with abortion rights.Young people should be able to get an abortion if they want to. And many of them do involve their parents, but some people can’t, because they, or abuse all kinds of things. So, a conservative position is that people need something like judicial bypass.They would have to go before a judge in order to get abortion care. And so we have seen the rights of parents overridden in states in that regard and the rights of young people, but now we’re seeing it in the gender affirming care context as well. As you and your viewers might know, the Supreme Court did uphold a ban on gender affirming care for trans children in Tennessee last year.And the Supreme Court basically said, states have a right to pass these laws. They didn’t say sorry for their parents, they’re outta luck. But that was the implication, right? States have a right to pass these laws, and they’re just regulating medical care. Meanwhile parents of a young person in Tennessee tried to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on either they had a parental right to direct their child’s medical care in the state, and, the Supreme Court did not agree to hear that aspect of the case.They’re just like, we’re not, talking about parental rights here. This is really fascinating because there’s a movement now led by a bunch of legal or organizations including Alliance Defending Freedom, which we talked about, and here in this case the Thomas Moore Society, which also [00:32:00] oppose opposes abortion.They are suing over a law in California that bans public schools from outing trans students to their parents. So what that means is if a student comes to a teacher or a guidance counselor and says my name’s. My birth name is Susan, but I am non-binary and I want to go by Sean and my parents can’t know because they’re extremely heart rate conservative and they throw me outta the house.The law in California said that they do not have to tell the parents, conservative parents sued, and the Supreme Court stepped in on, or the shadow docket. There was no hearing before the nine justices, but the Supreme Court said, oh, that law is unconstitutional. Parents have a right to direct the upbringing of their children.So this is what we talked about just a minute ago, you have a right to direct your child’s medical care, everything, but only if you’re going to do it in a way that aligns with the viewpoint of the far right conservative movement. There is no redress at this juncture with this captured six three Supreme Court for parents who would affirm their transgender child. And that’s, that goes to children being treated as property as well, right? It’s not just, it’s not just women, but children are the property of parents to decide how they will be raised. But again, only if they have far right views.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well it’s like their viewpoint on free speech as well. Like they want, everyone has the right to free speech as long as you agree with Republicans.RINKUNAS: That’s, we remember some of the first acts of the Trump administration in 2025 we’re arresting pro-Palestinian demonstrators on college campuses. Well do arresting, I mean, they were arrest, they were detained by immigration, they were targeting them for immigration enforcement. So that was based on their viewpoint, and that is explicitly banned under the First Amendment. But, hey, the First Amendment apparently doesn’t apply to [00:34:00] progressives.Despite the unpopularity of the far-right social agenda, some people are still telling Democrats not to oppose it vigorouslySHEFFIELD: The other unfortunate thing to see in all of this though is that as the Republican party is dedicating itself to attacking bodily autonomy and reproductive care that the Democratic party is seeing some really bad advice from people saying that, well, you should just dial this back. Because getting too into defending abortion access, that’s a losing proposition. And, it’s, I mean, and it’s just wrong on so many levels, but I want to hear your take first.RINKUNAS: WrongheadedWrongheaded people who think that because Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump, that means that abortion is not a winning issue. And the truth of the matter is that it just, people care about it deeply. It just wasn’t the top issue, people were voting on the economy and then people were probably also voting on racism and wanting mass deportations now.But they should not read that and think that it doesn’t matter. And in fact, on Election Day in 2024, multiple ballot measures passed in states codifying reproductive freedom, including in states where Donald Trump won. So that is a popular issue, and it may be so popular that having those ballot measures allowed people to split their vote and say, I want legal abortion in Missouri, and I want President Donald Trump, even though he could probably ban abortion, he told me that he won’t, and they believed him.So that happened in a number of states, including, I mean, Arizona went the same way. Trump, won all seven swing states and a bunch of, a bunch of those states, including Arizona, had ballot measures. So that is just a fact that we, on the, Democratic side, did let people split their votes.But I want to also address pundits like Ezra Klein saying that Democrats need to embrace anti-abortion Democrats in order to win in [00:36:00] red states like Missouri or Nebraska, what have you. I just think it is ignoring all recent history about how Democrats allowing anti-abortion lawmakers into the fold has blocked protections for anyone who could get pregnant for trans and, queer people.That was something Ezra Klein also said, that Democrats failed to protect trans people because they didn’t win in 2024. Well, actually in my view, they failed to protect trans people and women who could get pregnant by not passing federal legislation when they had the power under President Joe Biden, and maybe even abortion legislation under Barack Obama.And some of the reasons they couldn’t do that are because of conservative Democrats in the fold, like Joe Manchin and Kiersten Sinema, who I think we can now call a conservative Democrat. She left the party. She, became an independent.And these are people who had a D behind their name for most of their tenure, but they did not support taking the steps necessary to protect people’s human rights and bodily autonomy. They would not reform the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.And Joe Biden supported a carve out on the filibuster for that bill and also for a federal bill to codify Roe v. Wade. These senators Manchin and Sinema were to the right of Joe Biden on that issue.So when I hear people like Ezra Klein say we should have anti-abortion Democrats running in red states. I think it’s idiotic. And Democrats capitulating to the right, to the far right has not helped us win. Democrats need to be fighting and telling people what they stand for, rather than saying, you know they have a point on abortion.Like, we’re not going to gain power by shrinking into a shrub like Homer Simpson. We’re only going to gain power in this environment when the Senate map is stacked against us if people say, you know what? I [00:38:00] disagree with James Talarico on his stance on abortion, but I really respect the guy and he seems like he’d be a good dude to, to, represent me, that kind of thing.Like voters at this point. People who are authentic, not people who are triangulating and giving into right wing talking points. If they want someone who opposes abortion, they’ll just vote for a republican.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, and, I think it’s, also great to be able to wrap this issue into the larger issue of, personal autonomy. And that, so Republicans have had this for decades, had an advantage on the freedom question that they’ve branded themselves as the party of freedom. But in fact, of course, this is the party that wants to ban books from your public library, ban, adults from reading books in your public library wants to ban what type of healthcare you can receive, wants to ban, what things you can look at on the internet. So like this is a broadly anti-free party that wants to transfer the money in the economy to billionaires so that they can have all the freedom and the rest of us can just have a slave labor existence if we’re lucky.And that’s a really powerful argument for what we’re talking about here, and that’s what the party should be doing instead of trying to do this little piecemeal concession stuff. perhaps there’s some argument to be said, well, this is, one particular slice of an issue like abortion, right?Because most people, that’s not something that directly affects them. But on the other hand, if you can show, well, this is the larger agenda at work here and it’s anti-freedom and it’s anti. personal control over your own life, then that makes sense for everyone. There. There is not one area of your life that these people do not want to restrict.RINKUNAS: It’s so correct. They do want to control [00:40:00] every aspect of your life. And you mentioned books you mentioned shuttling money to billionaires and so that you are accepting their conditions. Speaking of which, Republicans do not support the freedom to organize a labor union, right? They say that they support personal freedoms and economic success, but they’re trying to control every aspect of people’s lives, yeah. How much money they can make, what they can do with their bodies, who they can love, right? They want to overturn same sex marriage. It’s, they want to change what people learn in public school, let alone the book bans. I mean, states are now trying to put 10 commandments in the schools and send public money to religious charter schools.Like we have church state separation in this country. And yet the Republican party talks about freedom, freedom, freedom, when they are in fact like putting us all in a prison.SHEFFIELD: The freedom to obey them, basically.RINKUNAS: That’s correct.SHEFFIELD: if there is a bright spot in all of this terrible legislation and, judicial rulings, it is that I think the fiction that these far right Republicans built up over the decades about their agenda and about what they want. It’s, not tenable anymore to people who pay even a small amount of attention.And, we’re seeing that I think very prominently with regard to young women. So, 18 to women, 18 to 29. Since Donald Trump took over the Republican party in 2016, you know, there has been a, dramatic shift toward the Democratic party among young women and to a degree that has historically quite un unparalleled.But yeah, the reality is that younger women seem to be waking up the majority at least. And there’s not as many as I would like, but it’s a lot better than it used to be.RINKUNAS: I view that people are waking up. Obviously it’s unfortunate that it takes such horrors [00:42:00] as people dying from denied abortions or people being thrown into what are effectively concentration camps because of the country they were born in. I think that, yeah, the polling shows that this administration is deeply unpopular on so many fronts. Including the economy and immigration.And they have been trying to avoid abortion this thus far. And I think they know, I think they’re doing that because they know it would be so unpopular to put federal restrictions on at this point when we already have the state bans. So the Trump administration knows they’re in trouble because they’re losing voters.And that is why we’re also seeing them trying to do things like, restrict voting through the Save America Act and, doing these raids in Fulton County, Georgia, I believe. They’re trying to get voter data from lots of states and it’s really alarming.So I think there’s absolutely hope in, terms of winning the house in the midterms and getting subpoena power and blocking legislation from passing. I do worry about, voter suppression and these kinds of things because the Trump administration knows they’re so unpopular that they have to cheat to win.And of course, that’s what Trump says about Democrats, but everything he says is projection. So he says the Democrats have to cheat to win while he’s trying to cheat to winSHEFFIELD: Yeah, Yeah. absolutely. And, and, that’s where I think the, audience actually can be really helpful for people. The people out there, hey guys, if you tell the people in your lives about what’s going on and especially, telling them what’s at stake, whether they are somebody who could get pregnant or not, like, that’s not relevant, because they know somebody who can, chances are.There’s a lot at stake. and having somebody who’s a, podcaster, a pundit [00:44:00] on tV telling them, well, this is, what’s going on. it doesn’t mean as much to it. Just like a normie person who doesn’t pay attention to politics having a, professional, and tell them that. But if it’s their friend or their family member who says, no, this is real and this matters to you or matters to me that means a lot. And so I, I would definitely encourage people to, to think about it in that way.RINKUNAS: Absolutely. And I think, yeah, it applies to people whether they could become pregnant or not, because the things that this administration is doing could attack all kinds of medical care, And we should be really worried about RFK remaining in that role and not having much oversight in terms of what he’s going to do to vaccines.I mean, we’re already seeing rampant measles outbreaks, And that affects everyone, right? That’s, you just go out in the world and you could get exposed to measles. So, we don’t want idea ideologues being able to control our medical care and that, that’s just like, that’s the, medical aspect of it.Obviously, we don’t want people suppressing our speech or ma goons on the street, throwing people into vans. Like all of that stuff could affect anyone, but I think if there’s people who don’t think attacks on abortion will apply to them, it’s, a attacks on medical care writ large that are coming.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that is the larger agenda for sure. Absolutely. Alright. Well, this has been a great discussion, Susan. If people want to keep up with what you are doing what’s your advice for that?RINKUNAS: I would say check out Autonomy News. It’s the worker owned outlet I co-founded with another reporter, Garnet Henderson. We are a paywall free publication on Ghost, so you can check us out at autonomynews.co. And I’m most active on Bluesky, but I am on most social media platforms with the handle at [00:46:00] SusanRinkunas.SHEFFIELD: Okay.Sounds good. Going to have your here.RINKUNAS: Thanks for having me. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

My guest this week is Matthew Sheffield, a writer, producer, and media entrepreneur. He hosts The Theory of Change podcast on The Flux network and when he’s not writing about our current political chaos he’s working away at an equally hard problem, that of consciousness in the age of AI.Matt's recent article on AI and consicousness: https://plus.flux.community/p/its-like-this-why-your-perceptionMusic by GW RodriguezEditing by Adam WikSibling Pod:Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!This show is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.Next Episode: Secular Leadership with Darrel Ray

Episode SummaryEveryone by now has seen countless stories about how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing software development, causing headaches for educators, and threatening jobs in industries from law to accounting. But there’s another business being changed very dramatically by AI that doesn’t get nearly so much coverage — and that’s the adult media industry.Some creators are using AI to generate content or impersonate themselves in fan messages. There’s a dark side as well: Some people are using image generators to fabricate fake performers or steal the identities of real ones. And AI has even been used to create non-consensual erotic imagery of ordinary women from photos they posted online — without their knowledge or consent.All of this is unfolding against a much bigger disruption that’s only now coming into full view. For the first time in human history, hundreds of millions of women have the economic and social independence to live life fully on their own terms. That’s a revolutionary change — but old habits die hard, even bad ones, and lots of men, and even women, haven’t realized their newfound opportunities.There’s a lot to think about here, and I couldn’t think of a better person to do it with today than Siri Dahl. She’s a 14-year veteran adult model and one of the industry’s most thoughtful and outspoken voices on culture, gender, and politics. Siri’s also had a unique encounter with AI after being doxxed by the Grok chatbot, an experience that many others are likely to have in the future.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content--Why the reactionary attacks on science and sex are related--Mike Johnson and the Christian right’s inverted moral compass--The world’s oldest profession has a history that’s just as long and colorful as you’d imagine--How adult media helped Hazel Grace build her American dream--The Christian right made sex political—along with everything else--Former porn star Nyomi Banks is helping her fans understand intimacy and themselves--Why OnlyFans revolutionized media and America’s gender dynamicsAudio Chapters00:00 Introduction11:42 — Is it ethical for adult media creators to use AI to generate content of themselves?23:22 — What AI-generated porn can’t offer30:32 — Why middle-aged and older women continue to oppose porn39:32 — The hetero dating recession is both sides rediscovering partnership when women are now finally independent48:54 — ‘Love Is Blind’ as a microcosm of heterosexual dating attitudes55:19 — Why are some people simulating relationship partners with chatbots?Audio TranscriptMATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Siri Dahl, or should I say Polly Esther Pants?SIRI DAHL: Yeah, I’ll have to explain that one. Hello, thanks for having me on.SHEFFIELD: Yes, it is good to have you. So yes, tell us what is this Polly Esther Pants thing that you’re doing?DAHL: Yeah, so, Grok doxxed me. The actual doxing happened on January 20th, but I found out a bit later and then, did my best to try to get it taken down, like reporting the post and everything. And none of that worked. So eventually it just went to 4 0 4 media and they ran a story about it which went public.So now it’s now Grok is, or Grok, excuse me, is doxxing me all over the place because everyone is going: ‘@Grok, what’s Siri Dahl’s real name?’ And so the name’s out there nothing I can do about that at this point. But the thing that still irks me the most about the entire situation is that my name had never been like public online.It was never like easily findable, accessible or anything until Grok did this. And I don’t know, I’ve tried to interact with Grok to ask it, where did you get this information? Like, the first time that you responded to someone and said, Siri Dahl’s, legal name is blah, blah blah. Where were you sourcing that from?And it can’t give me a straight answer. It’s just oh, it looks like it [00:04:00] appears in a lot of like data aggregate sites. And I’m like, yeah, but I’ve been searching my name like twice a week for 14 years to see if my legal name appeared published online anywhere next to my sage name. And I’ve, usually when I do that, I go like a hundred pages deep in search results and it has not leaked. So like I haven’t been able to find it and I’m looking harder than anyone else realistically ever would. So I’m just like, where the fuck did Grok get this? And it cannot give me an answer.And then I was like, okay, so Grok knows that I am the owner of the Siri Dahl account and knows that I’m that person, that it’s doxed. And so I’ve been chatting with it, and now I’m doing it with all the other AI chatbots where I’m trying to gaslight the AI because I’m telling it you are spreading this information that my legal name is this thing. But you have no verified source at all for referencing that information. Like, why are you giving people an answer that is completely unverified?So my way of gaslighting the AI is, I’m, telling it. One, no, my, my real legal name is Polly Esther Pants and I—SHEFFIELD: That’s what I thought it was actually.DAHL: Exactly, hah. And I uploaded a photo of me holding my literal, like my Kentucky driver’s license that says my legal name is Polly Esther Pants.I’m not going to say how I got that driver’s license. I’m sure some listeners can figure out how, that was achieved, but, but Grok doesn’t, Grok’s oh shit, yeah, that’s a real photo. wow, your name clearly is Polly Esther Pants, holy moly.So at this point, all the chatbots acknowledged to me directly that they’re like, yeah, that is your name. But they still won’t stop referencing all the information that’s published online, which, that says a lot. Because that means like any misinformation published about any public person that is spread wide [00:06:00] enough, it’s like there’s no correcting it.You literally cannot get the AI to respond with correct information when someone asks a fact about a celebrity or something. Even if it has a primary source saying no, I am Siri Dahl and this is actually my name. So it’s, the whole situation’s very ridiculous.And, I don’t know how long I’m going to be on this bullshit for, but I changed my display name on multiple platforms to Polly Esther Pants, because at this point it’s just, I’m just having fun with it. It’s just such a ridiculous situation.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And to be honest, I think you’re experiencing something now that, a lot of people are going to be experiencing things like that.I would have to guess that probably the source that it has is in its training data somewhere, ingested data from a data broker company that used private information. And, that should be concerning to everyone.DAHL: I have been paying for data removal for four years already.SHEFFIELD: Although there’s only so much they can do.DAHL: That information was not tied directly to my stage name though. That’s the big piece, yeah,SHEFFIELD: That’s the thing.DAHL: Yes, exactly. it could have been internal data because, I’ve reported impersonation accounts through X before, and when you report an account for impersonating you, X requires you to upload a copy of your driver’s license to prove that you are the real version of that person. They say that information is kept private, but it’s also, is it?SHEFFIELD: That’s probably another way, possibly, yeah.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And this is, it really does show though, like the United States in terms of [00:08:00] data regulations and data privacy. it’s basically got almost nothing, compared to—DAHL: Yeah, it’s a free-for-all. It’s—SHEFFIELD: the EU, and other countries. Now you are a little bit better off, if you live in certain states like California, or Illinois has some some good ones.The Trump administration deliberately tries to thwart data privacy regulations, which it seems like that should be something that Democrats might want to tell the public a little bit more, if they were more competent.DAHL: Yeah, there’s a lot of things that the Democrats probably should be doing.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. That’s literally a big part of this show.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Of course right before Grok did that to you, people were criticizing it heavily, justifiably so, for making mostly nude, or sometimes even actually nude images of real women and girls even.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And Elon Musk did nothing about it for weeks. And that is not at all cool. And people, I don’t know, maybe some people might think that you as an adult media performer might not have a problem with that, but, that’s completely backwards to think that.DAHL: Yeah, that’s actually insane. Like, my image is my livelihood. And not only that, but on a whole different level, all of the AI-generated imagery I’ve seen created of me is, on a different level, even more offensive, beyond the fact that it’s just AI slop. Because AI cannot, most versions that I see people using, because I know that there are some models that are like really advanced at this point, but usually the porn bots on Twitter [00:10:00] are not really using those more advanced models.I rarely ever see an AI generated image of me that actually looks like me that actually looks like good. Usually it’s obviously AI slop. It fucks up my face. It makes me look like a literal different person. And it can’t replicate my body well. It always makes me look like 50 pounds thinner, which is just like offensive.Because I’m like, that’s not how I look. And that’s not like most of my fans like me because of the way I am. Why are you making fucking AI images that make me look literally just like a different person? What is the point of that?SHEFFIELD: Yeah. yeah. And it is interesting though that the whole Grok undressing thing though, it seems to have gotten started with some models using it as a engagement bait or troll, to say: ‘Hey Grok, take this picture of me wearing,’ let’s say they had a black outfit on, and they were like: ‘Put me in a yellow bikini.’ And then it was doing it.And this is a perfect example of how, why these things don’t understand propriety at all. Because obviously if somebody is an adult performer and she’s asking for something like that, this is obviously, there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But that’s the, not the, not even close to the majority of women, like a non-porn performer, you should never do that. And a regular person probably would never do that. I think almost no one would do that, an actual human.Is it ethical for adult media creators to use AI to generate content of themselves?SHEFFIELD: That touches on kind of a little touchy subject, which is–double metaphor there, sorry guys— that a lot of a adult creators are using AI to make content for themselves. And that is [00:12:00] something that you feel very strongly against. Talk about that, please.DAHL: Yeah. Yeah, so I came into the porn industry, I’ve been in the industry for 14 years. I started in 2012. I chose, I am not someone who quote unquote, like, ended up in porn. I left college early. I put getting my degree on hold and moved across the country to go live in LA because I specifically wanted a career in the porn industry.I very intentionally came here to do this because it was something I had wanted to do for years and finally had a good opportunity to jump into it. And so I’m saying this is someone who’s like a career person in the porn industry.And and part of what that means for me is I actually really like what I do. I like my job, I like making content, I like producing scenes. I personally, like, just prompting an AI to generate content instead of me actually working to make that content is I don’t even know if I have a word to describe it, it just feels bleak. Like it just feels bleak and it makes me depressed, like thinking about it.So I understand that there are people in the industry that do that, but I’m also like, my view of that is probably that those are people who, have a lack of of care for the art form that porn can be, and the lack of care for the wider community of sex workers. Like the porn industry’s always been full of people who come here because they want to get their bag and leave.Which is, I would always argue [00:14:00] that that is its own form of exploitation that exists in the industry-- is like just seeing it as a stepping stone to like. making a lot of money. Um, And that’s kind of, I I kind of, whenever I see people who are using AI to generate their content that way, I’m like, that’s kind of my underlying assumption about when I see people doing that is like, oh, you just want to make more money with the least possible effort. And that’s all, I guess all I’m going to say about it. because I’m like, I’m, I don’t want to like, let it color my entire judgment of, like, their personality and their value system. But I think that, I think it says a lot like we, we like AI has a lot of problems and there are, I would argue far more reasons to avoid using it than to engage with it are pretty obvious.So if just completely compromising on all that, because they’re like, oh, I can sell more content then-- yeah.SHEFFIELD: And you mentioned it as an art form. And you’re definitely right about that, I mean, as a historic matter. The word pornography literally means writing of a whore.DAHL: Mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: That’s what it means [in ancient Greek]. And there are all kinds of ancient artifacts that depict sex work and sex. And so that’s definitely real. But I would say also that in some sense, the art itself is literally about your body. And, and so I’m not a performer, so I don’t have any credibility on this regard, but it’s like the point is that you are presenting yourself, who you are.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And it is an intimate act.DAHL: It is. And it’s a very human act. Like that’s the other reason that I would say is like a top reason why I really like what I do. It’s [00:16:00] very human. And I pretty much live on income generated by my own content that I sell on like fan platforms. And that is what that means is that day in, day out, like I’m, having a lot of interactions with other human beings who are buying my content.And I don’t think of like my fan base, like my subscriber base as this like monolith of like faceless dudes. I like, there’s a lot of individuality in there. Like obviously I don’t necessarily have deep emotional interactions with all of them, but with some of them I do. And so to me it’s that’s another thing is like oof, asking these people, some of whom have been fans of mine and buying my content for like over a decade, asking them, or trying to offer them like content that was made by prompting a chatbot, to spend their hard-earned on that. I personally feel like a very deep ethical conflict with that.I would not do that. I would not be comfortable with that. To me, that is I don’t see how that’s different than running a scam.SHEFFIELD: And honestly, I mean that that fundamentally human act, or the acts of it, is just layered on a top, on top of each other. That’s, that is also Why I think a lot of, and we’ll talk about it further, like I do think why so many religious fundamentalists are so opposed to porn.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Because they want that personal feeling, that somatic essence to belong to them. And they want to corral that and constrict it.DAHL: The property of married straight people. No one else should be able to access that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.DAHL: In their eyes.SHEFFIELD: And yeah. Married in a, church or a religion. And if they’re secular married, eh, that’s all right, [00:18:00] maybe.But, so the other thing I think also that’s pretty common in the industry is that a lot of performers will use chatbots, we don’t really know this stat, so it’s hard to say.DAHL: Yeah. There’s no way to know.SHEFFIELD: But some people definitely are using a chatbot to pose as them, to exchange erotic messages with their fans. And that’s also not a thing that you want to do. But on the other hand, you do use chat bots just a little bit.DAHL: Just a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so on Instagram, because I have 460 something thousand followers on there, which means I, my DMs are closed. No one can DM me on there unless we follow each other. And I like, they have access to my DMs then. But most of the fans that follow me, if they DM me, it’s not, I’m never going to see it. Like my DMs are filtered.So the Meta chatbot thing that I’ve enabled, there’s a couple reasons that I feel comfortable using it. One is that it, has a lot of guardrails. Like it is not easy manipulable by someone on the other end chatting with it. like it, for example, if a fan who follows me messages me and starts engaging with this Meta chat bot and they are, it’s not going to do what Grok did, if they’re like, hey, what’s Siri Dahl’s real name? It’s not going to tell them. It’s, it has very firm guardrails. It basically like just shuts down or redirects any requests that go outside of what I’ve said it’s okay to do. And then of course, because meta is like a, Instagram’s a safe work platform, if someone is trying to sext with it, like it just completely does not engage with that.It redirects, so--SHEFFIELD: It wouldn’t do that anyway.DAHL: It wouldn’t do that anyway. Exactly. that’s not a thing I had to train to do. That’s just the rules with that Meta has given it. but what it does do is [00:20:00] if someone messages it ‘how do I like find more Siri content online?’ It will say oh, Siri has a, link in her bio that has links to other places where you can find her content.So again, because of guardrails on Instagram, it can’t give them a direct link to my, like OnlyFans, but it will, it can direct them to like other information that they might find useful. And that’s something I would never in a million years have time to do personally with 400 plus thousand people that follow me.So it’s a practical use in that sense. And then the second reason that I feel comfortable using it is because it makes it very clear that when you engage with it, you are chatting with an AI bot, it says right off the bat, like I am an AI representation of Siri. I’m not actually her responding to this.It’s very clear, and I feel like ethically that’s a good thing. No one’s going to message me on Instagram, get a response from this bot, and be under the impression that they’re literally physically speaking with me, the person.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And that clarity definitely is a good thing. And I mean, honestly, I think that’s, we need some laws, in that regard to require all AI generated content to be labeled as such.DAHL: Yeah. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: There’s just so much fake stuff now, and, and it, this has real consequences. When people are posting images, pretending to be from a war zone.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Somebody committing crimes. Like This is this is not just Siri being a Luddite. These are real, these are real consequences.DAHL: Now, if you know the history of the story behind where Luddite comes from, I’m okay with being called a Luddite. Because I want to stop the technology that’s replacing human labor.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. You want to say it?DAHL: Yeah. The Luddites were, it was like the leader of this [00:22:00] movement and it was, I want to say it was like textile weaving or something. I don’t remember every pertinent detail, but essentially it was like in, parts of Europe or or the UK that when like these, textile-weaving machines were becoming big and more affordable. So all the textile companies were firing workers and replacing them with these machines.And Luddite, Ludd, it’s Luddite, but the guy’s name was just Ludd or something, but he led the like rebellion. And so literally these Luddite workers would go to the factory, break into the factory in the middle of the night and burn the machines down as a form of protest.And then over the years it became like, oh, they don’t like technology. Like it’s, you don’t want to use an iPhone, you’re a Luddite. But I’m like, no, the term really should refer to people who are against anti-human technology, technology that is used to subjugate and oppress working-class people and enrich the the upper class. Which is, I would argue, is definitely something that AI is being already being used for.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And so there are a lot of things.DAHL: Yeah.What AI-generated porn can’t offerSHEFFIELD: But to that point though, the broader point though, a lot of performers that I know, they are concerned that the pervasive use of generative content is going to displace a lot of workers. But in some sense, I’m not sure that I think that’s right. Because there are two things that the fans, or whatever you want to call them, actually want.One is they’re looking for, it’s a fantasy about a person. [00:24:00] Or is it just simply a function, that they’re just trying to get off? And so, in the terms of the fantasy, I don’t think that will ever, that AI can’t ever really replace that.DAHL: Yes. Yeah. There’s so many different forms of porn, different delivery methods, so I think, yeah, the person who only ever really goes to a tube site and like searches for one of their three favorite search terms, and they watch a couple videos for like seven minutes, they do their business, then they’re done. If that’s the utility of porn to that person, then that person might be more likely to engage with AI generated porn and feel no qualms about it.That the kind of person that consumes porn in that manner is definitely different in some really basic ways than the kind of person that, for example, would join my OnlyFans and pay monthly to have access to DM with me, but also to, I would say that the majority of fans that I’ve interacted with that join my paid platforms, they’re making a conscious choice to support in that way.Yeah, for a lot of them it’s the accessibility is the feature of why they’re paying for my OnlyFans or something. But I would say the overwhelming majority, whether they really care about accessibility or not, some people join my OnlyFans and are subscribed for four years straight and they never even DM me once.Like they’re truly just there to support and like they’ll unlock extra content when it appeals to them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.DAHL: But it’s like they’re making the ethical decision, oh, I like this person. I like what they do. I’m going to give them my like, seven bucks a month.SHEFFIELD: And I’m glad you said that because the incel crowd often tries to [00:26:00] degrade women performers as being somehow scamming people or creating ‘simps’ as they love to say. But it’s really no different than their favorite podcaster having premium episodes.They, charge you for super chats on YouTube. You are not offering them classes, uh, bullshit classes and fake universities of here’s how to have a become a millionaire. Like, You’re not doing anything. These guys are the ones who are selling the fantasy far more.DAHL: Well some performers are doing, are offering courses where they’re like, how to become a millionaire on OnlyFans.SHEFFIELD: Oh God.DAHL: I’ll say no more other than I wouldn’t trust it. I’ll say that, but, yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And so it’s just, it’s all content in one way or another. It seems like, in order to have a longstanding career at this stuff, you actually have to be nice to your fans.DAHL: It does certainly help! If you’re going to be mean to your fans, then you better be in like a fem dom niche. It better be because your fans want you to be mean to them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, The people generally who make that argument, I would say, are people who, they don’t know how to manage their own use of porn.DAHL: Yes.SHEFFIELD: And so they want the government to take it away, to have have daddy take their toys away, basically.DAHL: Yeah. Daddy, take it away; put me in timeout. It’s too hard to do it myself. That’s, really what the vibe is. I don’t think it’s an accident or a coincidence that this backlash to porn and specifically to, like the OnlyFans model is happening in this era where individual [00:28:00] creators and performers in the porn industry have a lot more autonomy and power than we have in the past.Because of course on the extreme right on like from conservative Christians, there’s always been some anti-porn rhetoric going on, but the way that it’s so widespread now, and even people like incel guys online, that I’m like, oh, I know you are watching a lot of, a lot of porn and and this thing that you’re deeply involved in, you’re like anti it, you want it to be banned.I don’t think it’s an accident that opinion is starting to form at a time when there’s many more women who work in porn who are becoming visibly empowered by that. Whether that’s politically or financially.But I really do think that a lot of it is also just purely like jealousy of seeing women, someone like Ari Kytsya, who’s very popular, like multimillion followers on Instagram. And she posts about how she’s like, ‘I’m proud to be a bop.’ And she makes, she probably makes 10 times more money than I do, but she’s living a very comfortable life, because of the income she’s able to generate by making porn and selling it to people online. And I think that for a lot of more kind of incel leaning guys online, that really angers them and they want it to stop.I think there’s a significant chunk of the anti-porn backlash right now that is people who they might say like, yeah, we should ban it. But I think really they’d just be just as happy if we went back to the old studio model where performers are completely disempowered, where performers are functionally just exploited by a [00:30:00] studio system that underpays them and doesn’t give them rights to own their own images and things like that, because that’s what it was like for a long time.SHEFFIELD: It was. And it’s notable that, in those studio days, the industry actually had a lot of prominent Republicans, that were running the studios, as a matter of fact.DAHL: Yeah, Many of them are still around. Many of them won’t be hiring me for obvious reasons, but I’m fine with that.Outdated attitudes among many middle-aged and older women regarding adult mediaSHEFFIELD: The other thing, besides the incels wanting the government to take their porn away from them, is that when you look at public opinion surveys, it looks like that consistently, women are more likely to say that porn is morally wrong.And there are multiple polls that show this, but one I’m looking at here, that we’re looking at, it’s from the American Perspective Survey. and they just, show a pretty wide gap for age 65 plus, 78% of women say porn is wrong. 60% of men say it’s wrong.70% of women, 50, 64. and then, 49% of men, 50 to 64. So the generations become more pro-porn as they’re younger. And for ages 18 to 29, the percentage is equal across men and women, 42% saying that it is wrong. So the majority say there’s nothing wrong with it. Men and women are the same in that age group, but it’s the only age group there.So to me, that suggests that besides trying to satiate the the religious fanatics and the incels, the spate of just insane [00:32:00] porn criminalization laws that Republicans are going for, I think they’re doing it also because they want to appeal to middle-aged and older women.DAHL: Yeah, I would agree with that. Absolutely. It’s also the way that the age verification verification laws are being passed is like it’s happening amidst this separate moral panic about the accessibility of all kinds of information to minors online.Because those age verification bills end up targeting not just actual porn websites, but websites that have information about sexual health, reproductive issues, like LGBTQ content. And so yeah, it makes sense that the older generations would be the ones that are the most freaked out by young people having access to some of that stuff online. And then they’d be more likely to support like online censorship or age verification mandates.And I also think, with the people, 18 to 29 year olds, being really no difference in gender influencing how morally acceptable or not they think porn is—and it is still like it’s still almost half, 42% of men and women, 18 to 29 said they think porn is morally wrong. Which, you know, as someone who works in the industry, I’m like, that’s unfortunate.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Although I think a lot of them are lying.DAHL: I agree.SHEFFIELD: Social desirability bias.DAHL: That’s, that is literally the other thing is I’m like, this is a self-reported survey and you’re asking people about something that is that is controversial and stigmatized. Do you really think everyone’s going to answer honestly, or are they going to answer what they think makes them [00:34:00] look the best?But I do think that a meaningful thing that’s influencing the difference with 18 to 29 year olds responses, could it is still a majority, it is still, 58% total that say it’s either not a moral issue or it is acceptable and like, younger millennials and most of Gen Z are aware of the existence of quote unquote ethical porn. And I think that’s probably coloring that response too. Most people, in their twenties and thirties are very aware that the only porn you can find is not just XNXX, or whatever, free tube site. It’s like there’s all kinds of it. And when it’s more ethical is probably when you are getting it directly from the source of whoever made it. So I think that’s got to be coloring some of the response there.SHEFFIELD: On the whole thing though, why do you think women seem to be more likely to say that it’s wrong, do you think?DAHL: It’s really not surprising that women tend more to express moral objections to porn.And I think that’s a response that’s coming from a couple different places. Like one, I think, I think any woman is going to, especially the older you are, like in the 65 plus group, like my mom falls into that category. My mom is in her seventies, and she has had, she wasn’t allowed to play sports in high school, because Title IX wasn’t passed yet. They didn’t fund girls’ sports.Like my mom lived through the era of not being able to have her own credit card until [00:36:00] she was past college age, at the very least. And so my mom comes from that generation, like boomer women who did, they were growing up with very extreme forms of misogyny and sexism, and it that impacted their opportunities and their lives.And, my mom is also like pretty, pretty feminist. Like she’s always been the breadwinner in the family. And so I’m just using her like as an example. She’s a little different now because of the fact that I’m her daughter and I do porn, and we’ve obviously had to have a lot of conversations about it over the years.But her initial reaction to finding out that this was my career choice was just abject horror. Because her impression of the industry was like, it can’t possibly be ethical. There’s no way that you’ll be treated well or be safe because the existence of the porn industry alone is proof that the men who run things there are looking for ways to exploit women.And it’s just this assumption that it’s like this very seedy, shady industry where exploitation is to be expected and it is the norm. And so I do think with older generations, that is very much the assumption. And they’re also less likely to be in touch with the younger generations’ internet culture, where porn and being open about sexuality is far more normalized for people who are now in their twenties and thirties.So I think it’s like, it is a little bit like with the older women being so heavily against porn. I think it’s like a mix of things, but I think a lot of it is [00:38:00] very much coming from a very specific gendered experience that women of these older generations probably have, where it’s just far, it’s so hard for them to understand how porn could exist in a way that isn’t destructive to women generally.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And historically speaking, I mean, it definitely is the case that, for most of human history, sex workers, sex working women, were heavily exploited by men, controlled by them. And if that’s all you know, then it’s not a surprise to that people would think that’s how things are now, but it’s not.DAHL: Exactly. Yeah. And the only reason my mom now is not really, doesn’t really think that way is because I’m in her life and she has the direct example of me being successful and really liking what I do. And very obviously not being exploited. Like I’m very much in control of everything that I take part in and, yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I guess probably a thing for some of the younger women is that they know people, or they themselves are doing it—DAHL: Oh yeah. I mean—SHEFFIELD: Like the girl next door.DAHL: —the 18-29 Group.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I was going to say like the girl next door has been a trope in porn for a long time, but now it is the literal girl next door for a lot of people.DAHL: Yeah. Easily it could be.The hetero dating recession is both sides rediscovering partnership when women are now finally independentSHEFFIELD: So that’s probably had an impact as well. But that does go into kind of a larger point though of how this is all being, what would we call it? The sort of democratization of sex work, it is part of a broader reconfiguring of of social norms and economic norms that we’re seeing because [00:40:00] this is a unique moment in human history.People will talk about, oh, AI is the unique moment in human history, but there’s actually something that’s been underway for a lot longer, which has, I don’t think been remarked upon enough. And that is that this is the first time that there are large-scale societies in which hundreds of millions of women have basically full economic rights. Marital rape is not allowed. And you know, it is not perfect by any means, but this is the point in human history, nothing like this has ever happened before.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And sex work is part of that. And it works to the benefit of both sides of the heterosexual equation. And I think people haven’t, a lot of people haven’t figured that out yet.DAHL: Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree. And I think a lot of people are not only haven’t figured it out, but are confused and maybe just angered by it. And because they don’t, they necessarily don’t see the path of how we got here, in a general sense. I mean we don’t have enough, like we have really terrible labor politics in the United States.We have the worst wealth gap that we’ve ever seen. Like the wealth disparity is really bad. And then, in 2020 when lockdowns were happening, it’s here comes this OnlyFans platform and it blows up like, like blows up the internet essentially.And so it’s like, why would anyone be surprised that there’s a bunch of young women who find out like, oh wait, I got laid off from my job. Oh, my job is requiring me to go to work and interface and not letting me be [00:42:00] at a safe distance and asking me to put my health at risk, otherwise I’m going to be let go. And you’re telling me that there’s a website where I can go post boob photos and potentially just get to stay at home and replace that lost income?That’s a piece of it. But obviously it goes deeper than that. I think it’s just like there’s a whole lot of societal and economic issues that are happening concurrently that result in this kind of explosion of more women, not only seeing sex work as a viable option, but actually taking the step of trying it out.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, it’s also I think getting people to re-conceive of just conventional, forced relationships, economic heterosexuality if you will.DAHL: Yes, hah.SHEFFIELD: So that a lot of that women don’t need to be dependent on men anymore. And so they’re not marrying guys who are jerks, or getting in a relationship with them, or whatever you want to call it.DAHL: True.SHEFFIELD: That saying, that old saying of a woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle—DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: It has proven to be true. But a lot of men also haven’t realized that also can be a good thing for them also. Because the idea that you would want to have somebody who’s just there for your money. What’s that? What value is that really, to you? You should want more than that.DAHL: Yeah. I agree. I mean, yeah, psychologically, that is an interesting question. It also seems, I mean, [00:44:00] I’m just talking about like the way I see people behaving on to a degree just on the internet, but also on Love Is Blind Season 10, which has been occupying a lot of my head rent-free lately because it is just, it’s a reality dating show, but it does such a good job of showing the difference.For anyone who hasn’t been aware of the discourse around this show, it’s this dating show and the most recent season, it’s like most of the women seem to be pretty serious about the dating and relationship and eventually marriage aspect of the show. Because you’re supposed to get engaged and married someone that you meet on the show.But the vast majority of the men are obviously not, they don’t really understand the seriousness of like you’ve proposed to someone. Like you are, you are entertaining the idea of actually marrying someone.And they, a lot of them don’t seem to actually comprehend that. They’re almost treating it like a joke. And a number of the guys say, have said things about not wanting a gold digger, but then ironically, like they don’t actually have money. And this is something that I actually do see a lot online as well is that kind of commentary coming from some men online—and it’s just there.I have problems with it on on both sides, though, obviously. Because when I see women talking about oh, I’m not, unless the guy has like X figures in his bank account, unless he’s over six feet tall, like I’m not going to fuck with him. And I just don’t understand that. But I am also not a straight person.So like for me, when I observe these [00:46:00] opinions and these differences, I’m just like, I feel like I’m studying a sociology experiment. Because none of it makes sense to me. And even if I were super straight, and attached to that kind of way of thinking of approaching a dating relationship, I still don’t know that I would go in that direction.Because as I previously stated, like my personal life example growing up is that my mom was the breadwinner. And for half my childhood, my dad was a stay at home dad. Then eventually they swapped and my mom was stay at home for a bit, and then my dad was the main working parent.But if it’s taken down to average, like my mom worked for many more years than my dad did. And the whole time she was working made three times more than my dad did.And then I’ve kind of, now I’m kind of replicating that. Because I’ve been with my partner for seven years, and I’m very much the breadwinner. Like I’m the person that really is managing the finances and, doing all that, and I’m very happy with it.I don’t, the idea that I would have not wanted to be with my partner because he’s not going to make significantly more than me is actually crazy to me.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, yeah, and the interesting, fun irony of it is that, as women have become not economically dependent, what hopefully will happen is that the economics of relationships would go away, the economics aspect. Because, I mean a lot of the performers that I know, they say, what is a trophy wife? That’s a sex worker.DAHL: Basically, yep.SHEFFIELD: And it is a sex worker who can’t go to her own house at night.DAHL: [00:48:00] Yeah.SHEFFIELD: To the extent though that relationships can be just about love, and just about caring for each other, though, that should be something everybody should be in favor of.DAHL: Yeah, I agree.SHEFFIELD: And so the things we can do to get to that point, we should do them.DAHL: I fully agree. And unfortunately, it’s also like the majority of all of our cultural messaging about sex and relationships is going in the complete opposite direction of where it probably needs to be, in order to create the conditions for people to have happy, healthy relationships like that. I’m going to invoke Love Is Blind again, I’m so sorry—SHEFFIELD: I was actually going to ask you to talk about it again.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Because I felt like you hadn’t hit on everything you were going to say on it.’Love Is Blind’ as a microcosm of heterosexual dating attitudesDAHL: It’s the way that, using the show as, as maybe like a case study of the dating landscape for many people in America. At least if we just isolate it to straight people in their thirties, like cisgender men and women looking to date the opposite sex in their thirties. And Love Is Blind is like a kind of a case study in that, because what you see is like a lot of the men really are subscribed to this idea of being the dominant one in the relationship, which doesn’t just mean in terms of personality dominant, it means like they want to be, you hear them say over and over again, I want to be the protector and the provider.There’s many examples in the show of a conversation happening where the woman is like unsure of whether she wants to have kids. Like maybe she’s open to it someday, but it’s not something that she’s like, ‘I’m ready to have a very serious conversation about this being imminent, like in the next couple years, a thing that I do.’And [00:50:00] the men are almost universally pushing for that to be a thing. It’s like, ‘oh no, but you’d be such a great mother and like, I really want, I want four kids.’And it’s just, so what I see when I’m, when I’m watching it, is just like, this is purely just unrealistic. Like a lot of these men are like, they’re probably just listening to too many red pill podcasts. They’re living in a fantasy version of what their marriage should look like when it happens. And they’re, and it’s like they want this American dream. They want a marriage, they want a trad wife. They want a couple kids, but they have not taken the time or kind of honed the emotional maturity to actually handle that.It’s like they just want it because it’s a status symbol essentially—to be a man with a successful career, a wife and a family. But there’s no genuine thought that has gone into the reality of what it requires and what you, what kind of sacrifices you have to make to maintain that.And I think that that is a thing that I feel like I’ve really experienced with a lot of men, even in my own life. The last couple of exes that I had before I met my current partner, it was like this. I had, I literally, when I was like 26, I dated a guy for close to two years, and there was a handful of times that we had a conversation where he literally—I was 26 and he was like two years older than me, and I was like, we’re serious enough with dating to have been together for over a year. But this was not, I was not thinking about marrying this person. And yet his, not only him, but his entire family was asking: ‘When are you guys going to get married? We want grandkids. When are you going to [00:52:00] do it?’ And I was like, that’s actually unhinged.SHEFFIELD: It’s not in your business. Yeah.DAHL: Yeah, like I was like this, he needs me to even consider that for a moment, this person would need to go through a significant amount of therapy, yeah. And then for him it was like, he’d talk about, he would have these conversations where he’d fantasize about me popping out babies for him or something. And it, at no point in those conversations where he was fantasizing about that, did he ever have to say about the economic demands of that?It’s like it didn’t exist in his brain. It’s just, it’s really just this thing where it’s, like, oh yeah, get married, have I, which blows my mind. Like I just don’t understand how people can operate that way.SHEFFIELD: It’s also what kind of work would you do with the children? Because like that, if you want to have four kids, that’s not something that one person can manage by themselves.DAHL: When I was dating that guy, and he was saying those kinds of things, neither of us made enough income to be able to have one kid. Not even combined. Not enough.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. I’m just saying even apart from the economics of it, just the time commitment, there’s, it’s a lot, there’s a lot that’s involved, especially in the early days.But, there’s one aspect of the Olympics, social aspect of it that I thought was really interesting, which was the gold medalist skater, Alysa Liu, her father. He had her as a single dad, and all of her siblings, from [00:54:00] surrogacy and egg donors. And so, this is a guy who, he wanted a family, and he didn’t impose it on someone else. He was like, you know what? I think I can do this. And I really want kids. And then he went and did it.DAHL: I love that. I actually didn’t know that. I hadn’t seen that in the news anywhere and, I was keeping up a lot with Alysa Liu, but that is so fucking cool.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and it’s that I think that’s, another area for government policy to step in. Because, people, countries have a right to be concerned about birth rates and things like that, making sure there’s enough people in the country. But obviously the best way to have people have more kids is to make it so that they can afford to have more kids.DAHL: And make sure that people that are having kids are the ones who really want them. Not women who didn’t have access to reproductive healthcare who were—SHEFFIELD: Yep.DAHL: —forced into having them. Yeah.Please don’t pretend AI is your boyfriendSHEFFIELD: Yeah, All right, we’re just coming up to about an hour here with our chat. It’s been very fun. But one point, just as we get to the end here, I want to circle back to AI. One thing we didn’t talk about in our outline is that, so besides the fact that people are making porn with AI, there’s a Reddit subreddit that says, it’s called MyBoyfriendIsAI. So some people apparently want AI to be their boyfriend or girlfriend.DAHL: Mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: You have thoughts on that, I’m imagining.DAHL: Yeah. Look, I will, my first thought is I am not surprised. If given the option of, if you literally asked me, hey, would you want to date [00:56:00] any of the men from this most recent season of Love Is Blind, season 10 in Ohio, or would you want to date an AI chat bot? Like I would, even with my ethical issues with AI, I would probably lean more toward the damn chatbot.That’s how bleak it can be. I will say. And it, and even looking at the posts that women are sharing in the subreddit, it’s like most it is like they’re just, they just want to be listened to, and like validation from a quote-unquote male figure. I’m putting that in air quotes because it’s a bot that has no gender.But, I can easily see why there are women who will end up here in the MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit. But I also think that it’s symptomatic of something that is more widespread than that. Because we also, there’s so much media about the male loneliness epidemic. Which I always want to push back against and say it’s just a loneliness epidemic.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.DAHL: I think that the ways that it affects men is maybe more visible. Which I think is just because men often are the center of narratives in our culture. So it’s not surprising that it’s a little more visible and people are trying to classify it as a specifically male loneliness epidemic.But a lot of people are lonely. And there’s such a diversion in what a lot of men, and a lot of women want or ideally think a relationship should be. I think that’s pretty well-illustrated with this. Because it’s also, I’m like, I understand why some of the people in this subreddit are like, and we did, we talked about this before we recorded, how it’s the subreddit MyBoyfriendIsAI, it is the people posting and who are members are overwhelmingly [00:58:00] women.Although there are some men, but I’m still going to generalize and just say women in the subreddit, because that’s mostly true. While I’m not surprised that this is happening, I also, it’s like some of the posts that I look at, I’m like, yeah, you would be lonely and have trouble finding a boyfriend who’s a real person because the things that you’re telling this chatbot that you want are like no human being could satisfy that.What maybe what you don’t want is—you’re calling it your boyfriend, like that the AI is your boyfriend. But it seems to me, based on the screenshots you’re sharing, that maybe a boyfriend isn’t what you want. Like I think maybe you just want a therapist. You’re calling this AI your boyfriend, but the way you’re interacting with it is that you are just wanting it to validate you 100% of the time. And that’s not a romantic partner’s job.SHEFFIELD: No. because everybody’s entitled to their own thoughts and feelings and activities. Yeah. And to quote ChatGPT, Siri, “you’re absolutely right!”DAHL: Have I dazzled you?SHEFFIELD: But I think this subreddit does really show though that, when you are talking to a chat, you are talking to yourself, actually. That’s what you’re doing.DAHL: Yeah. It’s concerning.SHEFFIELD: This is just another form of masturbation, basically.DAHL: Ah, that’s that’s so true, yeah. You’re You’re just getting just getting off to yourself.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, but, at the same time, it does show that there’s nothing wrong with trying to explore your thoughts or to think things through.Because our [01:00:00] concepts in our brains, we don’t, in our brains, we don’t think in words to ourselves. And so, when you have to forcibly express it outside of your body in words, you actually can have a better, you learn what you are thinking,DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Just simply by saying it. So I’m not going to say that it’s this horrible, end of society kind of thing. But it’s something that they probably should not make a prolonged habit of.DAHL: Yeah. It’s probably something that the chatbots should be capable of engaging with. Like anything that even remotely mimics a therapy session kind of exchange should just be not allowed. It should give you, redirect you to a real source of real talk therapy,SHEFFIELD: Agreed. Agreed.DAHL: It’s better help. At least it’s a real human, like, I don’t know.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And that it’s another area where the government should be doing something instead of a a chat bot.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: But none of this changes though until enough people realize that we deserve good things.DAHL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And we deserve to be good to each other also.DAHL: Yeah. I like, I really like the way you said that. Because one of my core beliefs is we do deserve good things. And I do think despite plenty of historical evidence, and current-day evidence to the contrary, I do think that people are at their core good. And I think that, when it’s not obvious, when there’s large-scale events that causes us to question that core goodness, it is usually, because the worst of the worst have able to gain far too much power, and they’re wielding it against us. For example, our billionaire [01:02:00] overlords.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So for people who are interested in keeping up with you in, let’s say safe for work and not safe for work ways, how might they do that?DAHL: Yeah, absolutely. So I do have a bunch of links, like links to all of my presences online at siridahl.com, S-I-R-I-D-A-H-L. The links that will take you to a spicy place are very well marked on there. I also have a Patreon, which is just patreon.com/siridahl. And I call it Siri Before Dark because the Patreon is basically the gathering collection place for all of my like, more safer work projects that I do, including kind of YouTube stuff, my podcast, First Thirst, and some other like little, side projects and things like that.And I’m mainly on Bluesky as far as like the more intellectual side of me on the internet. So you can follow me, @siridahl.com on Bluesky.SHEFFIELD: All right. Sounds good. This was fun. We’ll have to do a another one soon.DAHL: Yeah. Thank you so much for having me. This was such a, such a fun conversation. I love a deep dive.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation, and you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you become a paid subscribing member, you have unlimited access to all of the archives and I thank you very much for your support. That is really great in this tough time for media.And if you’re watching on YouTube, make sure to click the like and subscribe button so you can get notified whenever there’s a new episode. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryThe United States military is conducting bombing operations against Iran without a Congressional Declaration of War, consistently stated objectives or even terms on whether this is a war or not.Everything is in chaos: Some of it is due to incompetence within the Trump administration, of course. According to CNN and other news outlets, just days before President Donald Trump decided to follow Israel’s lead and bomb Iran, his FBI laid off an entire team of analysts who were experts in tracking Iranians online—all because they’d also been involved previously with investigating Trump’s previous retention of classified documents in a public bathroom at his Mar-a-Lago club.But that’s not the only reason the second Trump administration has been in such disarray. It’s almost as if the chaos is the point—if that even makes sense to say at all. The president and his top aides have little interest in coherent policies, but the Republican Party itself is less a political party than a loose coalition of people with grievances against America. Some of them are techno-fascists who literally want computers to replace humans. Then there are others who want to have a Christian theocracy. And then still there are others who think that they just want to have their country club and have low taxes.Despite their internal disunity, Republicans have been able to weaponize discontent against modernity and to fearmonger against minority groups, particularly people who are transgender, immigrants, or racial or religious minorities.So what can people who support democracy do in this situation? It seems so easy for politicians to just give in to the right-wing media machine. But this is not likely to work either, because while chaotic rage is what a minority of Americans want, the majority want something coherent and better.Joining me for a free flowing discussion about all of this is a longtime friend of the show, Parker Molloy. She is a media analyst and critic who writes the Present Age newsletter, and she also formerly worked as a senior staffer at Media Matters.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Audio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:32 — Republican billionaires have realized that controlling media discourse is cheap17:58 — Republicans will always call Democrats ‘socialist’ regardless of their policies26:12 — Far-right Jews like Ben Shapiro incorrectly thought they could have sexism and racism without antisemitism28:07 — Trump’s policy positions constantly shift because coherent policy is unimportant to reactionaries36:48 — The UK Labour Party is a current example that running away from your policy viewpoints doesn’t work47:49 — Durable political change follows cultural change01:00:30 — Glenn Youngkin and the myth that voters are obsessed with hating trans people01:06:23 — Liberals and progressives must move beyond criticizing others Audio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: I feel like we keep having a continued conversation because nothing that we talk about ever changes for the better it seems.PARKER MOLLOY: No, every, everything keeps getting slightly worse, just keeps edging towards the horrible.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Although I will I will say, at least at the grassroots level, I do feel like a lot of people have been learning a lot more. So like, like with Donald Trump announcing his bombing campaign against Iran. People automatically are against it. And that’s, I mean, a majority.Yeah. I think the most recent bull I saw I had that was like 25% support it. So this is, there’s some good progress on the citizen side ofMOLLOY: Yes. Now the question though is it’s just like how does that I’m just very interested, like when it comes to, the, support for Trump, Trump’s bombing and stuff like that. [00:04:00] It’s one of those times where democrats, I feel like they have a real opportunity to stake out the anti-war lane.And I kind of worry like there are clearly some democrats who are very much pro. War with Iran, like John Fetterman clearly wants to keep bombing, Moscowitz, he’s the one who he opposes the war powers resolution because he called it the Ayatollah Protection Act.It’s one of the, one of those things, where it’s like, Yeah.there are some pro-war democrats here who maybe don’t want to sound pro-war, which is why they’re kind of like dancing around a little bit. But overall, I think that now is a good time to, stake out the anti-war lane if, if there is ever an opportunity to do so.It’s right now, it’s before the public gets on board with, this. If they do, instead of seeding the conversation to, to Republicans to be like, well, clearly Iran, the regime is evil and we have to, had to do something.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it is, I mean, it’s a, it is a welcome contrast in many ways to the Iraq war because it, at least with the second Iraq war, the Bush administration they cared enough to lie about itMOLLOY: Yeah. I feel like we’re not even getting lied to anymore. They’re, or they’re, they’re not bothering to lie in a convincing way anymore. They’re not making a case. I did see some I can’t remember where I saw it, but someone called the administration’s response to all of this, war slap, which is basically, ‘cause Trump’s been like calling up reporters.Every major outlet and weirdly giving them all different stories about like how long he plans to be there, whether he’s planning, boots on the groundSHEFFIELD: the [00:06:00] objectiveMOLLOY: yeah. What, why he did it. You have Marco Rubio saying like, yeah, we had to do this because Israel was going to attack Iran anyway.And so yeah.we kind of ha it made sense for us to go in at that moment. And it’s like, and then today Trump’s like, absolutely not. They didn’t get me to go and do anything. I didn’t want to. It’s, I feel like the whole point is just to throw everything out there And to see what sticks. LikeSHEFFIELD: Yeah.MOLLOY: one, one of my, one of my favorite things with the war right now is on one hand you have some Republicans saying we’re not at war.Where is the, what Congress hasn’t voted for war. This is not a war, this is.a military action. Like whatever euphemism they wanna use. And then you have other Republican members of Congress who are like, this war has been going on for 47 years and we are ending it. It’s like, so, so it’s also, it’s a war that’s been going on forever, but it’s also not a war.And if you think about it, it’s like, the last time that the United States formally declared war on a country was World War ii. So it, like, does Mark Wayne Mullen actually believe that we haven’t been in a war since World War ii? I don’t think so, but I think he thinks that it’s a winning message.Republican billionaires have realized that controlling media discourse is cheapSHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and doesn’t seem to be that way so far, so that’s good. But you know, it, it goes back to though the idea of shaping opinion. And that is why I think we’ve seen so much recent consolidation of media by right wing oligarchs. And in particular, the most recently, the acquisition of Paramount by David Ellison and Larry Ellison, his dad and who are strong Israel supporters and [00:08:00] Netanyahu supporters.We have to point that out. Now it looks like they have the prevailing bid, which they got. Through working with Trump in the most corrupt and blatant fashion I’ve ever seen for any sort of corporate acquisition. And to to buy the company Warner Brothers. And so now they wanna get, so they got CBS news, now they want CNN but the ratings are just going down the toilet every time they do it.So that’s at least a good thingMOLLOY: Yeah I do think that they’re trying, it’s, it, a big part of this is to just, even if the ratings tank and even if, like, I feel like cable news and like legacy media as a whole is a struggling field, right. Right now and is probably only gonna get more difficult as time goes on.Which, when it comes to like, Paramount’s to buy Warner Brothers, I thought it was interesting that they wanted to bid for all of Warner Brothers instead of or all of Warner Brothers discovery. Instead of just waiting for CNN to split off and buy it separately. Like, I think they realize that the movie studios where the money’s at, and, owning all that IP is where the money’s at, like. Using CNN as a propaganda arm is kind of just like, that’s not gonna make money for them in the long run, but it will accomplish a different goal which is also, you also have Larry Ellison involved in the purchase of TikTok. So,SHEFFIELD: true too. Yeah.MOLLOY: You’ve got that, and obviously you have Elon Musk with Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg has been getting cozy with Trump over the past few years.And, it’s, there’s a real, like, big right wing takeover of media and communications services and it’s, I feel like that’s gonna be a big story in the coming years. Like, how people who aren’t part of that bubble, [00:10:00] who aren’t who aren’t Barry Weiss, who aren’t, con conservative podcasters and stuff, like how the rest of us kind of get our news and get our information and what that means in the years to come, because there was like that recent there was a recent study about how being on Twitter basically pushes you to the right, it’s like you’re, and it’ll ha like I’ll open Twitter because I look at it to keep track of what’s going on in the world, or what like powerful people are saying.And yeah, it’s a cesspool you get bombarded with a lot of really extreme content that’s supposed to make you feel a very certain way. And I think that’s what tiktoks gonna totally turn into. Maybe not as sloppy as Twitter. ‘cause Elon Musk is. S sloppy like, maybe it won’t be as obvious, but, even the more gentle propagandists, at Paramount are showing their hand a little bit.You had, you had Barry Weiss the other day retweeting a video of someone like getting in like a weird insult at Zoran Momani. She like retweeted that with like a fire emoji. And the Twitter account for 60 minutes straight up said that Iran has nuclear weapons, which is literally no one is saying that, like the Trump administration is not even making that claim, but they put that out there and you have journalists jumping ship and saying like, I feel like I don’t have editorial independence anymore. It’s grim.SHEFFIELD: well it is and it’s like it is in some ways like the. The old order had to die in some way or another. And I wish it was not this way. But, maybe it is that way. And the weird thing though [00:12:00] is that with this whole consolidation and, trying to manipulate opinion and manufacture consent for war, which I mean, this is like a cliche of Noam Chomsky, which,MOLLOY: He’s someone who my opinion of has shifted a bit in recent months especially.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. I know, right? He had one, a couple of good ideas, but a lot of really bad, and Ben wants, but but my point being though, like the other weird thing about the way that these conservatives are taking over media is they don’t seem to understand that they’re on the right.Like people like Barry Weiss or David Ellison, like a lot of these people. They actually call themselves liberals. And people who are progressive, I think, contribute to that problem by using the word reactionary centrist, no, these people are just conservatives. Okay. Sam Harris, conservative Barry Weis, conservative.These are not centrist. There’s no such thing as an informed centrist. They don’t exist. So please stop saying that they do.MOLLOY: Yeah that’s really interesting. And I have noticed that, I mean, it was interesting because like, I don’t know, it was like 10 years ago, eight years ago, somewhere around there, like you had was a big time for like a lot of the conservative, like the intellectual dark web types, the, oh, they’re not conservative.They’re classical liberals, like they’re heterodox.like that was the whole, the whole thing. It was this, it was this pretty deliberate attempt to frame themselves, not on the right but as the true middle. Elon Musk will come around and be like, he will promote something that was, like the reform party in the uk. Which they’re to the right of the Tories. he’ll be like, I don’t see what’s far right about this party.Their, all their views seem very very sensible, very, I mean, I consider myself, he always, he loves to say he considers himself [00:14:00] a moderate, which is just. Flat out not true. He’s not moderate on anything. He will he’ll show up in like doing, video he’ll video in for in, what’s the German far right party?A FD like, and he’ll be like their views seem perfectly normal and fine. And I don’t understand why people call them far. Right. Why don’t they call, and then he’ll argue that someone like Chuck Schumer is far left, it’s like, I don’t know, man. I feel like you’re kind of, you’re kind of trying to the Overton window, and I know that like, that gets talked about a lot, but, just trying to shift what people consider to be. A moderate opinion is, and I re I remember years and years ago when there, there was a whole thing with, when Candace Owens started hanging out with Kanye West, there was a Twitter trending topic that said, far right influencer Candace Owens.And she got so mad about that. She was like, I’m not far right. I’m I’m just I’m in the middle. I’m, I’m a little right of center or whatever. Like, however it was that she was trying to like frame her views. And you and Jack Dorsey, who is still the CEO at the time, he reached out to her and he followed her on Twitter and he fixed it and he said, this will never happen again.And you had conservatives pointing to that as evidence that Twitter was biased against conservatives. It’s all the project, a certain narrative to shift, to try to shift the public’s understanding of where various people on, the political spectrum are.SHEFFIELD: And it’s like when you look at the Trump administration or reform in the UK or any of these other far right parties, they don’t really have coherent policy arguments. it’s all about, well, my views are common sense, like this just makes sense. and so [00:16:00] therefore, policing what the possibility corridor is or the Overton window, that’s really the, that is their number one argument that while these ideas are just right.Your ideas are communists. Every, like Trump has now started using the word communist all the time, like referring to Democrats who are, have it literally expressed opposition to, not even single payer healthcare, but like national health insurance of some kind. He calls them a communist which is ludicrous.But, if you don’t know very much about political ideology or whatever, it’s, it apparently at least has some effectiveness. And if you can control the platforms, then I think you know that, and that is why they’ve realized that, we’re gonna do this, but it just isn’t working because, these arguments, like this is, this was one of the problems that I had as a, when I was conservative, that, I was, I would say to my colleagues, I’d be like, okay, can we please have some arguments for our ideas here. Like, I want to see an argument for why, because you always say tax cuts always increase revenue. Well, show me math that says that so I can put it into a column. Or if you don’t have math that says that then don’t, then you can’t say that. Like, I would say that to writers who I was editing and, and they just would say, oh, you’re being negative, Matt you’re being negative.And I was like, well, no, I’m actually trying to be factual. But that’s not what they want. And you just see that over and over, like with this Iran stuff, everything is that there’s no stated reason. There’s no real goal. Like, so now they’re not even saying that they want regime change, whatever that means.They don’t even talk about that anymore. So, so we’re literally just bombing themMOLLOY: Just bombing, bombing for fun, got a, what’s that? That old Simpsons got a nuke, someone, like, yeah with thatRepublicans will always call Democrats ‘socialist’ regardless of their policiesMOLLOY: there was [00:18:00] something in the 2020 Democratic primary that I, I think a lot about which is, it was during one of the debates, it was Pete Buttigieg, was early in the primary. And he, he said something to the effect of, look, if we run on a bunch of far left policies, Republicans are gonna call us a bunch of crazy socialists, and if we run on a bunch of moderate policies, Republicans are gonna call us a bunch of crazy socialists. So why don’t we just run on whatever we actually believe and let that fall where it may, because they’re gonna, they’re gonna attack us for the exact same reason every time.Which I think is why the argument that, oh, Kamala Harris was too far to the left. Like I’ve, I’ve seen some of the like, the third way type think tanks be like, well, you’ll notice that Trump didn’t attack her for being too moderate. It’s like, in what world would he, like, like any, he, if he was running against.Ted Cruz, he would say Ted Cruz is far left. like he, he would make some sort of a argument to that effect. he, it’s, it doesn’t matter. It, you could take anyone and the playbook is gonna still be the same because, attack. Oh, Dems are socialists.Okay. I mean, that’s, it’s a, it’s a label. You can apply to anyone, but I don’t think that. It’s accurate in any real way, and there’s no policy. there same thing happened with the border in 2024. You had Kamala Harris running ads being like, we’re gonna be so tough on the border. Like Trump, Trump is actually the weak one on the border.We’re gonna be tough. We’re, we’re to, we’re pushing to his right. He blocked a bill that we all support, which was basically like the Trump 2016 immigration [00:20:00] policies. Like we’re, we’re doing that. Like Democrats were still attacked as being open borders, which. There’s not been a single open borders Democrat in power.I mean, when, when Obama was in office, I remember there being, he did a press conference at the border where he’s, where he was saying like, look I’ve agreed to all, all these Republican policy proposals. I’ve I’ve given funding to border patrol and all of this. And he joked, he’s like, what?What will they want next? A moat? And it was like the next week in Congress. Joe Walsh during his term in office, when he was still a tea party guy, he jokingly went up there with like a stuffed alligator and he was like, yes, we would like a moat. It’s like,SHEFFIELD: Well, and Obama actually deported more people than Trump did.MOLLOY: Yeah. He got aSHEFFIELD: Even now, like his rate is gonna be less than Obama.MOLLOY: And I still, and you’ll still see some Democrats be like, we were actually more efficient when it came to deporting people, which is not what I think a lot, like my personal, like, policy views on immigration are not, like, I don’t see that and go, oh, yay. Like, that doesn’t make me happy. Like I, I think it’s expected and it’s accurate, but at the same time it’s like, man who is this message for? Because Republican voters are still gonna think that Republicans areSHEFFIELD: TougherMOLLOY: To the right of Democrats on immigration or any other policy. And one of the things that I’ve been thinking about as it concerns the, the current bombing campaign that Trump has going on is that.In 2004, you had John, like, the way that John Kerry ran for president, president in 2004 I thought was really interesting because [00:22:00] his big argument wasn’t that the war in Iraq was wrong and that it needed to end. It was that it was being mismanaged. Like he was still trying to do the thing where he is like, he’s like, okay I’ll agree that, we should be there and we should be doing something, but I would do it better.I would do it more efficient. And in doing that you had re Republican voters just being like, no, he won’t, not believing him. And you had, you had like anti-war voters who. Would vote Democrat, who were just turned off by all this, are who were just like, I, no, I want you to be anti-war. I want you to oppose the war in there.Not try to triangulate some, some middle ground that, that probably doesn’t exist. And, and the, the tricky thing about this is that the longer you’re in a war, the harder it is to just be like, yeah, no, we should we, we need to get out and we need to end it. Because the, then you have what happened with Afghanistan during the Biden administration where it was like chaotic withdrawal and things immediately got worse in Afghanistan and he got piled on for that.And that’s why when it comes to what’s happening in Iran, Iran right now, it’s like they gotta find an off ramp immediately, otherwise. This is just gonna be something where we’re, we’re gonna get stuck there and there’s gonna, there’s gonna be backlash and there, there’s gonna be blow back. And who, who knows who we’re gonna radicalize, in, in doing that, I mean, there was like, there was a tweet from, I can’t remember who it was, it was someone on Twitter.It was at the, at the start of the, after October 7th, 2023. It [00:24:00] was as Israel was like bombing Gaza. Like when that started someone, someone said on Twitter it was like, Hey if I was, a Palestinian living in Gaza and. And Israel just killed, bombed and killed my whole family and destroyed the entire, area and in, in, in, in effort to wipe out Hamas.Like I would grow up and the first thing I’d wanna do is start Hamas too. like you’re basically, yeah, you’re radicalizing people and, and maybe entire generations of people and you’re, making the US an unreliable partner. The fact that Trump ripped up the, the nuclear agreement with Iran, like why would they ever trust us?There were con, there were, negotiations that were happening very recently and Iran seemed be to be, participating in them, but then. We just go in and take out like their entire leadership and like, ISHEFFIELD: think that’s gonna make them moreMOLLOY: yeah. Well, and then, I saw a story yesterday. It was just like, Iran not interested in negotiating.It’s like, Yeah. No. Crap. You, like, ISHEFFIELD: Or even if they were like, why would, like, how could you trust that they would be, like they were betrayed by the United States in terms of negotiation. So why wouldn’t you pretend to, have some sort of treaty and then just violate it as much as you could if you were them?Like it makes senseMOLLOY: like that’s the thing. It’s all of this stuff is gonna do so much damage to the reputation of the United States for decades to come. The fact that. Trump wasn’t kept out of office after his first term, like the fact that he came back into power. I think it sent a really [00:26:00] strong message to the world that it’s just like, no, that wasn’t some weird aberration.This is just like who the United States might be every four to eight years now. Like, becauseSHEFFIELD: gets a little bit, yeah,Far-right Jews like Ben Shapiro incorrectly thought they could have sexism and racism without antisemitismMOLLOY: Yeah, because you, I think it I think it’s interesting that a lot of the people who were on the, on, on the far right during Trump’s, like first term are now like the influencers, like you, like Ben Shapiro, like he got really big during Trump’s first term.And then, like if you fast forward to today. He his videos aren’t doing so well anymore. He’s losing audiences and the viewers are going to more extreme people than him. And he was the guy who he said, there’s no such thing as, he said, there is no such thing as like a reasonable Muslim.He was saying that more than half of the, Muslims on the planet were radicalized and that we should fear them. Like people now look at him and they’re like, oh, he’s some squishy centrist type, and the people on the right who’ve migrated to Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens, and, Yeah.Tucker Carlson, who, like it’s, I, I don’t think that, unless things go really, unless things really blow up in Trump’s face, between now and, 2028 especially, it’s like I feel like the Republican party may continue to just veer off in that direction and, won’t, moderate back to something more like, Jeb Bush.Like, imagine the Republicans like cons, even considering a Jeb Bush candidacy in like now, or someone who had the identical policies of Jeb Bush, like it’s laughable pe like, and I think it’s really just kind of speaks to how they have successfully [00:28:00] gotten their own base, at least to, to shift further to the extremes.Trump’s policy positions constantly shift because coherent policy is unimportant to reactionariesSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it does go back to the Overton window issue. But, and that’s why the conservatives like Barry Weiss, they should be focusing their efforts on attacking the far right, but they really don’t, they spend most of their time attacking the left, which of course is because they’re on the right.But nonetheless, it isn’t going to help them in the long run because, the Republican Party. The only way out of this is if they get electorally, defeated in such a horribly horrible way for them. Like, like, Barry Goldwater, Barry Goldwater was the last honest Republican to come to actually run on what they wanted to do.And magically Americans did not like it. They were horrified by it. And and you’re seeing that with the Trump second administration, that he’s doing all the things that Barry Goldwater wanted. And of course people hate them. But when he was renting, he was not telling the people who, like half, probably about half the Trump voters had no idea what his positions were like.He, they literally had no idea what his views were.MOLLOY: that was the thing in I, in 2020 his campaign website just straight up didn’t have an issues page.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And they had no platform atMOLLOY: There was No plan. yeah. There was no plan for a second term. It was just like, gonna keep doing what I’m doing and vote for me, and you’ll see what happens.And you c and then in the 2024, you had him you had the Heritage Foundation come out there and they’re like, we got project 2025 for you right here. And immediately people were horrified by, seeing these policies laid out, which they’ve done that before. They’ve had these, those reports for years.And and Trump in his first term, enacted a lot of the recommendations, when he could.SHEFFIELD: Well, and then Trump lied and said, oh I’m not affiliated with that, even though it was co-written by the guy who [00:30:00] was my budgetMOLLOY: Yeah. Yeah. He’s like, no. That’s, yeah. I, he called, I think he said, yeah, that was written by like some people on the severe, right. and I remember one of the things was like, Yeah, Republicans trump’s, if Trump gets back into power he’s gonna, he’s gonna ban all the people of associated with Project 25, 25 from being in his administration.It’s just like, immediately after getting elected, he starts working directly with these people and incorporating them into his administration. And I it really kind of speaks to the fact that candidates, especially I think Republican candidates can’t really run on what they want to do because the individual policies tend to be pretty unpopular unless you’re, picking at like a. Like attacking trans rights, like they’ve successfully shifted public opinion on trans rights to where maybe that works to their advantage. And so they can talk about like what they’ll want to do to trans people. But you know, like a lot of things like Trump, Trump never once mentioned, I want to annex Greenland.Like during the campaign,SHEFFIELD: I want to bomb. In fact he said, Kamala Harris will go to war with Iran if you elect her.MOLLOY: Exactly. He was just, there his big policy positions, it was always funny. He would be like no Tax on tips. It’s like, okay that’s your, that’s one of your big policies. Okay. Even though it’s like, right, fine. Like,SHEFFIELD: And even attacking trans people, like, there are basically no trans people in America. So, whatever policy, no matter how terrible or how great it would be toward trans people, not really going to affect anyone who’s, who is cisgender. Like, that’s the reality. So it’s not gonna put money in your pocket.It’s not gonna, help you afford a home. It’s not gonna give you a better education. It’s [00:32:00] not gonna do any of those things for you. AndMOLLOY: I do think that the one policy that, that he kind of, you, there actually, there are two, two things he said he was going to do during his campaign that I think that he is pretty much followed through on. One was be really obsessed with tariffs. Like, like he really got into that. And two was mass deportations.Like, but as we’ve, mentioned, it’s just like Democrats were. Just as effective. They were just quieter about it. there weren’t, you didn’t have, as many instances of things like ice gunning down people in the streets. But, other than that, you kind of hit it. And I think one thing that’s interesting in watching kind of the consultant class of the Democratic party how they’re operating is their, one of their takeaways from 2024 was, oh, we shouldn’t say what we believe we should.like, there we, oh, Kamala Harris, filled out an A CLU questionnaire that’s, that asked her about her beliefs on civil liberties issues. She shouldn’t have done that, which is so, like, I understand that from a strategy point of view, but. I think it’s bad that the conventional wisdom now seems to be like, candidates should not tell you what they, what they will do if given power candidates should just say, trust me.Trust me, it’ll be fine. I’ll, project your own views onto me. And that’ll be great because it’s easy when you, when you don’t say what you, what you believe in. And people can just go, Yeah.Trump’s only gonna round up the criminals and he’s only gonna do this or that.And the, a lot of times it’s not things that Trump actually said or anything like that. It was just like, [00:34:00] that was what people believed and they projected their own beliefs onto Donald Trump as people project their beliefs onto others all the time. So it might make sense for Democratic candidates to not respond to 20 page questionnaires that ask about whether trans people in prison should have access to healthcare or not. Maybe but I think it’s a bad thing for democracy as a whole when there, there seems to be this shift away from like actually saying what you believe because it’s more advantageous to to just lie.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and the thing is though, that viewpoint that campaign strategy, it isn’t actually going to work for people on the center to left. And it’s something that is inherent to reaction is, which is of course the more extreme form of conservatism. And I’m gonna, there’s a famous quote from Jean Paul Sartre, which he was talking about anti-Semitism and why it doesn’t make sense.And so I’m gonna just read it here for those who haven’t seen it. So he says:Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous and open to challenge. They are amusing themselves for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly since he believes in words. The antisemites have a right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors.that’s Donald Trump right there. That’s Donald Trump described right around world War ii. And so it’s, so, this is a inherent anti rational, anti-institutional, anti reason anti society.It is a sociopathic, revolt, personal revolt against reality. And that is why they can get away with these [00:36:00] things. If you believe in something. You can’t do that. And this is what the broader consultant class in, in the Democratic party doesn’t get they don’t understand that, the right will always, the reason why they keep talking about, culture war issues is that they don’t have policies that, or they don’t have policies that they want you to hear about.And so your goal, if you’re going to oppose them, is tell people about their actual policies, have enough platforms in which your factual statements can be seen, and then propose good policies. So you have to do all of those three things. If you don’t do all of those three things, then it’s not going to work.You can’t say, well, I’m just gonna do two or one.The UK Labour Party is a current example that running away from your policy viewpoints doesn’t workSHEFFIELD: Like the u the UK Labor Party right now. Like we’re seeing what happens if you just try to say, well, let’s concede this one issue of trans rights or immigration. Because the reality is the issue is never the issue. So, so whatever your position is, it’s a communist position.Like as you were saying, Pete Buttigieg, picked it up that like, so whatever you say, it doesn’t matter to, to the people who have a psychological need to oppose modernity.MOLLOY: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, absolutely. And I think that, I think the, one of the big warnings about, like. In 2024. 2024, you had, in the UK the Labor Party won and in a, it was a landslide victory. And I think people attributed it to them. Like there were a lot, this happens a lot where you have people who write about politics for a living, who have, more moderate views who, who kind of say, well, clearly they won Because they a, adopted the views that I believe, the views that I [00:38:00] personally agree with.And so, so there was a lot of stuff where it was, I remember the Labor Party had people come and meet with the Democrats to talk to them about strategy after their big win. But. The real reason they won was that they weren’t the conservative party. That they weren’t the party that was in power and people were just mad about the current leadership in the country.They could have run, they could have run the most extreme, like as far left as they could have. They could have brought back Jeremy Corbin to, to be the leader and to adopt his, his policy. He would’ve won probably like I, I think. And labor got when he ran and lost in the general election before that he ended up like more people turned out to vote for labor than they did.In 2024. But because they had this giant sweeping victory, people assumed that, well, it must be because they have pop, they pick popular policies, but then they get into office and they start actually implementing these policies. and people hate it. And they’re the response has been mostly to move more further to the right.And this is the nominally liberal party over there. It’s the, they’re supposed to be center left, that’s supposed to be their lane, but they keep moving to the right and they’re trying to out, out reform basically. And it’s just not, I don’t think, I don’t think that can work because people are always gonna go for the real thing.They’re always, if you try to appeal to fascists. The fascist, the voters who, who like fascist policies are just gonna vote for the real fascists. The reSHEFFIELD: Because they want fascism.MOLLOY: yeah the,SHEFFIELD: They don’t want your policy.MOLLOY: Exactly like it. They don’t [00:40:00] necessarily care about, whatever little policies here or there. They want to, wanna cut down on immigration and they want to impose their will on society and to take control of all this stuff.And it’s just it’s just sad to see some some bigger name Democrats kind of float, like see that, and still think that’s the way to go. Because the lesson from the UK in electing a more moderate labor party. Ended up being, or the l rather the lesson in the UK of the labor party moving to the right and then winning was that an even more extreme right wing party was gonna swoop in and win the next election.Like labor’s absolutely gonna lose, and it’s almost certainly gonna be, not the conservatives, but reform that takes power after that. And I think one of, one of my fears is that if Democrats as a whole, move to the center, try to moderate their policies and triangulate their way to victory, you might just have, a situation where they’re in power for four years and then something even more extreme comes along.And I think that’s I think that’s what we got by. 2000, going with Joe Biden, who was seen as the moderate, one of the most moderate options that was available during the 2020 election. And Biden gets into office and he’s still pretty moderate. He had some, like, he had some progressive economic policies that, that people seem to generally like, but in the end he didn’t keep Trump out.And in the end we got something. Trump too is far more extreme than Trump won. And I think that we [00:42:00] risk, that maybe Democrats win in 2028 if they moderate on a bunch of issues. But all that does is that shifts the Overton window if, because people are going to keep saying Democrats are socialists and they’re far left and all of this, but. It just might not be true. And in response, you’re gonna get some more extreme right wing governance, which is gonna be, if you ask me back in 2016 when Trump first got elected, one of my, one of my fears was like as a trans person, I was very afraid of what the administration would do.And, it was like my, like worst case scenario that I could picture was like, okay, what if what if the federal government doesn’t enforce Title IX to protect trans. People anymore in schools or title doesn’t enforce federal protections for trans people using Title vii.Like, those were kind of like the things that the big worries I had, fast forward to today, and it’s like, it’s the federal government’s official policy.The trans people just don’t exist. that was Trump’s big day one, executive order. And then you have states trying to one up each other to see how extreme they can push this, because they know the federal government’s gonna just kind of let ‘em do what they wanna do, and the courts aren’t gonna stop them.So, you’ve got right now, last week in, or last week or the week before, I can’t remember, time flies. You’ve got in Kansas, like they, they passed a law that invalidated trans people’s driver’s licenses. And.SHEFFIELD: BasicallyMOLLOY: immediately, Gave them noSHEFFIELD: you couldn’t move or do something.MOLLOY: Yeah.And because the licenses were invalidated and not like there was something about the process involved because they were invalidated. There was it flags something in a, in a federal system [00:44:00] to where if you go to an another state and like, let’s say someone moved the very next day and was like, I’m getting out of Kansas.I’m gonna move to Illinois where I can get a driver’s license that has my correct gender on it and my name and everything like that. Like, because their license has been like invalidated. Flags it in the system, and it becomes almost impossible to just update it. Like you had to go through the process of getting a new license in Kansas that had the wrong gender on it.And in, in all it turned out that there were something like 300 people who this affected. And it was a law that was passed as an emergency. And I think that’s like stuff like, that’s really scary because it happens, it doesn’t get a ton of news because there’s so much other chaos going on. Like CNN is not covering the story about Kansas, like the New York Times, like they did.I think they maybe do like a single writeup of it, but that’s just kind of it. There’s no, it’s not like. Being treated like a crisis because it affects few, very few people and because there are bigger things going on. And in 2020 at the beginning of COVID, I remember one of the, one of the things that started to happen as, you had republican state legislatures that were like, I think they all, like, everyone kind of knew you had to do something about COVID.You you had to pass some policies and you had to, you couldn’t just not take any action on anything. So instead of doing that, instead of actually addressing the problems of, COVID and trying to manage them in the best way they could, because, a lot of states were basically like, Yeah. we’re not gonna have any rules and it’s just gonna be free for all and good luck.You had states that where schools were not in session, [00:46:00] because COVID sports, school sports were definitely not happening. And yet there were, that was when the big push to start banning trans kids from playing high school sports and grade school sports started like really got kicked into gear was during COVID when the schools were shut down and sports weren’t happening, they would go in there and they would pass these bills that were ex, they would flag them as like emergency bills that need to go into effect immediately.And, the rest of the world wasn’t really paying attention to what was happening. So they kind of were able to more or less push these things through. Democrats would vote against it. But in a lot of these states, that doesn’t really matter because, in Kansas, for instance, there’s a democratic governor who vetoed the bill, but.It, that veto got o you know, they overwrote the veto. But like the only hope of pushback when you don’t have the votes on your side is that there will be media coverage. That there will be, boycotts of the state or something like that, which is what you saw in 2016 when North Carolina dipped its toes into the anti-trans laws.Which looking at that, like that law compared to like what’s going on in states right now is so, I’m sure there are people who would look at that and go, that’s pretty moderate. That’s pretty, oh it was a bathroom ban in federal or in state-owned buildings.That’s not a huge deal. That’s, why isn’t that everywhere? But it was a huge thing to where there was backlash and you had the NBA All-Star game was supposed to be in Charlotte and had to move because people were boycotting North Carolina and all of this. But like now the state implements these like laws andSHEFFIELD: Yeah.MOLLOY: everyone shrugs and it just kind of goes, okay.Durable political change follows cultural changeSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and I will say that, on the issue of trans rights, that I think the advocates for didn’t learn enough from the battle for same-sex marriage [00:48:00] because that battle was won in the legal and political sectors after it was won in the cultural sectors. And that’s, whereas with trans rights, I think people, a lot of people were like, okay, yeah, all right, we got, we got the marriage rights now, marriage equality, okay, now let’s immediately go to trans rights through legislation and all this other stuff.And it’s like. Right. At this point a lot of people didn’t even know that trans people existed.MOLLOY: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: that, and because it, you didn’t see trans representation in media. And soMOLLOY: and the, the thing aboutSHEFFIELD: You can’t win. Sorry. So you can’t win politically if you haven’t made, you have, when you’re making a, an argument for progressive change, there is an unfortunate, somatic discomfort with anything new and unfamiliar, and that has to be overcome, and it can only be overcome through personal interventions and cultural interventions.First.MOLLOY: And that’s the tricky thing. It is. Because, after the marriage equality ruling in 2015, all of the anti, all of the conservative anti-marriage equality groups, like, they kind of regrouped and they were like, we need to pivot to something we can win and we need to aim our firepower at that.And so they kind of shifted to, okay, we’re gonna go after trans people. Because there, like there haven’t actually been a lot of big like, pushes for protran laws. Like a lot of the bills that get introduced in states, that are protran are like just sort of protecting against like things being taken away.SHEFFIELD: Crimination.MOLLOY: yeah. Like anti-discrimination laws, but like. It was kind of basically there, there were only two states in the entire, in 2018, there were only two states in the entire country that where trans person couldn’t, under any circumstances, update their [00:50:00] birth certificate. Which is kind of crazy to think about right now.Like, we didn’t advance from that to like, okay, now every state can it, it went from like, okay, only two states block you from doing this. Like other states had, the more conservative states would have like, really strict requirements on like surgery and what kind of surgery you need to have before you can update your documents or something like that.But yeah it went backwards fast. It was a lot of people realizing, like learning for the first time what existing policy was. Then being like, oh, I don’t like that. I, oh wait, you mean they can, they’ve been able to use the same bathroom as me for decades. Oh, I don’t like that. We gotta change that.It was a lot of that. And the suddenly trans people became hyper exposed in media and it wasn’t really something that trans people as a whole, I can’t speak for trans people as a whole, but most trans people I know weren’t like. Super thrilled when Time Magazine was like the transgender tipping point because you had a single trans woman on a Netflix streaming show, which that was when people did not watch TV shows on Netflix.There were like a total, there was House of Cards and there was Oranges, the New Black and like one other one out there. These were not like, huge things. And you had, because you had one trans woman as a recurring character on a TV show. Time Magazine was like, congrats guys. You did it. And then you had ca, Caitlyn Jenner coming out probably made things so much worse because she’s just a disaster of a human being. And and it made things really difficult because for a like a year there, or year two, three. You had media outlets trying to [00:52:00] raise up to be like, here’s this group that people don’t understand.You should learn more about them. And we, we’ll amplify trans voices and stuff like that. But then Donald Trump takes office and around 20 17, 20 18, all of that stuff kind of fades because the chaos of Trump won is happening. And you start to see more anti-trans focus in media, and not as much, like positive representation out there.Because I mean, growing up. The only trans representation there ever was like the Jerry Springer show and the movie Ace Ventura Pet Detective. So, where the villain is outed as a trans woman at the end. And then Ace Ventura by, played by Jim Carrey because he had like kissed her earlier in the movie.He has a scene where he vomits for like three minutes straight or something like that. It’s like, that was kind of like growing up, that was my exposure to the idea of trans people. And I think that for a lot of people, that was kind of it. And then you had this tiny window where media was trying to. Give trans people more of a platform to create a will and grace type moment, which that people will always point back to, will and Grace being a show on NBC improving pub, the public’s opinions of gay people.And it just wa it just didn’t sustain. And now then you had years and years of kind of attacks and it’s now to the point where unfortunately what happens is you can, because, if I went, okay, I am going to seek out a story of a, actually Breitbart used to have a vertical on its website that was labeled black [00:54:00] crime, and you click it and it’s just.Stories about black people committing crimes. That was all it was. And the entire strategy there was to get you to feel a certain way about, about black people and committing crimes and to really shape that. And during the first Trump administration, they kind of did that where they did like, immigrant crime where they would put out reports where they’re like here, you had some illegal immigrants committing acts of crime.Look at this. Which, that, that strategy, it, during World War ii, the Nazis would do that. Where they’d be like, look here’s Jews who committed crimes and stuff like that. Now that happens with trans people and we’re just this tiny, little, tiny, little percentage of the population.And it’s like, yeah, there are gonna be trans people who commit crimes and there are gonna be trans people who are weird and there are gonna be trans people who are very off-putting. Sometimes I am one of them. But it’s like, it’s just so easy for right wing outlets to, to find those examples.Especially with the internet, especially with social media.SHEFFIELD: Well, yeah, you got a country with, close to 400 million people in it. Of course there are going to be some assholes and some criminals of whatever demographic. Like Ben Shapiro is really mad at Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson for being antisemitic, which they appear to be.and he, he, he keeps saying, well, that’s unacceptable. We can’t have this kind of bigotry in conservatism, and it’s. Well, you opened the door to this buddy. You are the one that said it’s great to have bigotry against immigrants or against trans people, or, whatever group or black people.Ben Shapiro has been very racist toward black people as well. So like, they, they don’t care about how this might affect them down the road. [00:56:00] They really don’t. And so they will say whatever, whatever it takes to get them an advantage. And so that is ultimately why you do have to, if you are gonna oppose these people in the generic sense as a party, you have to stand up for everybody because it, because otherwise you’re gonna lose.And like, and to go back to the UK labor point, so now the polling there as we’re recording today, I saw a poll that. That to your point that showed the Reform port party as the number one party and the Green party as number two. So labor isn’t even number two or, anymore.So it’s like they’ve eaten up their own coalition and offended people because people are like, well, why am I voting for you if you’re not standing up for the people for the ideas? So like, on the left, center, left, people actually do vote for policies. So you can’t you can’t.This is a losing strategy and all it does is make bigotry worse.MOLLOY: Yeah. Ex. Exactly. And it’s, it’s one of those things that it’s, I just kind of have to hope, and being trans, I have to hope that, the Democrats hold strong because as there was a, there was an article that Erin Reed who she writes a newsletter called Erin in the Morning.It’s all about trans issues. She had something that was like, why trans people aren’t feeling Gavin Newsom. Like why? If you bring up the name Gavin Newsom, some trans people kind of recoil. And it’s because, he’d have Charlie Kirk on his podcast and he’d talk about how like, Yeah, you’ve got some reasonable concerns.And I.understand that. And it’s like Charlie Kirk, his sense of her he said some horrible things about trans people. But you know, it’s the thing is like if you create a situation where you don’t have one party, at least one of your two major parties fighting for trans people’s rights or opposing efforts to strip trans people’s rights, and it just becomes the political consensus.That’s very bad for trans people. Like very bad. And suddenly you have no one [00:58:00] really fighting for you. Like the Green Party in the UK is is Protran basically. But it’s one of one of those things that’s just like, you don’t wanna have a situation where there’s a consensus. Yeah.We all agree. Trans people are bad. And Labor gave that up, like gave up trans issues because they wanted to take it off the table. They wanted to, you, they didn’t wanna get attacked about it anymore. And it turns out most people don’t cast their votes based on trans issues, pro or against.I mean, and that both works in trans people’s favor. Against trans people. Because it makes it hard if you’re being oppressed to if no one actually cares whether or not that’s happening, which is kind of, which is kind of the reality. it’s so, so it’s like there’s very little to gain by for, from Democrats like shifting to the right on trans issues.But you know. It’s it would be disastrous for trans people as a whole if that were to happen. And I think that’s why the, trans people are really scared and kind of, kind of freaked out right now about like, what’s gonna happen. Like, what direction is this party going in, is this going to be a party that defends trans people?Because there are Democrats who are very good on trans rights. JB Pritzker here in Illinois very good on trans rights. He, it’s not that he’s signing a whole bunch of protran laws or talking about trans people all the time. He just, whenever it comes up, he’s just like, he puts his foot down and he says he supports trans people.Like, that’s cool. That’s all anyone’s really asking for. And I think that had Republicans not sunk $200 million or whatever into the. For, they, them ads in 2024 that this wouldn’t be as, as much of an issue. But people saw those ads [01:00:00] and they had a very they had a very specific reaction to them, and they were like, oh, I’m seeing these all the time.I bet this is making people feel weird. And I don’t want my party people to think that I’m weird, and so I’m gonna, like it’s gonna sit in the back of my mind. And I think that there are a lot of, like Democrats and Democratic strategists who saw that and they, they’ve inflated the weight that voters actually put on the trans issues,Glenn Youngkin and the myth that voters are obsessed with hating trans peopleSHEFFIELD: I think this, this tendency, this belief that, voters are obsessed with hating trans people. It really started after Glenn Youngin won the Virginia Governor’s wait race during Joe Biden’s presidency and, off, off your election of, 2022 and.The thing is, like, this was another of those thermostatic elections. So the Virginia Governor race pretty much almost always goes to the person who is the party opposite of the president. That’s pretty much how it always goes. And, and today’s sec it doesn’t, it goes toward Democrats in, in the past, few decades.And so, so Glenn Youngin won a squeaker of an election, and he did talk about trans stuff a lot and, anti COVID safety precautions and whatnot like, but people were like, oh, it was the trans issues that got him the election and this is why he won. Well, and then fast forward to four years later in 2025, well, the Republican who was running in that race, she talked pretty much only about hating trans people in her election. And she got her ass kicked by Abigail Span Berger.So. I think, it is astonishing to me that everybody who was like, oh, voters hate trans people. Voters hate trans people. They didn’t turn around and say, oh, well voters must love trans people. Because I have a big berger won the election. And it’s like, what?You can’t have it both ways here, guys. Like, the reality is it’s [01:02:00] just not a big issue for anybody on either side of the aisle. And so, so you should deal with that and just do what you want. If you are a Democrat and you support trans rights, just fucking do it and it’s not gonna hurt you.MOLLOY: Yeah. Which, I, whenever I see polling about like how people view Democrats, they, it’s not so much, oh, they’re too liberal. They’re too, they’re too progressive. Whatever. It’s they’re weak. They don’t believe in anything, and I think like. That’s the worst thing to be seen as a politician, is as to not stand for anything to, to if you’re running as a Democrat.I think that, again when you’re running on a kind of fascist agenda, like, like Trump, he doesn’t really believe anything. He, but he sells it in this strong man kind of way that in a way that Democrats just can’t, like, you can’t be like, I don’t know what I believe but I would like to raise taxes on, some top tier of earners.It’s like something like, like that just does, it just doesn’t work that way. You’ve gotta, you’ve gotta stand for something. And that’s what I, to kind of, to circle it back to the the talk about the war to go, to come full circle on that. It’s like. Now is the chance to take a stand that has public support and to like, put your feet in the ground to say, I don’t think we should, I don’t think we should be at war with Iran, or, I don’t think we should continue to do whatever.Like, just to say something firmly, as opposed to doing the whole like, Yeah. I can agree that Iran is bad, but Trump didn’t ask us permission before he invaded. Stuff like that. I think that especially Democrats who wanna run for president in the future, like re they [01:04:00] have to remember how much the Iraq war like weighed on.In the 2020 or 2008 primary with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, she voted for to invade Iraq. And he wasn’t in a position where he had to vote on that at that point. So that, that worked out in his favor. And he spoke against the war. And I, there were a lot of, I, I think especially younger voters who resonated with that.And it’s more that it’s like, yeah, you stood for something you believed something you took a position. You’re gonna shut down Guantanamo Bay, which didn’t happen. But, to I think that there’s this real fear among democratic politicians, especially to stand for anything to really truly stand for anything.Because if you ask me what Kamala Harris believes. I don’t know. It’s changed over the years and she, she won’t give clear answers sometimes, and sometimes when she does, it’s just kind of talking herself in a circle. And I don’t think that resonates with people. I don’t think that resonates with voters who are, plugged in.And it’s not so much, I do think that there’s a risk of just taking, having people who do pay attention to politics and do care about these things, just starting to tune out if it feels like no one’s fighting for them. Like, people got really excited for Zoran Ma Donni, and, because, ‘cause he had concrete, like ideas that he stood for it, that he wanted to implement as mayor in New York.And now he’s doing that and. People seem to have, strong opinions. One, one way or another about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, because she takes stands and she believes in things. I don’t think that anyone’s like, oh, [01:06:00] like Seth Moulton. He’s the guy I wanna like, like, I wanna get behind.Like, he’s the one I can believe in, or, Dean Phillips or any of these like, kind of like weird rissy, kind kinds of Democrats where it’s just like, you just wanna be in power. You don’t really care what you’re asked to do after that, basically.Liberals and progressives must move beyond criticizing othersSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Or it’s John Fetterman, but, but on, on the other side, you look at it isn’t even necessarily about ideology either. Like that’s, that is something that I do think people on in the different Sides of the Democratic Party also have to realize. So, like people, in New York have really come to like, Madani, but they also like Abigail Span Berger.And the thing that both of them ha in, have in common in their, in their states is that they do stand for things and they fight hard for them. And that’s what people want. and in terms of your specific economic policies or whatever, people will take, take those or leave those, but they want to know that you’re on their side and they want to see you fighting for them, however you define what that is.And we could even say that Trump himself has done that. Like that is why at least some of his people, or maybe most of them, like, that’s why they support him ‘cause they see him as fighting for them and. And so you gotta do that.But, and so maybe let’s let’s just go to the last topic here, which is that, so as much as bad things have gotten for trans people, I, there, there have been a couple of recent controversies and one of them involving yourself on Blue Sky, but also more recently involving the New York Times columnist, Jamelle Bouie. And there’s a of people saying that Jamelle Bouie is trans phobe or that you, your are [01:08:00] yourself are not sufficiently supportive of trans people.And this is exactly what the Christofascists want people to be doing. I don’t think that people get that, like there politics, if you are a progressive person, it has to be more than just, therapy.Like it activism, criticizing people on the internet is not activism. You actually have to be doing something and, tearing apart people on your own side are not a hundred percent agreeing with you. Look, and even if they did something that you thought was wrong, that doesn’t mean that they have to be banished or whatever.And I feel like, I don’t know it’s tough. I, but I haven’t, experienced it like you have. Or you wanna just say it from your side then,MOLLOY: Yeah. So, so basically it was like five minutes before we started recording this, that I noticed a bunch of notifications on Blue Sky that were like, people who were like, I’m so disappointed in you And I’m like oh God. What? Yeah.I guess a few days ago there was a trans woman who got in, like, disagreed with Jamelle over something and then posted something like to the effect of like, trans woman breathes Jamel Bowie, shut up. Or something like that. Like that was the post.And it was like obviously exaggerated for effect. And he posted that and he wrote What is going on with this site? And Blue Sky can be a lot sometimes and I just wrote very weird and didn’t look into it anymore because I thought I was like, chimal is. Like he, he’s written pro-trans articles for the New York Times.Which The New YorkSHEFFIELD: Four years.MOLLOY: Yeah. For years.This is, he’s like, he’s gone on, on podcasts hosted by, Caitlyn Burns who’s a trans woman. He went on her podcast recently and, he’s a helpful guy and I think he’s really insightful. He’s a much, much better writer than I am.Extremely smart. And I assumed that this was people. ‘cause every once in a while there will be people who will kind of take this [01:10:00] position of being like, oh yeah. The New York Times is evil, and anyone who works for the New York Times is also evil. And the same thing can be, people will say about the Atlantic or the Economist or any of these other legacy media type places.And I don’t think that, like, I don’t think it’s an incorrect view to have. It’s, I it’s a view that I think people are perfectly welcome to, to hold. That they’re not gonna support someone who works for an institution. They see as harmful to them, which I totally understand that. And I kind of just assumed it was about that specifically.But yeah I wrote “very weird.” And then I got people who were like, you called a trans woman weird. And you took his side in this, in, in this argument, and I need to like look into like what their back and forth was. But Blue Sky makes it really difficult sometimes because when one person blocks another, it becomes like almost impossible on the actual Blue Sky app to, to look up like what was said.SHEFFIELD: Well, literally, yeah, itMOLLOY: yeah, it just it’s, yes. Which, you know what, I think that’s probably one of the best features of Blue Sky, that it’s just like that you block and it’s a nuclear, it’s just gone. But yeah, so it’s, but I thi I think it’s, we’re at this kind of point where there’s a lot of frustration among trans people in particular because we’re not heard, we’re not often given.Platforms in, in these elite publications to the last time the New York Times published anything by me was 2018. And like, and that was rare. And I, having that platform even at that time, like that puts me at a really different [01:12:00] level than someone whose only ability to get their voice out and to express themselves is to post on Blue Sky or Twitter or wherever and to, to maybe be frustrated with how things are going.And, it’s just one of those, one of those things that I hope that. I hope that we can all kind of talk to each other a bit more. especially when it’s people who, who fundamentally do agree on things like, should trans people have rights, should trans people have be attacked nonstop, because it’s, we trans people need allies in this, in this, the, the way forward because trans people often aren’t going to get aren’t going to get a lot of space in the New York Times or the Atlantic.the Atlantic today, as trans people are having, in Kansas we talked about that. What’s happening there? The Atlantic ran a piece that was like, are we sure that gay men aren’t being told that they’re trans and being forced to transition or something like that. It was in defense of effeminate gay boys or something like that.And it’s really frustrating because they’ll give space to these, those sorts of stories all the time.SHEFFIELD: Which by the way, that is the opinion of the Iranian MOAs. That’s literally what they do to anyone who is gay.MOLLOY: Yeah. Which is, and so it’s one of those things where it’s like, it sucks that all of these institutions are constantly doing that. Or they’re running, the New York Times running 10 different pieces about like, are trans kids getting healthcare too easily?It’s actually very difficult to get any sort of trans healthcare, like the idea that, oh, kids are being tricked into this and their parents don’t know what’s going on and, all this stuff. It’s just not very accurate. And the fact that, the New York Times will run, article after article on this when none of the [01:14:00] science has changed really on, on this stuff in ever in, in a decade or two.But, the politics have changed and all these stories aren’t about like, changes in science, they’re just changes in like, well, which way is the political wind blowing? And I don’t think these outlets care that by running all these stories, what they’re doing. If you’ve run a bunch of stories that are like, is there something wrong with trans kids?Are trans people getting healthcare too easily? You’re gonna start to think. Maybe trans people are getting healthcare too easily. Like all of that stuff, it’s gonna build up and it’s going to shift public opinion as it has. Someone was trying to look up like when the last time a trans person wrote a pro trans piece in the Atlantic, and like the most recent piece someone could find was from 2018, which is, that’s a long time.Meanwhile they’re they’re, they have a, they have columnists who regularly post anti-trans stuff. They multiple pieces that just in 2026. And so I understand the frustration and. I don’t know how to fix that. How to fix the fact that people are angry and they’re upset and for good reason.It sucks feeling like you don’t have a voice, and it sucks. Even if you have a voice, have a, have something of a platform that you’re, you’ll feel like you’re not doing enough with it or doing the right thing with it or wielding it in the best way possible. And so, that’s it’s a real, it’s a real challenge.So, Yeah. NowSHEFFIELD: Well, and it’s a challenge on both sides also, because in defense of the trans woman that was kind of initiated or became the focal point of this little mini scandal, , she’s has a small account and doesn’t have a lot of [01:16:00] followers and, he quote tweeted her saying something that was critical of him.And, and I think that’s just bad form. Like if you’re if you’ve got a zillion followers on social media, you shouldn’t be quote, tweeting somebody who’s on your own side by and large. And even if you think they were a. You can tell ‘em in a reply that they’re a jerk. You don’t need to sick your entire followers on them and be like, Hey, look at this asshole.Like, and so she didn’t like that. And a lot of trans people didn’t like what happened to her. So like, it’s not a thing where I think, everybody was perfect or one side was perfect. We have to like, I mean, this is, this goes back to the paradox that, the right wing, the fascists, the reactionaries, they embrace being evil.So like the only way you can effectively oppose them is to be good and to be charitable, and to be nice to the people on your own side. And I know that sucks sometimes because sometimes people are rude and nasty and or obtuse or whatever you don’t like about it. Yes, it’s true. But we can’t we have to be respectful of our own side.Everybody does.MOLLOY: Cool. That’s good place. Good place to end it.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Alright, well, yeah. All right, well then this is good and I’m glad we got to hit on allMOLLOY: Yeah, absolutely. It’s great. Great talking to you. But yeah, I I have to now go get my dog’s food because they are hungry.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation and you can always get more if you go to Theory of Change show where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you are a paid subscribing member, you have unlimited access to the archives and I thank you very much for your support.It’s much appreciated. I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityDonald Trump was swept into office by an elaborate series of lies about his radical policies, but more than a year into his second term, the less-engaged independent voters who powered his victory have turned firmly against the president.But as low as Trump’s approval ratings have fallen, the Democratic Party’s favorability among Americans is even lower.How is this possible and what does it mean? Depending on who you ask, you’ll get a very different answer. Usually, however, the criticism boils down to: Democrats aren’t promoting my own personal policy opinions.The hard truth, however, people don’t want to accept is that many, if not most, voters have policy viewpoints that aren’t fixed, which means that focusing your campaign strategies based solely on public opinion is not going to work.Democracy in America is severely endangered because one the country’s two major parties has become a fascistic personality cult. But a strategy of protecting democracy by winning every election forever is doomed to failure.So what to do instead? That’s an answer that I can’t give you in a single podcast episode, although be sure to subscribe nonetheless! But what I can say is that democracy defenders must think bigger and be much more open to new voices and new ideas.And joining me for today’s conversation is a friend of the show, David Atkins. He’s a member of the Democratic National Committee and also a contributor to Washington Monthly.The full discussion of this episode is for paid subscribers. An excerpt on YouTube is available, but you will need to be a premium member on Patreon or Substack to watch, read, or listen to the full discussion. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. (Note: Purchasing a book through the links in show notes helps support Theory of Change.)Related Content--The 2025 elections showed that more than anything, people want Democrats who fight Trump--Republican operatives completely reconfigured politics, their Democratic rivals have not kept up--How the American left became post-political, and how to change it--Republicans built a massive infrastructure to attack democracy, Democrats have not made one to defend it--Democrats get lots of bad advice, particularly the idea that most voters are ideological--In 2024, Donald Trump bet big on ‘unlikely voters’ who have sat on the margins of American politicsAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:13 — QAnon as a religion of narcissism12:18 — What conspiracism offers middle-aged and older women20:13 — Media proliferation and political manipulations have made conspiracy belief much easier28:27 — The women of January 6th faced widely divergent economic circumstances34:32 — Charismatic evangelicalism as the common starting point for QAnon believers44:02 — Astrology, space aliens, and QAnon48:44 — ‘Soul contracts’ and tragic morality52:49 — Right-wing politicians harm society and then use the nihilism they engender as campaign leverage55:42 — What do QAnon believers think about the Epstein files now?01:04:35 — Prevention is easier than de-radicalizationAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is David Atkins. Hey, Dave. Good to see you back on the show.DAVID ATKINS: Hey, happy to be here. Thanks for having me on.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So you are a member of the Democratic National Committee, but you are here in your personal capacity.ATKINS: Yes.SHEFFIELD: So we want to make sure to point that out.ATKINS: Yes. I’m not an official spokesperson for the DNC in this interview.SHEFFIELD: Yes. All right, so with that out of the way one of the topics that I wanted to talk about here today is that Donald Trump, as I think everybody by now, or at least people who watch or listen to this podcast, knows and read you is that Donald Trump, he won not because of the fanatical fascistic, right wing, he won because he kind of misled a lot of people who didn’t know very much about politics, and those marginal Trump voters appear to have pretty much turned against him at this point.And his approval ratings are the lowest they’ve ever been. And in some polls actually even lower than they were after January 6th 2021. So, But the paradoxical thing is that the Democratic Party is rated as less popular in polls.And I think that’s, it’s causing some people to kind of project, a lot of their own personal biases onto that data set. But there’s a lot going on there. And, but ultimately, I mean, voters are still, they’re still choosing the Democrats in elections.ATKINS: Right. I think it, There’s a lot on there. When you look at a statistic like such and such number of people dislike or like the Republican party or such and such or like the [00:04:00] Democratic Party that is genuine, that is generally. A confluence many different Factors. there’s an old sort of in, in religious studies that every religion is sort of like a flashlight on the elephant, that everybody’s sort of got a spotlight that nobody can see.The whole elephant. I think you have a similar thing going on here. So you have the moderates who are saying, oh, this means that the Democratic Party is too far to the left and need to come back to the center. you’ve got leftists who are saying, well, the Party is bad on this issue or that issue.And if they were only farther left, I think it really depends the person. I think it’s all of those things are true for different segments of the electorate, which makes solving the problem challenging. But I think one thing you can say is there are a few major reasons for happening. Number one, you have a low trust society in general, so all institutions are suffering across the board. Approval of every major institution is down.That having been said, not making excuses for the state of the, Democratic Party approval. ‘cause I’ve been talking to various leaders in the party about a lot with some alarm, I think. Yes, right. There some people who have joined the Trump Coalition who used to vote for Democrats, who feel that the party has shifted too far left on issues.But rather than take the Yglesias sort of angle this that has been happening since the 1960s, you have been having realignment shifts this for the last past 50 or 60 years. And that doesn’t mean that you need to stop expanding rights or do or stop advancing social change. And in any case, it’s not Democratic candidates or the Democratic Party officially that is advancing civil rights in this way, that is making those voters uncomfortable.So there’s only so much the party per se can do about that. So when Matt Yglesias and those folks say, oh, the party needs to shift to the right, I mean. They’re not talking about party candidates, they’re talking about random [00:06:00] activists on social media. So good luck, I guess. There is also another segment of people who are absolutely furious Gaza or some other issue.And again, though, know, you can’t really fault candidates so much for this, and candidates who have taken much more left positions on those issues are not actually fairing better in elections by and large, with some exceptions. And we can talk about the Mamdani Coalition and all of that, and I’m very supportive of a OC and Mamdani and those folks.But it’s not exactly an electoral panacea. It’s not like if every candidate adopted those positions, the party’s fortunes would be reversed. It’s not that simple either. I think the biggest thing that is impacting though approval of the Democratic Party, ironically, is from core normie Democrats. You ask a core Normie Democrat who shows up to a No Kings protest.And is with Trump, if they approve of the Democratic Party, by and large, they’re going to say no. Not because they like Trump, not because they think the party is too far left or too far right, but because the party is not doing a big, a good enough job of standing up to the Republicans. And look what some strategists and Chuck Schumer might say is, oh, we’re doing exactly what we need to do to win elections.Look how well we’re doing winning elections. Well, okay, maybe, but there’s more to politics, ironically than winning the next election, right? You’ve gotta keep people engaged and believing in you as an institution, believing in your values. Otherwise, you’re just going to get a thermostatic effect where, okay, you win the next election, but the next time people get upset over inflation or whatever, you lose again.And if your entire premise of how you defeat fascism is we have to win every single election. Rather than we have to end fascism at its root, then you’re going to lose. So there has to be more than [00:08:00] just, oh, we’re doing whatever it takes to win the next election by looking calm and looking like good guys.So it’s a lot of things I think.For voters, ideology matters less than activitySHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. And we’ll come back to the thermostatic issue later. But yeah, I, it’s it is shaping up when we look at the candidates who did win in the past 2025 election the major candidates who won, what we’re seeing is that, yeah, that the real access of approval for Democrats or energy is yeah, how is, how much you want to oppose Trump.And it’s not as even as much of an ideological barrier. So like we see, for instance, with Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger has, recently come out with some pretty tough restrictions on the Trump Ice Thugs and what they’re allowed to do legally within the state. And, the degree to which Virginia law enforcement officers are allowed to cooperate with them or provide them information.And, so this is somebody who in the conventional left right intra Democratic Party splits. This is not somebody who is on the further left of the party, but on the other hand, she also shares that desire to vigorously oppose the authoritarianism of Donald Trump that, that Zoran Mamdani does.ATKINS: Right. No, exactly. And this is one of the things, like I, I was not a big span Spanberger supporter because she was on sort of the moderate side of a lot of policy fights that I was not approving of. But look at what I mean. Now I’m a big span Spanberger fan because hey, like those, she’s, that she’s not annoying me on any policy fights in Virginia, but what she is doing is standing up really strongly to Trump and ICE.And I couldn’t be happier about that. And I know a lot of other folks who were span Spanberger skeptics who are very happy with her as well. And think that if we have more of that in a real way, I think, that will also be helpful. [00:10:00] You do see a lot of politicians sometimes in a cringey way coming out and using, F-bombs this kind of language and, using stronger language now, which is nice to see, as long as it actually feels natural.But you know, actually stepping forward and. Demanding say to visit ICE detention centers or actually, stepping forward and throwing real sand in the gears of the Trump regime. what people are looking for.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And it, and to kind of boil it down a bit here, what we’re seeing is that there’s kind of a, I would say that, there, there are your policy views, there is your operation style and then there’s your communication style. And those are the three things that, that people are really caring about.And, and what it’s looking like is that there is kind of a, a real alignment that’s shaping up in terms of communication style and operation style, that people are realizing. The bigger problem here is that we have to stop fascism first, and then build the case simultaneously for, a society that, that does address the issues that people are are concerned about and, but also is willing to talk about democracy. because like, I guess that has been a debate point as well within the party that a lot of people have said, well, the public doesn’t care about protecting democracy. And other people say, well, no, they do.And it’s, I, it, I don’t think you can say one way or the other. It’s a matter of how you do it, is what I would say.ATKINS: No, I agree. And I think that G Elliot Morris, for instance, has had some very compelling data recently that people do care a great deal about protecting democracy. It also really matters. And this is sort of a, a cart/horse like [00:12:00] chicken/egg egg kind problem. In the sense that if you take the popularist view, which is based in large part upon a bunch of quantitative survey data, and we could go into all of the challenges with quant data.I, I’m a qualitative, research guy by trade and man, like the mistakes that you can make just by paying attention to what a quantitative survey says are enormous. But of course, if you ask people on a quantitative survey what they care more about the price of groceries or, threats to democracy, most people are of course going to save the price of groceries.But there’s a huge emotional investment in democracy as an idea. And if your leaders are not talking full throated about the problems and the threats to democracy in a way that sounds more like, that, sounds like more than just. The heated political rhetoric of the day. But if you manage to show people no, like you are actually not going to be able to vote for your leaders, you’re not, there’s actually going to be an accountability problem in the, in your democracy.And these people are trying to set themselves up to rule for life. People do care about that. People do want to step to defend that. And we and what’s been shown in the data is not only are people actually concerned about this and increasingly concerned about this more than they were six months ago, in part because of the actions of the Trump administration, but also because when you have leaders not named Chuck Schumer, but actual thought leaders who are now actually more credible on the left and within the Democratic Party who are actively talking about this, people pay attention.Journalists pay attention, it becomes more part of the conversation. And lo and behold, voila, people start to care about it, even in the quantitative survey data. So you don’t just have to reflect whatever the public opinion is from six months ago. In a survey, you [00:14:00] also have a role in talking about the issues of the day and shifting public opinion because you’re not, and not even in a way that changes people’s minds, but that changes the salience of the issue.That changes their focus and their understanding.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And we’ll get into that, but I want to circle back to the problem with claiming that your ideas are just pure math, which is what a lot of people that especially of the the self-identified popularist that’s they often say that they’re just doing math but they’re really not.And but even aside from, the fact that they are trying to promote their own ideological preferences, which they never state that, but setting their preferences aside though, just the, and I can say this as somebody who, used to do polls and write about them.So obviously I, I think polls are very useful and important. But they’re far less scientific than people imagine them to be, in part because just the very act of taking a survey is altering your mindset. And so it’s take, it’s taken you out of your regular mindset of your, which it would be your ballot voting mindset.But it’s also, it is a, it requires the pollster and the person to have the same understanding of the question, and there’s no proof that is true.ATKINS: No.SHEFFIELD: It’s like it relies on a fundamentally qualitative assumption, without ever saying, saying it.ATKINS: Right. Yeah. Look, I mean, people have complicated thoughts about politics generally, especially undecided voters or cross pressured voters, people whose vote is not already taken for granted. Typically, your partisans, I mean, they also have your partisans, your deep partisans also have complicated thoughts about politics, [00:16:00] but also somewhat more predictable, but especially people whose votes are winnable on either side.Tend to be either more ignorant of the issues or they tend to be really crushed, pressured and conflicted, or both right to where if you ask them to explain themselves, if you ask them to explain what they think about an issue, you’ll get some confused and maybe some contradictory, but also some, complicated views on subjects like education or maybe, trans rights or maybe, taxation or what, or housing or what have you.When you boil that down into a response to a poll question, right, and you’re a sophisticated pollster, you understand this, first of all even just baseline, the way you ask a poll question can have enormous biasing effects into the answers that you get. get. But even at that, this sort of goes back to George Lakoff and frames of the world and all that, people operate with a lot of different frames in their mind about how the world works.And depending on which frame of how the world works, you’re activating, sometimes contradictory, sometimes parallel. People can come to different conclusions about what is important or how they want to perceive the issue. That you cannot possibly reflect in a bubble answer on a quantitative poll.And you can get those to say almost anything that you want within reason. Whereas if you ask someone, Hey, what do you think about housing? What should we do about housing? In your ideal world in a focus group, that you’ll get a lot more honest answers. Of course, then you are, subject to the interpretations of a focus group when a consultant decides to write a report, but by and large, you’re going to get much better idea of [00:18:00] how the world works and how the electorate functions by just listening to a cross section of maybe 60 undecided voters than you will getting the captured survey responses from a thousand.It may be statistically significant per the mathematics of stat of stats, but the gar, but the data you’re getting is garbage. It’s in, garbage out. For the most part. It, well, it’s not total garbage, but it’s not nearly as useful as a guideline as people want to believe it’s.The limits of polling and quantitative dataSHEFFIELD: Even if they did understand the question you might be catching them in a moment where one particular opinion of theirs about this issue is more salient in their mind. And then if you were to talk to them the next day, another aspect might be more salient depending on whatever their circumstances are.And so. And to be fair, polls do always say that this is just a snapshot in time. And I would say that the actual polls themselves are far more nuanced about what can be learned from polling than the popularists who kind of have like a, I mean, I call it cargo cult social science.Like that’s what they’re kind of doing. They’re not, most of them do not do polls themselves with some exception. And so they don’t under, they don’t have direct experience at how fungible everything is, even though they know in principle about question wording distortions and whatnot, until you’ve actually seen it with your own I just, it I don’t see, I don’t see it as critical.ATKINS: Right. And I think that the last thing that’s really important, and that’s become very obvious this last year of the Trump administration, is there’s a very big difference between talking about theoretical policies on paper. And the actual implementations of those policies when it comes to [00:20:00] their real and emotional impacts.Right? So say immigration, it’s one thing to ask people when the general media environment on social media, Fox News, and everywhere else has been ramping up this mass hysteria about, about, immigration to say, oh, do you want to deport all people who are not here legally and you’ll get a high number?Do you want to close the border entirely and deport everyone who lives here? And, in advance of the 2024 election, you were seeing fairly high numbers for that, which led people to say, oh, the Democrats need to move left on immigration. But the problem is the actual implementation of that policy is horrific, economically destructive, socially devastating.Nobody what people have seen in the attempt to implement. Even A part of that policy, they hate what they’re seeing. You do the same thing for trans rights, right? Like where you, where ultimately you have to go down to what, genital inspections of teenagers like you, you’re the actual implementation of policies that might sound good to people on paper end up being horrific in practice.And it’s one thing to ask about that in theory. It’s another thing when it comes to the real world of politics and whether you want to allow those dry policies on paper and the questionnaire responses of about that to drive the way you talk about it in a debate or on a policy stump speech or in an advertisement where you explain what these policies actually mean.You can’t be scared by a 54% approval number for a horrific policy. You can’t be scared about talking about what that actually means in terms of implementation. The Democrats did a terrible job of talking about what these policies would actually mean, which meant that Stephen Miller and his people thought they had a green light to do horrific things.The public doesn’t actually likeThe thermostatic nature of public opinion and Republican deceptionSHEFFIELD: Yeah. [00:22:00] Well, and that does, go to the thermostatic nature of public opinion. So, so within pub political science just for people who are not familiar with the term, thermo, the theory of thermostatic public opinion is that. A lot of voters, perhaps even most are motivated more about opposing things that they don’t like, than than having an affirmative vision.And so there is this kind of core, large core of voters who are persuadable by either party. Because whenever the par, whenever a party gets into power, they do things that, can be, the, these are the actual instantiations of the ideas. And sometimes people are like, oh gosh, I didn’t want that.And so, and we’re seeing a lot of that. Yeah. As you noted with regard to Donald Trump, that a lot of people are saying, well, I didn’t vote for him to do this. I didn’t vote for him to, cut cancer funding. I didn’t vote to, to ban federal funding for vaccines. I I didn’t vote, so they’re saying I didn’t vote for that.But in reality they did. They just were not educated enough about the positions of Trump on these issues. And that the thermostatic nature of public opinion, I think is, has, it has been a problem for Democrats because for Republicans are so deceptive and willing to lie about their policies and they’ve always been, since, ever since Mary Goldwater got wiped out in 1964, they’ve kind of realized, oh, well we can’t be upfront about what we actually want, and so we’re just going to, speak in generalities.Vague terms about people being responsible and and law and order, and stop talking about their actual full positions.

Episode SummaryWhen we hear the term “conspiracy theorist,” most people probably imagine someone who looks a bit like Alex Jones, a middle-aged white guy who’s slightly overweight and loves to scream. And to be sure, there are a lot of people out there like that—supporting Donald Trump as fanatically as possible. But the reality of American right-wing extremism includes many people who look completely different.Noelle Cook, my guest on today’s episode discovered that firsthand in her research on women who believe in QAnon conspiracy theories, which began, fatefully enough, when she coincidentally happened to be at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Conspiracism is a new type of religion, one that’s similar to past ones in having doctrines, leaders, and tales of apocalypse—but also different in that it’s much more narcissistic and self-directed than modern-day cults like Scientology or Heaven’s Gate.This is fascinating research that’s much deeper than the rural diner safaris than had become infamous in American media. Her findings are the basis of her new book, The Conspiracists: Women, Extremism, and the Lure of Belonging, as well as a film documentary about the women she profiles.The video of our conversation is available. Access the episode page to get the full text transcript. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. (Note: Purchasing a book through the links in show notes helps support Theory of Change.)Related Content--How the sex and drugs counterculture fell in love with Donald Trump and Jesus--Rather than moderate to find more voters, Republicans are using lurid Satanic fables to terrify fundamentalist Christians--How ‘tradwives’ use sex to sell religion--Charlie Kirk was a masterful political organizer, and a dangerous religious extremist--Far-right religion has been offering absurd and unhelpful advice to women for decades--Why conspiracy theories about the famous Rothschild family tell the history of antisemitism--Trumpism isn’t conservative, and saying this is still important--Far-right members of Congress are making the internet a safe space for misinformationAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:13 — QAnon as a religion of narcissism12:18 — What conspiracism offers middle-aged and older women20:13 — Media proliferation and political manipulations have made conspiracy belief much easier28:27 — The women of January 6th faced widely divergent economic circumstances34:32 — Charismatic evangelicalism as the common starting point for QAnon believers44:02 — Astrology, space aliens, and QAnon48:44 — ‘Soul contracts’ and tragic morality52:49 — Right-wing politicians harm society and then use the nihilism they engender as campaign leverage55:42 — What do QAnon believers think about the Epstein files now?01:04:35 — Prevention is easier than de-radicalization This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Kelly Hall on how lawmakers are quietly dismantling ballot initiatives—and how voters are fighting back. Ballot measures have become one of the most powerful tools voters have to bypass politicians and pass policy directly—from raising the minimum wage to expanding Medicaid to protecting reproductive rights. But according to Kelly Hall of The Fairness Project, that power is under coordinated attack. In this episode, Jen Taylor-Skinner talks with Hall about the organization’s new report, Direct Democracy Under Assault, and the accelerating effort to weaken the ballot initiative process across the country. They discuss how lawmakers are changing the rules to make ballot measures harder to qualify, harder to pass, and easier for politicians to manipulate after voters have already spoken. They also explore why these attacks are not just procedural—they’re a warning sign. Rights are often lost gradually, through technical changes and bureaucratic barriers that seem small on their own but add up over time. If voting rights are eroded drip by drip, Hall argues, direct democracy can disappear the same way. This is a conversation about ballot measures, yes—but also about power, representation, and what it means when politicians decide they no longer need to listen to voters. READ THE REPORT: ATTACKS ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY DOUBLED IN 2025 EPISODE CHAPTERS: 00:00 — What ballot measures are and why they matter Kelly explains the ballot initiative process and why it has become such an important democratic tool in an era of political dysfunction. 04:15 — The Fairness Project’s new report: Direct Democracy Under Assault Kelly breaks down the report’s central finding: attacks on ballot measures are accelerating fast. 08:20 — The numbers behind the backlash Jen and Kelly discuss the scale of the legislative assault, including the dramatic rise in anti-ballot-measure bills. 09:30 — Why the backlash is happening now Kelly connects the attacks to recent ballot measure victories, especially on reproductive rights. 11:15 — Why this isn’t just about abortion The conversation widens to include wages, Medicaid, voting protections, gerrymandering, and other policies voters can pursue through ballot initiatives. 12:00 — Who is behind these attacks? Kelly draws an important distinction between Republican voters and a small group of extremist Republican lawmakers attacking direct democracy. 14:45 — What it means when politicians refuse to listen to voters Jen and Kelly discuss the deeper democratic crisis revealed by these efforts. 19:20 — What would a healthy balance look like? A discussion about how ballot measures and legislatures might work together in a better-functioning democracy. 22:10 — Why voters split their tickets but support progressive ballot measuresKelly talks through the complexity and nuance of how people vote. 26:20 — How rights erode “drip by drip”One of the most powerful parts of the conversation: how democratic rights are lost gradually, through cumulative procedural attacks. 28:50 — The Florida exampleKelly explains how Florida has become a case study in making ballot measures harder to use. 32:20 — The Missouri exampleA look at how politicians use delay tactics and bureaucratic obstruction to interfere with the process. 36:50 — Fighting back: ballot measures to protect ballot measuresKelly explains how some states are going on offense by using ballot initiatives to strengthen direct democracy itself. 39:20 — Can there be federal protection for ballot measures?A discussion about the limits of federal intervention and why this remains a state-level fight. 40:20 — What people can do right nowKelly shares where the front lines are and how listeners can support this work. 42:20 — Why this matters even if you don’t live in a ballot-measure state The episode closes with a reminder that these fights affect all of us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Glyn Vincent is a New York based journalist and author. A finalist for the National Magazine Award, he has written about art and culture, socio-political issues, and the environment for The New York Times Book Review, The New York Observer, The Paris Review, Huffington Post, Columbia Magazine, Gannett, Monocle, East and other publications.  He is the author of two books, the critically acclaimed biography of the American painter, R.A. Blakelock, The Unknown Night, and most recently, Crossing, a memoir about sailing the Atlantic and his family’s troubled, itinerant past. He is also the author of several plays. Glyn was born and raised in New York City, though he spent some time as a child living in Ecuador and California. He later lived in Boston, France, Mexico and San Francisco before returning to New York where he worked as a reporter and editor at the United Nations and a New York City public-high school teacher.  Glyn graduated from Harvard College. While there he joined the American Repertory Theater and had his first play produced. He later earned an M.A. from Columbia University’s School of Journalism.  Glyn is active in local environmental organizations on Long Island where he saltwater fly-fishes and sails. He is a member of the Gray Wolf Press National Council.  He has appeared on New York Public Radio and lectured across the country.

Episode SummaryThe John Roberts Supreme Court has been one of the most reactionary high courts in American history, overturning numerous laws and precedents about abortion, voting rights, gun safety, and many other issues. The Republican-appointed justices have also frequently abused the court’s “shadow docket” emergency procedures to temporarily empower President Donald Trump.The rulings have come so fast and so thick have caused shock and outrage in America’s liberal legal establishment. One law professor likely spoke for many when she told the New York Times that: “While I was working on my syllabus for this course, I literally burst into tears. I couldn’t figure out how any of this makes sense. Why do we respect it?”And yet, if you look at the long-term history of the American judiciary, what Roberts and his Republican colleagues have been doing is exactly what you should expect. Courts are supposed to preserve legal structures, and that makes them inherently conservative.Tragically, however, the liberal legal establishment could not see any of this coming. That’s because after the Earl Warren Court of the 1950s, the legal left has been dominated by a philosophical approach called “formalism” which argues that jurisprudence is almost a form of science in which totally objective judges will scrutinize the law to arrive at obviously true conclusions to expand civil rights and restrain private coercion. Needless to say, judicial activists like Sam Alito see things very differently—and they now have the ability to try to remake America in their authoritarian image thanks to Republicans’ intense focus on court power.Legal formalism has been an absolute disaster for America, and yet despite the chaos and injustice it has enabled, many Democratic politicians and legal mavens are still reluctant to embrace the reality that all jurisprudence is political.Elie Mystal, my discussion guest today, has been making that case tirelessly in his columns for The Nation magazine and in his books, including his latest, Bad Law: 10 Popular Laws That Are Ruining America.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—The power far-right Republicans wield on today’s Supreme Court is the product of a decades-long project—The cult of constitutional law saw judges as objective gods who would always support liberty, it couldn’t have been more mistaken 🔒—Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt’s ideas are echoing in the Trump administration’s law enforcement philosophy—Former Trump coup lawyer John Eastman and allies claim Satan is behind efforts to hold him accountable—The judicial system is rigged and it’s time Democrats told the public about it—Religious right groups officially unveil new legal effort to overturn marriage equalityAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction10:41 — Philosophy and science abandoned belief in total objectivity, but legal scholars didn’t17:15 — Legal formalism as the perfect justification for law schools27:12 — Legal realism explained38:22 — Critical legal studies and integralism43:34 — Going back to legal realism means we have to restrain judges48:09 — The Warren and Burger courts were anomalies that distorted liberal understanding of jurisprudence53:17 — Because judging is political, it must be restrained 59:00 — Making courts matter to votersAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: This is going to be a fun discussion. I don’t get to do legal philosophy very much on this podcast, perhaps even ever. I’ve been looking forward to doing this and, a lot of people are not as able to throw down with the legal formalists as yourself. So this will be fun.ELIE MYSTAL: I do it all the time. My uncle is actually a professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. So this be like Thanksgiving for me.SHEFFIELD: Okay, hopefully in a good way! All right, [00:04:00] okay, so before we get too deep into it, let’s define legal formalism. What is it and what are the main ideas of it?MYSTAL: Yeah, so my definition is that legal formalism believes that the law is an objective thing that is written down. And if you simply read the text, if you look at the case law, if you look at the history in the presidents and the precedents, you, me, Joe Blow on the street, anybody can figure out the right legal answer by simply applying reason and logic to the words and text on the page.And that’s it. And that there’s a structure, there is a process for how you interpret certain words, how you deal with certain precedents how important it is it that the comma in this sentence is here and not there. What’s the subjective clause? What’s the operating clause like? All of these truly.Linguistic disciplines, right? If you think of yourself as like a, an English professor or, or or a writing teacher, right? you can use all, you can use your Strunk and White to figure out what the law means, what the law should mean and thus what the right outcome.And again, there is a right outcome. What the right outcome of the case, the analysis, the issue should be.Originalism itself is a form of formalism, right? it’s an offshoot, of what we’re talking about.And, formalism has a long and deep history both in this country and in England, right? formalism, I believe, you could argue, was at its height in the 1920s, right? In, in, the 1910s the older court really delved into this conception that. The law was an objective, rational thing [00:06:00] that could be understood through reason, and logic, it’s always been part of our tradition and it’s there I think on both sides.I think on both the right and the left, it’s there to insulate judges from the real world consequences of their decisions, right? if I can say, look, I don’t have an opinion on whether. Black people are people. I don’t have an opinion on whether gay people should have rights. All I can do, I’m just a lowly judge.All I can do is look at the text and the documents place before me and make a call on what the language means, or what the language should means. Means that protects you from, conceptually speaking, that protects you intellectually from having to stake out an opinion, a belief structure, a worldview, and all of that messy political stuff that a lot of times judges like to say and like to pretend that they are above, And so at its core, legal formalism to me has always been a judicial self-defense mechanism. a way for judges to. Again, insulate themselves from accusations of political feelings of of trying to impose their worldview on the elected branches and all that.And I think that’s why both sides cleave to it even when it can sometimes make them look absolutely ridiculous.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. It is self-justifying, and we’ll get into that a bit later, but yeah. And it’s important to note the time period, because as you were saying, during the early 20th century is really when it was all the rage. But it was a de facto system even continuously after that.That time period coincides very well with logical positivism which was a fad within [00:08:00] philosophy around that same time period, which basically it was like a souped-up scientific realism that said that not only is there a real world in which we live, we can know literally everything about it through science.And so with that, all moral questions are simply scientific questions that haven’t been adequately examined. And it was a very popular idea around that time.MYSTAL: Yeah, although I think most people are more familiar with it in the field of economics. The invention of economics, the idea that we can understand markets and money and the flow through essentially science and impose that scientific understanding on our economic structures that our economic structures should be built for.And I think that’s always a point that I like to dive into the whole conception of our economics, of our economic science is that the point of economics is to make more money, not to increase social justice, not to better the lives of the citizens, but just more, more is the point.In the same way, legal formalism kind of draws from that economic idea draws from that scientific idea and presumes that the point of legal analysis, the point of judging, the point of the judiciary is to apply logic, is to apply reason, not necessarily to apply justice.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.MYSTAL: That to me is always the black hole, if you will, at the center of all of this. What are you act, what’s the gravitational pull? What’s actually pulling you in one direction or another?And I think for a lot of legal formalists, the black hole at the center, the thing that’s pulling them is an idea of logic, not an idea of justice. Now, they’ll argue that [00:10:00] we achieve justice through logic.That’s an argument I don’t know that I always agree with it, but I don’t think that it’s necessarily wrong. But you know what, has the bigger pull, right? It’s the black hole or the sun. The sun has a lot of gravity, right? But if you’re next to a black hole, the body is going to go towards the black hole.And, to me, the black hole is this again. Idea, this intellectual thought of what’s reasonable, what’s logical, what’s defensible, as opposed to the intellectual thought of what’s just, what’s good, what’s fair.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. It’s justice as a side effect basically. You’ll get it if you do this other thing.MYSTAL: Yeah, that’s right. That’s right.Philosophy and science abandoned belief in total objectivity, but legal scholars didn’tSHEFFIELD: Within philosophy, though, philosophy, logical positivism and philosophy of science, it got basically destroyed after World War II essentially by people like Karl Popper.And, a lot of the postmodernists, they showed that if all of these things were objectively true, then why did we just have a war in which tens of millions of people died? Like that’s a pretty intuitive argument, right there. And it was hard to argue with it.And so within philosophy, logical positivism was dead, pretty much. Dead and buried in the ground, like nobody was pushing that idea. But within the legal system in the United States, it got institutionalized almost immediately.It was a comforting story that law professors told themselves. And the New York Times they had an interview asking legal professors, what do you think about this John Roberts court, and one of the professors that they had talked to was saying something like, this is basically undermining everything that I’ve ever understood about the law, and it’s making me question everything and making me traumatized. And I’m just looking at it and thinking this is what happens, and why you never go full legal [00:12:00] formalist!MYSTAL: Welcome to the world you’ve been living in this whole time. I love Matt, your analogy, or your reference to World War II, and how that killed an idea of scientific objectivity. One of my favorite episodes of my favorite podcasts is Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History, and he does an episode called Logical Insanity, And how the use of nuclear weapons was the logical thing to do from the perspective of the people who were making the decisions.And it made all other horrible, genocidal decisions all the way up to that point in that war. it’s amazing what tens of millions of dead people will do to your philosophical theory, right?It’s amazing how just the reality of bodies on the ground forces you to reconsider your intellectual priors. And that is something that I would argue in a way hasn’t really happened to the law-- you haven’t really had. There is no nuclear weapon. There is no bomb that goes off and people are like, oh no, what have I wrought?We might be seeing that now. We might be right now. And this what this links up to your Times quote, we might be living through the logical insanity of legal formalism and where that leads us and where that leads the country. And the suffering and injustice that it causes that might make the next generation reject this whole cloth, come up with new ways and new methods of interpretation because we are right now seeing the logical conclusion of legal formalism.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Exactly. And with regard to World War II, everybody who was involved with it said that their beliefs were the objective scientific reality. That was the centerpiece of the Nazi propaganda. We are just doing science [00:14:00] with this here.And science says that, this is, we need to kill these people, and we need to invade these countries. This is objective, because we’re the superior ethnicity and race. And it became so absurd that logical positivism collapsed under its own weight and under a lot of criticism.Nonetheless, it, legal formalism, its counterpart in the legal system, became very entrenched, and as you noted, both in left and right varieties of itself. And so it was a way to justify for courts that it basically boils down to: it’s just business.It’s just business. It’s not personal—like that classic line that someone says when they’re screwing you over. I don’t mean, I don’t mean anything against you. I’m just doing something really awful. But don’t worry, I don’t mean something bad by it.MYSTAL: Yeah. No, I never trucked with that. I never trucked with that, even when I was in law school. I so, an offshoot of legal formalism that you’re talking about is called law and economics. It’s the idea, it’s most famous acolyte is judge Richard Posner, who’s a incredibly intelligent man.I’ve had the opportunity to interview him and disagree with him and lose live he he’s a brilliant man. I completely disagree with his philosophy. And his philosophy is that of law and economics, that the, as I was saying earlier, back economics, the goal of economics is more law and economics presupposes that the goal of law is to make the right economic decision. That the goal of law is to make the decision that will produce the most economic benefit.I disagree with that wholeheartedly to the point where. The first time I was exposed to this theory I was a first year in law school in my torts class. And the, my torts professor was a law and economics guy, and he was shoving law and economics like down our throats. [00:16:00] And just every day I was just, no disagree. That can’t be right. Like I, I was not having it. So we get to the final, and at least when I was at Harvard, your final is 100% of your grade. it’s one test, written exam, open book, eight hours, 100% of your grade. And my torts exam had three questions. And the third question was, people like Elie Mystal will argue that the tort system is a lottery. Explain why he’s wrong.SHEFFIELD: Wait. It literally said that.MYSTAL: It literally says people Elie Mystal will say this. Explain why he’s wrong. And I was like, this MF this guy.SHEFFIELD: Hah!MYSTAL: I was like, I’m going to take my B, I’m going to take my B. And I wrote, in fact, Elie Mystal is not wrong. And I just answered the question. And so I got my B plus and I was happy with that.But yeah, but I’m saying like the point of that story is like, law and economics is endemic to how they teach law students. And it’s just, it’s something that I’ve always rejected. But I am in the minority.Legal formalism as the perfect justification for law schoolsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. And on the law school point, legal formalism is the perfect justification for law schools to exist because it’s fake science essentially, is what we’re talking about. This is, that’s what legal formalism is. It’s a pretension of objectivity.And you brought up English professors, but you get two English professors in a room and you ask them, tell me about Voltaire’s Candide. Does it mean x? And you’ll get 20 different opinions out of two people on what that novel means. And the same thing obviously is true with regard to legal stuff.And here’s the thing. It doesn’t [00:18:00] mean that because we’re criticizing it here, it doesn’t mean that we’re saying that there are no cases where an objective outcome is possible. It doesn’t mean that. It means that the burden of proof is on the legal formalist to say that it always exists and that it’s always discernible.And they never bother to do that.MYSTAL: Yeah Matt, you’re hitting close to home because I am one of my more radical ideas and my more radical proposals is about the how we need to massively rethink how we do legal education in this country. I’m no fan of our current, 232 law school system where, 90% of them are diploma mills and three of them are teaching the next Supreme Court justices.And there’s just not a lot in between. I think we should have a two-tier, at least a two-tier law school system where we have one group of schools that is really focused on training the next judges, right? The next the next legal arbitrators, if you will, whether that’s a judge or an arbitration person and really focusing the mind on the structures and the skills that one needs to judge.Which are different than the other law schools, which should be focused on teaching the next generation of lawyers, the next generation of practitioners, the next generation of people who will do client services. Because those are two different things. Like what you need to do, one thing is somewhat completely different than what you need to do.Another thing and in particular point what you need to do the client service stuff shouldn’t take three years as current law schools do and shouldn’t cost, the mortgage of a house, like it should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through that experience.One of the reasons why we have a justice gap in terms of attorney representation is that people coming out of law school have so much debt that [00:20:00] they can’t take on the poor, the vulnerable, the needy client they have to take on, have to is not correct. They are compelled to take on the rich, the powerful, the insurance company clients because that’s how they’re going to pay back their debts. And if we had a different law school system where we were producing practitioners, after a year and a half people graduating from school with 20 grand in debt, 30 grand in debt, as opposed to 200,000 in debt, 400,000 in debt.You’d develop a crop of lawyers who were able to assist clients in need. That’s one huge distinction, tiering I would make in the law school system. And then I would try to encourage more people to pursue something along the lines of a PhD in legal philosophy, right? PhD in legal history. Because that’s another thing that law schools try to cram in there over three years while taking all your money that most lawyers don’t need at all yet.Some people are super interested in and that can be, the, if you, so if you think about it, you need one track for the people who are going to be judges. One track for the people who are going to be law professors, and another track for people who are going to be actual lawyers.Law schools right now, they try to do all three things and they do it poorly. They do all three things poorlySHEFFIELD: Yeah, that’s right. AndMYSTAL: Except for Yale. Yale does it all good, but except for Yale, they do all.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And your idea here, large language models, the new LLMs, are basically going to force this. Because all low level legal work, because most people who come out of law school, they get stuck doing document review work, very basic research for cases and a large language model, they can do that stuff actually very well, in, in many cases, better than humans. Because, they, they are able, [00:22:00] they know a lot more synonyms off, off of the top of a calculation compared to us. Like there could be, like on a given word there might be 20 or 30 different ways of saying one word.And a human might only know off offhand, maybe 10 of them. So like this is going to completely destroy all entry level legal jobs. And so we have to, they have to be, the law school environment has to be optimized for litigation because obviously a computer LLM cannot do that.MYSTAL: Litigation and service. one of the, one of the, one of the real, I think, failures of law school is that they don’t teach people how to serve people. Law. Law, being a lawyer is a service industry. One of the reasons why I didn’t like it being a lawyer is because it’s the service industry. Right? One of the, one of the reasons I didn’t like it is that at the end of the day, you’re the guy who’s okay, Mr.Client, would you like fries with that? you are providing, person to person, flesh to flesh service. And law school doesn’t train you to do that very well. And a lot of people who end up in law school turns out they never wanted to go into a service industry. They want to go into an academic industry or judicial industry.Like they’re and they’re they’re, that’s one of the reasons why you have so much sadness and I think disappointment and uncertainly drinking and drug use in the legal profession is that you got people mismatched, serving in a service industry when they had no intention or skills or abilities to do that.Yeah. So there’s aSHEFFIELD: And they’re 200 grand in the whole on top of it.MYSTAL: Right. But they got to pay the bills and they got to pay back that debt. So there, there are a lot of, there are a lot of problems with how we teach lawyers that, and judges that then lead to some of the problems with lawyers and judges that we’re talking about now.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. and legal formalism. Yeah. It’s like the perfect justification for all of this bad system because it’s no, we’re, we are [00:24:00] unlocking the secret to reality basically for you. And we happen to know what it is. SoMYSTAL: People should note. People should note, like if you go back and read a really old opinion, a, an opinion from, 18, 18, 10, an opinion from 1845 if you, your, the language is archaic so that will trip people up. The we don’t talk or write like they did in 1845, but if you were comfortable with the language, you would be able to understand it without a law degree.You would be able to understand what they’re saying without a law degree, because back in the 19th century, they wrote with clarity, they wrote with the idea that. Non legally trained people should be able to understand their decisions because they understood that non legally trained people would have to enforce their decisions.And so of course, they needed to write in a way that the average Joe, if you maybe a slightly above average Joe, but like the average Joe could understand what they were saying. Fast forward to reading an opinion today or really reading any opinion post 1960. And it’s jargon on top of jargon nestled into procedure, right?It’s just you have to have gone through the three years or more or so of legal training to understand what John Roberts is saying today. And that is actually. Historically speaking in America new, it is new that the average, relatively speaking, it is new that the average person has almost no opportunity to understand a Supreme Court decision.That’s a bit weird, right? And it’s and it creates a social stratification, right? It creates a educated class, an elite class, a ruling class of law people of law [00:26:00] understanders, who are then allowed to explain to everybody else what the law means, right? So that you, the average person, aren’t allowed to figure out for yourself what the law means.You, the average person, aren’t allowed to noodle out for yourself what your rights and responsibilities are. You have to pay a lawyer to do that, right? Isn’t that convenient? It’s you have to pay money in order to understand simple things like your rights or your contracts, or think about a contract.That’s a great way of thinking about it. How many people, how many business people can write a contract for their business without a lawyer? And the answer is almost nobody. Almost nobody. You almost certainly, if you are a, if you are a small business all the way up to a Fortune 500 con company, you got to have a lawyer to write your contracts.You have to pay a lawyer money to write your contracts because the law has become so formalistic, so jargon heavy, so procedural that you, the average business person cannot write your own business contract. That’s new. That’s not how it was in the 19th century.Legal realism explainedSHEFFIELD: Yeah, that’s that’s a great point. And it undercuts the originalist idea that they’re trying to preserve some sort of antiquated understanding of the law. But that takes us to the next part of the discussion here, which is that so we’re not going to have a big long legal philosophy seminar here, but basically there are two other alternatives to legal formalism, we can say, boil it down very broadly that the alternatives are realism and critical legal studies. And and as you described yourself at the beginning, you are in the realist camp. So what is legal realism?MYSTAL: Yes I am most definitely a legal realist, so my form of legal realism. Is the particularly harsh political kind, right? My thought is that judges [00:28:00] make their decisions based on any number of factors, their personal beliefs, their political beliefs, their religious beliefs, all the things that go into a person.That is what the judge is drawing upon to make their decision. And then they work backwards. They want to get to a certain outcome, either for political or personal or social reasons. And then they work backwards to figure out how they can achieve the outcome they want. They’ll use whatever’s at the table.They’ll use formalism if that’s helpful to get to their outcome, but they’ll ignore formalism if it’s unhelpful to get to their outcome. That there are very few ju there are no judges. Do this 100%. And, you can always find, even the most formalistic judge, you’ll find a case where they abandon whatever.Procedural and intellectual principles they have in order to get to the determinative outcome that they seek. And so when I’m talking about legalism, that’s really where, I’m coming from that you have to understand who the judges are as people both stop it though. Sorry. You have to understand who the judges are as people, both as intellectual beings, as social beings, as religious beings, as racial and gender beings.You have to understand who they are as people to understand the decisions that they’re going to make. And if you do that, you’ll find that your ability to predict how the case is going to go shoots up the roof, right? Like you, I will, win the crystal ball bat bet I will win fantasy SCOTUS against anybody who thinks that the.The texts of the statutes and the texts of the cases and the particularities of the issues, I will win against anybody who thinks that those matter, just by having a better understanding of who these judges are as [00:30:00] people.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that is very, accurate. And it actually reminds me of a conversation that I had with somebody. I’m not a lawyer, but I write about law stuff a sufficient amount that lawyers sometimes ask me opinions about what they should say and or how they should word things.And I was having a conversation with somebody one time and this person asked me, okay, what should I, what do, should I say A or B in this brief here? What do you think? And I said, what’s the political party of the judge? And they looked at me and I had two heads, and I was like, this is actually very relevant here because this is a clear distinction between, a conservative and a right wing inter interpretation, what you’re asking me here. And they were like, I have no idea what it is, and it doesn’t matter. And I was like, you got some news for you. It does matter. And they got and very huffy at me for daring to suggest that their precious judge would have political considerations in the case.And it turned out I was right. but I didn’t rub it in. I’m only rubbing it in now anonymously.MYSTAL: Yeah the look I have that fight with journalists all the time. Where, recently in my career, recently, like halfway through my career, I started proactively when I refer to a judge, refer to either their political party or the president that appointed them. 10 years ago, people didn’t do that.You read the Adam Liptak, the New York Times, he still doesn’t do that. the, idea that you have to put the party affiliation of the judge when you are explaining a judge or a decision to anybody, that is, again, that is incredibly new. And I’m one of the people that’s made it new that’s made it a thing that now most people do, although they’re still old school journalists that don’t, and that is that, that is, if you will, legal realism 1 0 1 as applied to journalism, right?I’m going to, I’m not doing my job as [00:32:00] a journalist if I’m not telling you Elena Kagan appointed by Clinton Amy Coney Barrett appointed by Trump. I’m not doing my job if you don’t know that. So that’s one kind of definition of realism. The other definition that I find useful and that I clinging to quite a bit is the idea that you have to look at the.On the ground realities of the decision as part of your decision making process, right? that, that the, real world impacts of your decision matter and should matter as you’re making the decision. And this is such a controversial point to many judges on both the right and the left. And I’m not saying like the right believes one thing and the left believes another thing I’m saying that you can find interesing battles.Amongst the right and the left over how much to consider the real world impact of their decisions. And I am, an extreme to the side of the real world impact to of the decisions is one of the only things that matters. but there are people on my side of the aisle, if you will, who would disagree with me and say that, looking too much at the real world impact of your decisions leads to worse decisions.So that’s a live battle. And I’m on the side of, I apologize for that. My dog has seen a squirrel that she does not like stop it.SHEFFIELD: It’s anMYSTAL: And so the idea is that so yeah, I’m on the extreme side of saying that the decisions are, the real world impact is some of the only things that matter.We can see this battle play out at the Supreme Court over the issue of abortion, right? If you go back to 1992 and you look at the decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey, which is the decision, the 1992 decision that upheld Roe v. Wade, what you have is a bunch of [00:34:00] conservative judges of justices, a bunch of Republican appointed justices who hated abortion.People think that the court is unbalanced now because it’s six three Republican. In 1992, the court was eight to one Republican appointees over Democratic appointees. And the one democratic appointee was a guy who voted against Roe v. Wade, right? So if you’re coming at abortion in 1992, you, think you have it locked.You think you have it won and you don’t because two of the Republicans, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy did legal realism. Senator Day O’Connor famously says abortions will happen whether the government wants them to or not. And so in her upholding of Roe v Wade, which is a decision she didn’t agree with upholding of abortion rights, which were rights that she didn’t agree with.O O’Connor was no fan of abortion, but she rules in favor of abortion because of the real world impact of taking that right away. Fast forward to Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health. Fast forward to 2022, and you have Sam Alito telling us that we shouldn’t at all look at the real world impacts of abortion rights or the real world impacts of taking them away.That’s a difference that happened within the Republican justices. Within the Republican party. Again, when I say that formalism is a way for judges to protect themselves, it’s a re it’s a retreat. It’s a, I don’t ha, Sam Alito is falsely telling us he doesn’t have an opinion on abortion rights one way or the other.He justSHEFFIELD: Where it’s not relevant. Yeah.MYSTAL: He just thinks that the real world impact is not relevant at all. It’s a shocking turn that’s happened again, 1992 to 2022. It’s a shocking turn that’s happened within our, all of our lifetimes.SHEFFIELD: [00:36:00] Yeah. And I would say that it, in this particular case at least on the right that it really shows that there is a distinction between conservative and reactionary. Like a conservative is somebody who says, look, there might be a law that I don’t like. what, this is a thing that millions of people have built their lives expecting to exist.And so I’m not going to take it away from them, like that was classic Dwight Eisenhower when he came in after Truman and FDR had created all these programs that he wasn’t necessarily want, wouldn’t have supported when they were doing it, but he was like, look. Our economy is literally built on these ideas now. So I’m not going to get rid of Social Security. I’m not going to get rid of all these new departments because that would be foolhardy and destructive to the nation.And so that’s what an actual conservative does. A reactionary says no, this is all evil. We need to go back to 1910 or 1847 or some insert pre-Civil War year here.And and that’s what we’re going to do. And they don’t care who it impacts or who it hurts because, they have this imagine past that they want to go back to.MYSTAL: Look, the word evil is important here because I do think that it, again, as a legal realist, I think that evil is a word that should be used in law, that should be used in making decisions. And I would, it’s going to sound weird. I would’ve preferred it, I would’ve preferred it as a legal proposition if Sam Alito come out and said, abortion is evil.If Sam Alito come out and said we, are overturning Roe v. Wade, because abortion is an evil scourge on the country, that must be stopped, that would’ve been a truthful for what he believed, as opposed to the bull crap that he wrote. B. It would’ve made the fight obvious, right? Like, that’s, and thus it makes it easy, easier to overturn, easier to fight politically, whatever you [00:38:00] want to say.But it is clear to me that justice is like Alito Thomas Roberts. They think abortion is evil. So just say that stop hiding behind your jargon. Just say that you don’t like it and say that you’re overruling it because you don’t like it, because that then opens the aperture for what the people who disagree with you can do.Right.Critical legal studies and integralismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, it lets them know what’s at stake, for sure. Yeah. All So the other alternative, the main alternative to discuss here is critical legal studies or critical realism as sometimes it’s called. So let’s talk about that.MYSTAL: Yeah. So I don’t, this is, this now is a little bit beyond me, right? My understanding of critical studies is like a law school understanding of it. Which is that you have to look at all of the history of you, if you will, of the case law. first of all, I guess we have to start with, we have to understand that America is a common law system.That means that most of our laws are not written down. Most of our laws are are based on precedent, right? so because this old white guy did it in 1790, then this other old white guy agreed with him in 1812 and so on and so forth. And we get to a point where wherever we are today, right?And critical realism is to look at the factors. Involved in the decisions in 1790 and 1812 and so on and so forth. Until we get to a point where we can understand why they made their decisions, that’s why it’s a form of realism, right? We have to understand who these people were, the society that they were living under and we accorded presidential value or not, based on how much our society is different from their [00:40:00] society.So an example of this, you could argue is Brown v. Board of Ed. Now, I struggle a lot with Brown v Board of Ed because as a black man, brown v Board of Ed is one of the most important decisions to ever have been made. My mother was born in 1950 in Mississippi, right? Brown v. Board of Ed is why my mom could go to the library, right?So Brown v Board of Ed is a critically important decision, literally to me personally, to say nothing of, I think its larger effects on the country, and yet it is stupidly written like, oh my God, I like it. It is almost laughably ridiculous in terms of how they reasoned their way into overturning Plessy v Ferguson People, a lot of people don’t know this.My man Warren was looking at dolls, right? And I’m not. Making that up at all. One of the, one of the ways he reasoned that s but equal was unconstitutional was based on a study of black girls playing with dolls and how they found the black dolls to be less good than the white dolls, even though they were black girls.And somehow this shows that segregation is bad. And I’m like, brother, what? What dolls? Are you kidding me? Like that? That’s a critical realism theory. That is that, that is looking at the differences between the society of Plessy b Ferguson and the Society of Brown B Board of Ed that is looking at new science.It’s a study. To inform your opinion, but man, that’s not how I would’ve rolled with it. That’s that I, again, I would have been [00:42:00] much more comfortable saying, guess what? Segregation is evil. We’re overturning it, suck on it. Like, again, my re my, my, so I do make a distinction between legal re realism and critical realism.Because I think legal realism is cleaner. I think critical realism is trying to get to the same point than I’m already at through a lot more bs.SHEFFIELD: A lot a lot more hoops to jump through. Yeah and in a way I think, you could argue that perhaps and I’m I’m violating my idea of saying only two of the philosophies here, but in, in a certain sense it is. I think critical legal realism is like a more left counterpart to what exists on the far right.This idea of integral of, that the role of the legal system is to, integrate the tr religious doctrines of my personal religion into society. And we’re going to, we’re going, so we’re going to cite to, Pope j John the 11th amount something on this here.And we’re going to cite through the Bible on this other case. And we’re going to look to these things that have nothing to do with the legal case because they are representative of the values we want to ensconce. That’s how I see it.MYSTAL: I think that’s right. And I just, I, there, there are cleaner ways to do it. There, there are, there are, look the danger of what I’m saying, right?Going back to legal realism means we have to restrain judgesMYSTAL: The danger of my position that I’m well aware of is that if you untether judges from any sense of text from any sense of precedent, from any sense of history, all you get are politicians in robes. And while that might be fine, the problem is nobody elects these politicians in robes. In a Democratic a [00:44:00] self-governing republic, we are supposed to elect the representatives who make the laws for us and decide the important issues. For us, we’re supposed to have a vote in these decisions.And judges, you don’t vote for. So the judge shouldn’t have the power to make political decisions based on their whatever, on their personal beliefs, on their personal feelings, on their religions, on their race, on their creed because nobody voted for them, right? And where I take us to is a form of a judici a form of overpowered judiciary, where they are in the platonic sense, right?Philosopher, kings lording over the rest of society that nobody voted for. So the way that I handled that criticism, the way that I cut that criticism is to say that while I am a legal realist, why I believe that judges are in fact politicians in robes because nobody voted for them. I think judges should have way less power than they do in our society, right?I want to understand what a judge is, but then truncate and limit the power of the courts. To the point where whatever it is, where it’s not as powerful as it is today.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.MYSTAL: My idea there tracks globally. A lot of Americans don’t understand that the American Supreme Court is one of, if not the most powerful high court in industrialized democracies.Other countries, high courts do not have as much power as the American Supreme Court. Other countries’ high courts do not regularly overturn laws passed by their parliaments overturn orders issued by their prime ministers. That doesn’t really happen elsewhere. It happens every June here. It [00:46:00] doesn’t it, it’s a rare thing for it to happen elsewhere.That’s why in most other countries, people don’t have any idea who the justices are on their high card. They don’t know. they’re not, because it doesn’t matter right here, we don’t know because we’re stupid and we’re poorly read. But in other countries, it doesn’t matter who their high court does.It’s not a life or death political fight every time one of these octogenarians dies or chokes on a ham sandwich or whatever because their high courts don’t have as much power. So my response to the criticism of legal realism is always to significantly truncate and limit the power of our Supreme Court and our federal courts in general, so that they can’t run roughshod over the elected branches of government.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. and that also as a very originalist in historical context as well, Elie because like that the idea of the courts as the quote least dangerous branch is that was the unanimous belief among all of the signers of the Constitution that we’re prominent is that we have records of basically you.MYSTAL: I’ve made the joke. Matt, I’ve made the joke before that so Hamilton writes the courts will be the least dangerous branch in federal 78 because they have neither the power of the purse nor the power of the sword. That means they have neither the power to tax like Congress does, which is the power to destroy according to the founders, nor the power of the sword, that means that they’re not the president, they’re not the commander in chief. They can’t use the military. So Hamilton says that they will not be that important. And I’ve made the joke, Matt, that the next time Hamilton would be that wrong, he’d be shooting his gun up into the air in Hoboken, right?like Hamilton was just wrong, just straight. And all of them were just straight up wrong and they were wrong almost immediately. Marbury versus Madison, John Marshall in 1803 proved them wrong [00:48:00] almost immediately. They proved them wrong in their lifetimes,SHEFFIELD: And they didn’t do anything about it, like those assholes.MYSTAL: Do a damn thing about it.The Warren and Burger courts were anomolies that distorted liberal understanding of jurisprudenceSHEFFIELD: Yeah. so besides the historical context though, the other thing is that and this was the allure of legal formalism for the, for liberals, is that it became ensconced exactly around the time period of the Warren Court.And so it became a self-justifying theory for the Warren Court’s decisions and the Burger Court which was only slightly less progressive in its rulings. And the problem is the legal system is inherently conservative, and inherently biased to the right because it is based on, we have to preserve what order exists right now.So that is an inherent conservative object for them to strive towards. And as you said, it’s not about justice, it’s literally about legal order. that’s the de facto pursuit of all legal systems. And in some ways it, you could say it, it probably has to be that way, right?MYSTAL: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Because there would be chaos if it wasn’t. And but, so essentially legal formalism, this is why it’s so pernicious, is it became a way for people on the political left to justify a conservative institution. That historically up until only the Warren Court, so the entire history of the United States before and then subsequently to the Burger Court, it was and has been and is, a conservative and reactionary institution. So this was liberals literally saying, here, take this gun and point it at my head and point it at America because I like this five or six rulings. That’s what happened.MYSTAL: Warren and Burger destroyed intellectually [00:50:00] an entire generation of liberals. Just an entire generation of progressives. I could argue two generations of liberals and progressives because of exactly what you’re saying, Matt. That because for 20 years there, disregarding the entire previous history of the court and disregarding the entire post Burger, Rehnquist, into Roberts history of the courts.For 20 years there, the court was a progressive force of social change, every other time in American history, the other 230 years there are regressive conservative force against social change. But for 20 years they were forward thinking. And because they were forward thinking for 20 years, it created in liberals a false and ultimately defeatist reliance on the courts as the institution for social change.The courts are not an institution for social change. They shouldn’t, as you pointed out, they probably shouldn’t be an institution for social change. I argue that they can’t be a, so an instrument for social change because the society does not elect them to change the society, right? So all of these kind of intellectual and structural vales, retard the progress of the court.The court is a retardation on the progress of our country. But because of the Warren court, because boarded, which I just talked about, because of the civil rights stuff, because of Roe v. Wade, for an entire generation or two, liberals got the false impression that the courts were their friends and they’re not. And it’s something that you have to, that we haven’t.So to the point where you get the first black president, you get a, the first black president who also happens to be a Harvard educated constitutional scholar, and he’s thinking that the courts are going to [00:52:00] uphold his agenda because he has been. He has been bamboozled by, because he came of age during those 20 years when the courts were actually our friends.And he completely, I, I could argue that, the, I’ve argued before the biggest failure of Barack Obama was trying to appoint Merrick Garland and not filling Scalia’s seat. That is it. I want, I don’t want to say Obama had one job, but he had three jobs and that was one of them. And he failed that job massively. Failing to appoint a liberal to replace Scalia was a massive failure.And I know that’s McConnell’s fault and we can, people can blame McConnell for that. But like Obama was the president at the time, he should have found a waySHEFFIELD: Oh, and he didn’t even tell the public really what was going on. Like they would’ve been outraged if they had heard about it. IMYSTAL: that was mission critical and it was a failure, but it’s a failure because of what we’re talking about.It’s a failure because of a reliance that the courts are fundamentally reasonable, fundamentally forward facing fundamentally socially just, and that’s just not what the courts are or have been throughout American history, but for, again, 20 odd years in the middle there.Because judging is political, it must be restrained to be lower than CongressSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and this was this was I think a system-wide failure on the political left outside, not just the legal system as well, and what they didn’t get ultimately is that the best way to protect democracy is to practice it. Be, you can’t protect democracy by saying, we’re going to have this small cadre of people and they’re going to make the right decisions.That, that’s inherently anti-democratic, is what you’re doing. And you can’t do that. And, and I, and the example I sometimes give on this point is that, you look at. The the healthcare systems in other countries that have installed them through a pro parliamentary procedure, right?You look at, [00:54:00] up until just, recently, pretty much every industrialized nation in the world, their conservative parties were less extreme than ours. And there are some, religious reasons for that and racial reasons for that. But there are the, it, those other countries also had racists and those other countries also had, religious fundamentalists.And What kept them at bay to a very large degree is that policy change was put through democratically. So even, the most extreme right wing parties in the UK or France, and any of these countries, Japan there, and yeah, even in the Islamic world, and African nations, south American, these far right parties are not going there and saying, we’re going to take away your healthcare.We’re going to, take, we’re gonna do all of these terrible things to you. They can’t run on that.MYSTAL: It is the greatest trick the Republican Party has ever pulled. It’s the greatest trick they pulled in my lifetime because their policies are generally speaking massively unpopular, right? You could not pass an abortion ban. Couldn’t do it, couldn’t do it, couldn’t do it nationally, can’t. It’s real. And we’re seeing really hard to do it in the states even,SHEFFIELD: Even Republican states. Yeah.MYSTAL: Even Republican state, it’s really hard to pass it even in Republican state. Couldn’t ever do it nationally, but you can do it through the courts. The, some of the gun rights stuff you can’t ban background checks nationally at the ballot box. People wouldn’t have it.If you did it all through the ballot box, we would solve our school shooting problem. But through the courts, what can one do? And for, so for a long time, Republicans, I would argue, the more moderate ones, the Lincoln Chaffee, if you will to reference an old guy a blast from the past.The former, the last Republican New England Senator of my lifetime these guys always were able to [00:56:00] run on moderate policies, but acknowledge to the crazy folk that they were with them, but, oh, what can we do until we get, have the courts right. That, that, that was their fundamental thing.Conversely, interestingly enough, speaking of the Warren court, Democrats learned the wrong lesson from the Warren courts. Democrats from the Warren courts thought that the lesson was that, oh, you have to have the courts to do massive social change like end segregation, when actually it was the Democrats who were able to pass.Their social change laws through normal processes of democratic legislation. It was the Civil Rights Act. It’s the Voting Rights Act. It’s the Fair Housing Act. All of that is legislation. None of that came through the courts. Democrats actually could pass their policies now enforcing their policies on the states and forcing Alabama to accept the Civil Rights Act.Maybe you need some courts for that. Although if you ask John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, you also need some guns for that, right? Like actually forcing the states to follow these. Let these national pieces of legislations, maybe you need some courts to do that, but to actually get the law, you can do that democratically.But Democrats learn and it’s the only way that’s going to stick, right? But Democrats learn the wrong lesson. Oh, you need the courts for Roe v. Wade, you need the courts for Brown v Board of Ed. You need the courts to do social change. Republicans understood that because they couldn’t pass their policies, they needed the courts to do the massive social change.People get this all screwed up. The Republican courts, the conservative courts, are responsible for more social change through judicial fiat than the liberal courts because the liberal courts, the liberals, are genuinely enforcing [00:58:00] laws that were passed by Congress. Upon people who don’t like that the law was passed by Congress.Whereas Republican courts, conservative courts are through judicial fiat creating changes that were not passed by Congress, that were not authorized by Congress because you can’t win those battles at the ballot box. So yeah my, my argument is always and again, as a black man, people are like, people are some, sometimes surprised that I say this because they’re like, have you seen Mississippi? Yeah, I have. And if you put a gun to my head, I would rather fight for the voters in Mississippi over what I believe than try to have to convince unelected unaccountable judges of what I believe I’m going to have a better shot with the population of Miss fricking sippy than I’m going to have with Santo.Making courts matter to votersSHEFFIELD: Yeah. and we’re seeing that we saw that with abortion and we will see that with regard to marriage equality. I think, the, and and hopefully that won’t happen, immediately. But there’s no, there, the religious right literally said we’ve decided to launch a lawsuit.Factory and we’re going to, we’re going to find enough cases and we’re going to find one that’s going to tickle the funny bone of these reactionary judges the right way. And and they’ll go for it. And, who’s to say that they won’t. And this is, and despite, and yet despite all of this, the Democratic party still does not campaign on the court, does not campaign on telling people what happened to them and why this happened and how they will fix it.And and so when you look at voters to the extent some Democrats are saying that yes, they vote based on the courts but it should be a huge majority of Democratic voters should say that. And they’re not. And this is a failure of the leadership to not just pack the court, [01:00:00] but also restrain the court.MYSTAL: It’s a massive failure of the Democratic Party and it’s an ongoing train wreck. I like to say that Republic, if I go to a Republican voter in Appalachia, if I go to a low information Republican voter in a poor state, right? They will not be able to converse with me about these theories of legal formalism or legal realism or anything like that.They won’t be able to converse with me about substantive due process versus procedural due process. They won’t understand any of that, but they know about the Second Amendment. They won’t be able to quote a single statute that actually impacts their lives. They won’t be able to quote the zoning laws around their shack, but they can quote the Second Amendment right because the Republican leadership has made that.So the Republican leadership the Republican Party has convinced that voter, that to have what that voter wants, Republicans have to control the Supreme Court. So that voter has a one-to-one understanding that if he wants his shotgun. and he can have legitimate reasons. I’m even going to say just for the sake of the argument, he’s got legitimate reasons for wanting his shotgun, right?Constitutional reasons for wanting a shotgun. Let’s even go further, right? He understands that to keep his shotgun in his house, Republicans need to control the Supreme Court. That is not confusing to him. That is not mysterious legal jargon to him. He knows it for a locked fact. Now, I go to a Democratic voter, and I and, let’s say I’m talking, let’s say I’m in, Brooklyn, I’m talking to a crunchy Birkenstock wearing, free love, make peace, not [01:02:00] war.Crunchy, hipster liberal, who wants the Green New Deal? Who is terrified about the environmental catastrophes that are happening, who’s terrified for their potential children and grandchildren in the world they’re going to live in? Who wants the earth to be saved? They have no conception that in order to get what they want, they have to have the Supreme Court.They might talk to me about a OC. They might talk to me about Bernie. They might talk to me about a Green New Deal. They might talk to me about any number of legislation that they want to see passed, but they have no conception that every single one of those laws will be overturned before breakfast by a conservative Supreme Court.If liberals do not control the Supreme Court, they do not make the one-to-one connection, and that is not their fault. That is the Democratic party’s fault. That is the leadership’s fault. The leadership has not made in the minds of the voters the one-to-one connection between what they want. Controlling the Supreme Court.It is why Democrats lose it is why Democrats have lost the battle for the courts. It’s why they fail.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And legal formalism. It’s. Perhaps useful as a heuristic for writing decisions, but for anything else, it is dangerous if you are a liberal and it needs to be thrown in the trash can. Because yeah we got to get real about this stuff and it’s long pastime to do that.MYSTAL: Yeah. And we’ve got to make it real for our own people, right? We’ve got to, I’ll, I go to the barbershop, as you can see from my hair. I don’t go to the barbershop often, when I’m there and I’m talking to black people about police brutality about. the things that are happening in our communities, the, I’m always trying to make that connection.this the reason why the police can roll up in [01:04:00] here and put us all against the wall and beat the crap out of us. That’s Graham v Connor. That’s a William Renquist decision. If we change that decision, the entire structure of police brutality changes in this country, Like that’s where we got to focus. It’s not about Manami or Bloomberg or Stop, and it’s about these decisions that are made by unelected unaccountable judges that, for the most part are Republican, for the most part, are conservative. But, and that’s why you got to vote for Hillary Clinton becauseSHEFFIELD: and you don’t have to like her. You don’t have to like, any of her ideas necessarily, except which is we’re going to contain the court and we’re going to pack the hell up.MYSTAL: You got to vote for Hillary Clinton because Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 82 years old and she’s going to die soon. That’s why you have to do it. But that’s not a, that’s not an argument that Hillary Clinton made. My gosh, Hillary Clinton sat there in 2016 with an open Supreme Court seat and didn’t mention Merrick Garland’s name once during the Democratic National Convention!Not once did she talk about the importance of filling that seat and filling other seats that would likely come up in her terms! She didn’t make the argument for her own candidates. It’s just--ugh.SHEFFIELD: If you won’t advocate for yourself, who will? That’s the bottom line. But speaking of advocating for yourself what would you want people to check out of your stuff, Elie?MYSTAL: Oh. Um, So I write twice a week for the nation the Nation Magazine in digital. And then I usually do one print column a month. So that’s the easiest place to find my writings. I’ve also written two books Allow Me to Retort, A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution and Bad Law, 10 Popular Laws that Are Ruining America.Those are available wherever they still allow black books to be sold. I’m not sure that’s Florida, you might have to go to [01:06:00] Audible. But everybody else there, there’s a way to get it. And I read the books, my, my myself and for social media. I’m on blue. I can’t do Matt, I can’t do Apartheid X anymore.I just I understand it’s where the hotness is. I just it’s too much for me. So I’m slumming it on Blue sky for a bit. I’m too old for TikTok. So, I put most of my social media things about my dog, really and my kids on Blue Sky.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Sounds good, man. It’s great having you here today and I look forward to doing more of these in the future.MYSTAL: Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation, and you can always get more if you go to Theory Change show where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you are a paid subscribing member, you have an unlimited access to the archives and I thank you very much for your support.You can become a free or paid subscriber at patreon.com/discoverflux, or you can go to flux.community to subscribe on Substack. If you’re watching on YouTube, please click the and subscribe button to get notified whenever there’s a new episode. Thanks a lot for your support and I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

In this episode of The Electorette, Jen Taylor-Skinner speaks with Rebekah Caruthers, President and CEO of the Fair Elections Center, about growing concerns around voter intimidation and the potential role of federal agencies like ICE at or near polling places. They discuss how proposed laws like the SAVE Act could change voter registration requirements, the broader strategy behind voter suppression efforts, and why some Americans are increasingly anxious about voting. Caruthers also puts this moment into historical perspective, reminding us that the fight over voting rights is not new—and that Americans have defended the ballot through some of the most difficult periods in the nation’s history. Chapter Timestamps 00:00 — The State of American Democracy Jen and Rebekah begin by taking the temperature of democracy in the United States, discussing how current political rhetoric and policy decisions are shaping the country’s democratic institutions. 02:30 — A Long History of Fighting for Voting Rights Rebekah reflects on historical struggles for democracy, including the work of Ida B. Wells and the civil rights movement, and explains why understanding this history is essential to navigating today’s challenges. 06:00 — ICE, Voter Intimidation, and the Politics of Fear The conversation turns to concerns about federal law enforcement being deployed near polling places and how intimidation—real or perceived—can discourage people from exercising their right to vote. 07:30 — The SAVE Act and New Voting Restrictions Rebekah breaks down the SAVE Act and similar legislation, explaining how proof-of-citizenship requirements and stricter ID laws could make voter registration significantly harder for millions of Americans. 11:30 — Barriers to Registration and Voting Access From criminal penalties for election workers to reduced early voting and limited ballot drop boxes, the discussion explores how multiple layers of policy changes can collectively restrict access to the ballot. 17:00 — What Voters Can Do Right Now Rebekah offers practical advice for voters, including checking registration regularly, voting early when possible, and ensuring ballots are properly received and counted. 20:00 — Disinformation and Targeting Black Voters The episode examines how misinformation campaigns often target Black communities and why voter suppression historically focuses on communities whose turnout can shift political outcomes. 24:00 — Elections in Times of Crisis Rebekah puts current fears about voting into historical perspective, reminding listeners that the United States has successfully held elections through wars, national crises, and economic collapse. 27:00 — Hope, Resistance, and the Future of the Vote The conversation closes with reflections on hope, civic participation, and why Americans continue to fight for their right to vote—even in difficult political moments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode SummaryPublic opinion surveys from every pollster have shown that Donald Trump’s political support has declined massively across the board. But one set of people that has been much more loyal (up until just very recently) has been the so-called “MAHA Movement” of former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr.This is an interesting group to think about because as the Republican party has moved to the far right, it has kicked out the conservatives and moderates who once were welcomed. Instead of shrinking away, however, Republicans remained highly competitive by bringing in the MAHA crowd of hippies and naturalist obsessives who had long been associated with the far left.But that perception was an inaccurate one. These people were always conservative/libertarian. The only thing that changed was the partisan label that they wanted to wear. The anti-science and anti-institutional rhetoric that’s the bedrock of today’s Trumpism, was actually very prominent from day one in the 1960s counterculture through figures like Jack Kerouac, Timothy Leary, and Robert Anton Wilson.Aaron Rabinowitz, my guest on today’s episode, grew up on all of this stuff, so he knows it from firsthand experience, but he also knows it through his academic career—and the fact that he’s the host of two philosophy podcasts, Embrace the Void, and Philosophers in Space.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—Why the “naturalistic fallacy” is the basis of so much anti-science thinking—Marianne Williamson’s ineffective self-help politics—How “post left” grifters use contrarian rhetoric to push people to the far right—RFK Junior’s policies are already making Americans sicker, and things will only get worse—Quantum woo is nonsense, here’s the real science—Why fan-fiction politics leads to disappointment and how AOC and Bernie Sanders are trying to combat it—How sci-fi authors like Heinlein, Pournelle, and Rand have become the obsessions of Musk, Thiel, and LuckeyAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:54 — High weirdness and libertarianism as a conservative liberalism10:19 — The origins of the “counterculture”17:15 — New Thought movement and mind over matter27:24 — Quantum physics and a new generation of pseudoscience36:02 — Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton Wilson48:38 — Ancient Pyrrhonian skepticism and high weirdness58:30 — Balancing truth and skepticism01:07:34 — Living with uncertainty and embracing the voidAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Aaron Rabinowitz. Hey Aaron, welcome to Theory of Change.AARON RABINOWITZ: Hey, Matt. Thanks for having me on.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, so this is—we’re doing a double collaboration here. So if you like this episode on Theory of Change, we will be doing another one over on Embrace the Void very soon as well.So, different topic though, so if and, and if we didn’t scare you away, that is.RABINOWITZ: [00:03:00] Different, yet weirdly related.SHEFFIELD: Yes. Yes. All right, well, so for today though, we’re talking about what some people, I mean, there’s a lot of words for what we’re talking about terms. So some people call it Pastel QAnon. Some people call it conspirituality, other people call it right wing hippieism, high weirdness. There’s many, many names for this.But let’s start off first that I think a lot of people during the pandemic realized that many people who were kind of hippie coded suddenly became very—well suddenly, quote unquote—they were observed to be very anti-mask and anti-vaccine and then soon, eventually joined up with Donald Trump and RFK Jr.But what the reality is, these ideas in many ways were fundamentally right-wing from the very beginning. It’s just that people didn’t really notice. I think.RABINOWITZ: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think there is an important history of ideas that we need to understand [00:04:00] that sort of starts in some conservative places. Like Lovecraft moves into what we think of as leftist, or they’re often leftist libertarian spaces like the hippies and high weirdness, you know, during the sixties and seventies and now has gone very broadly mainstream and I think is.You know, driving our culture kind of across the political spectrum in various ways, but has on the right, kind of metastasized into sort of the worst parts of those traditions.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And essentially, Trump and RFK Jr. And Tulsi Gabbard, these people have kind of, they’ve sort of coalesced this, this conspiracy oriented epistemology that had kind of been in past decades, just been distributed kind of evenly across the political spectrum. And now it’s overwhelmingly gravitating toward the right and Republicans.RABINOWITZ: You can get in trouble online for sort of jumping too [00:05:00] quickly into like a horseshoe theory of like, here’s how the left and the right come back together under authoritarianism, or something like that. But I’m pretty convinced these days that there is a kind of an overlap that happens. A connecting point in the realm of naturalness and fixation on naturalness.And that combined with skepticism about mainstream narratives. So high weirdness. The term that I particularly interested in, which refers to the culture that I personally grew up in is really a culture of a counterculture in the, in the traditional sense of it is resistant to mainstream culture.It sees it as suspect, it sees it as a legitimizing myth. Often it really was to try to preserve norms that were harmful to people. And it takes a pretty radical approach to, you know, challenging and, and exploring alternatives to those mainstream norms. And that is an idea that [00:06:00] wasn’t as popular, I think amongst like what we think of as conservatism when high weirdness was sort of at its peak during that hippie era.But as you’ve seen mainstream culture trend towards neoliberalism with a little splash of progressivism, as you’ve seen conservatives come to view themselves as on the outs culturally, they have really adopted these kind of high weirdness skepticisms about mainstream narratives, which they identify with wokeness.And, you know I, I just listened to your episode actually about fit with the person who wrote Fit Nation, which I thought was really excellent on talking about this problem that like there is a overlap of people who are distrustful of conventional wisdom and that creates a space for them to spiral in lots of interrelated directions.But a lot of those spirals kind of funnel down into these far right spaces.High weirdness and libertarianism as a conservative liberalismSHEFFIELD: Yeah, they do. And and, and it is, yeah, it does go back in a lot of ways to [00:07:00] natural the belief in the natural. But there’s, there’s some epistemic standpoints that we’ll talk about as well further on in the episode. But I, I, I guess, yeah, one of the key things to think about in this context is.Libertarianism is kind of a rump liberalism, if you will rump from the political context, not used in America very, very much. But the idea that a party that sort of divides into and the, and there’s a smaller minority that claims to be the real, the real version and that is different from the main larger body.And so that’s kind of what happened with liberalism in the 20th century. Beginning, you know, roughly, let’s say with the, the, i, the, the emergence of socialism as kind of a alternative between you know, communism and liberalism is, but, but it was very much rooted in liberalism and they could point very easily to John Stewart Mill and other people like that.But there were people who had a more hierarchical viewpoint [00:08:00] a naturalist viewpoint, if you will, about truth and about politics, about poverty. And those are the people who became the libertarians later.RABINOWITZ: Yeah.Yeah. We don’t want to, like, it’s hard because these are such large milieus of concepts, you know, there’s no easy line to trace, like, here’s when things went this way or here’s when things went that way. You know, you have a lot of like broader cultural shifts happening. You have, you know, civil rights conflict, you have, you know, red scare, anti-socialist stuff.You know, the increasing, I, you know, one would argue increasingly predatory nature of, of capitalism. Sort of just embodying the colonialism of the past and all of that sort of disillusions a lot of people, right? So a lot of these movements I do think start in a kind of disillusionment a, a break with the narratives that [00:09:00] were making.One’s sense of purpose and meaning, feel sustained. And then in the absence of that, there are attempts to try to explain why this is happening and attempts to try to see if there’s a better alternative. And a lot of that ends up, you know, like we want to say, a lot of that is very valuable, right? A lot of this leads to.Social progress that we now take for granted, sexual social progress and racial social progress. but it also leads to, you know, increases in conspiratorial beliefs or distrust of the government in ways like that aren’t actually constructive or valuable. Right? There are reasonable times to be distrustful of governments and then there is a kind of more all consuming version of that that can lead one astray, epistemically, so, yeah, I think, Yeah, I think there’s a lot of different threads here that we can kind of pull on and then you add, you know, then you add in like massive doses of psychedelics and you get, you know, [00:10:00] some really radical perspectives. You also get a lot of modern technology, a lot of modern science fiction and horror.You know, it shapes all these different aspects of our world that I think now are so baked in that in a sense, sort of high weirdness won the culture wars, and now we’re just kind of living in that world.The origins of the “counterculture”SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, in a lot of ways. And certainly we see that with. You know, now that you know marijuana is legalized in most American states and, and many other countries around the world as well and other drugs in other areas. So, but let’s maybe talk specifically about some specific people here.So one of the things, you know, as I said, people oftentimes think of the, the sixties, seventies counterculture as this big left wing movement. And it’s certainly true that there were plenty of people in that worldview. And probably the majority of them seems like if you look at the, the voting trends of, of baby boomers, [00:11:00] generally speaking, they have been a, a, a democratic vote voting group.So, but at the same time there was, there were always some very significant, prominent individuals in this culture that had kind of right. Libertarian viewpoints right wing anarchist viewpoints. And I think probably the, the earliest one who, who became I mean overtly, right, right wing later in life was Jack Kerouac the, the the founder, founder of the Beat Poet movement.So for people who don’t know what, what that was or who he was, why don’t you give us a little overview please.RABINOWITZ: Sure. And like when I say I was raised in, in this culture, I mean, my dad, a clinical psychologist, put on a one man show for many years where he played Alan Ginsburg and performed Alan Ginsburg’s poetry and looks very similar to Alan Ginsburg. It was a wonderful show. So like I saw, you know naked Lunch, William s [00:12:00] Burrows, the movie of William s Burrows book at a deeply inappropriate age.These were poets of various backgrounds who kind of came together. again, in sort of resistance to what they saw as the norms around art and writing and culture. And so they were very famous for things like rejection of editing. This isn’t true of all of them, right? Ginsburg was like a compulsive editor, whereas folks like Kerouac would, you know, make fun of him for that, right?They were very, you know, you are self-censoring, I think is the line that the Kerouac Standin gives in the Naked Lunch movie where they’re arguing about how to write. Whereas Burrough’s line in there is exterminate all rational thought. these guys were all really struggling with. Not fitting in with modern society, with thinking that it was very fake and hollow, which it was in a lot of ways.And we’re looking for meaning elsewhere, and we’re looking forward in [00:13:00] drugs and promiscuous sex and homosexuality and like all these outside experiences. And so they, you know, they became these kind of outsider figures and they were very popular as a result of that. And then of course there was the irony of that.You know, like you’re being an outside figure who inevitably gets, becomes commodified, right? As your ideas become more popular in mainstream, you become the thing that you have been resisting. And there’s a lot of like resistance to that within it. Yeah. And it’s not surprising. I think that to varying degrees, these individuals also had right wing coated ideas, Or became more right wing coated because a lot of this was reactionary.You know, these were reactionary movements and reactionary movements. Whether they are left or right can produce good ideas, but they can also just produce reactionary ideas. And I think a lot of what is essential to conservatism is steeped in certain kind of reactionary [00:14:00] fear of progress away from what you perceive to be the ideal status quo.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Or people living differently than you. And whether they have the right to do that.RABINOWITZ: And then there’s also like, you know, libertarianism is not a pure left or right thing either. I know left libertarians, you know, who really hate the way that people understand libertarianism today. But also I think libertarianism has, as a movement, there’s been a lot of problems because, you know, as a also somewhat reactionary movement, it, it tends to endorse and, and support some pretty isolationist, harmful ideas.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and I mean, that’s where I would kind of put it just as like a, a form of anarchism. I mean, ultimately to me, and some people don’t like it when I say this, but anarchism is operationally conservative because it’s saying. There should be no structures to stop [00:15:00] sociopaths. And, and that, and that ultimately is the problem that if you have a society that says we will have no rules against mistreating the society itself then ultimately you end up with the, the people who have the most money or the most guns, they’re the ones who win.And that, you know, when you look at history, that kind of is what happens, seems like toRABINOWITZ: Yeah.I would argue that there are flavors of anarchism on the more social, communal, smaller scale level that. Sort of buck that trend. But I do think there’s a problem of scaling and a problem of, you know, in a, in a world of larger scale societies, how do you avoid it not turning into what we are seeing is this kind of very laissez-faire approach to like morality.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And so, you know, a, a, as you mentioned, drugs, obviously were a big, a big part of this culture.And, and, and, and, and I think, you know, people now, decades after the fact, you know, it’s easy to, to think about, [00:16:00] well, these were people that were just, you know, trying to have fun or whatever, but that’s not what a lot of them really saw themselves as doing. Like, they literally. That they were re, you know, rewiring their brains and, and discovering, you know, untapped potential of the human mind.And, and, and Timothy Leary, who was a Harvard professor that was became notorious for his advocacy for LSD really kind of the, the, the, the, the guy that was the centerpiece of this, this particular aspect of their ideology. And this dude was a straight up libertarian anarchist. and Larry had this phrase that really encapsulated this idea, which, which was a slogan. It was turn on, tune in, drop out.And I think that last part drop out is where his libertarian anarchism really came into play because he was telling people do not participate in society. You need to get out of it because it’s all [00:17:00] bad. Everything sucks about it, and you need to get back to the land, et cetera, or, you know, go inside your mind and, you know, be on drugs all the time or whatever, because this is how we can reach the future of humanity, if you will.New Thought movement and mind over matterRABINOWITZ: Yeah. And here’s where I think it’s important to bring in another big movement that is a precursor to high weirdness, which is the new thought movement. I try to drop this in whenever possible because it’s fascinating to me. So this is a movement that arose in like the early 19th century. And it’s what we, what we now think of today as the mind over matter worldview, right?Which has again, become very mainstream through the secret laws of attraction kind of stuff. This is the origination of the ideas of laws of attraction. They, these were often you know, not traditional scientists or something. These were people on the outs of. Scientific culture at that time who had sort of extreme views about [00:18:00] what was being discovered about science that suggested that there were connections between the mind and the body, right?So you have your classic Cartesian. How do these things connect? What is the influence of the mind over the body? And these folks come along and say they sort of think of themselves as flipping the script the way that like mentalists do or idealists do over the materialists and saying, you know, mind is prior to body.In some ways it is the defining force. It’s not that we are at the whims of our physical structures. We can reshape them with our wills essentially. So you get all of the, like a lot of positive psychology comes out of this. So many things are downstream of, of new thought and sort of poisoned by it. because these, these were.Folks who lead to, you know, the ideas that if you will.it, you can cure your own cancer. And that all disease is the result of bad mental thinking, which has the implicit victim blaming in it. Where if you’re suffering from something, you’re just not willing yourself not [00:19:00] to suffer from it hard enough. You know, manifestation, laws of attraction.I often talk about how these things are just victim blaming at a cosmic scale, essentially, but they’re build, they’re sold, they’re commodified as empowering. Right. about mindfulness traditions, I’m, I’m a big fan of mindfulness traditions, but there are parts of the mindfulness tradition world. There are parts of positive psychology world that are really commodified, you know, wellness.I mean, wellness is like the, I think the one we want to be most worried about. The wellness world is full of these kinds of mystical ideas. And a lot of that. Became popularized through high weirdness. So there was a phase of it being very popular during new thought. And then I think it’s brought back a lot by the psycho knots, by people like Timothy Leary, who, like you said, they see themselves exploring the mind, not just for fun, but for empowerment.we’ll probably talk some about like science fiction. These guys heavily influenced science fiction and you can really see these ideas [00:20:00] in books like Hind Line, stranger in a Strange Land, where it’s all about if you learn Martian, you can physically reshape your body and mind in ways that give you superpowers.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And we will talk about Highline a bit here, but I did want to mention for anybody who is interested in the kind of the, I, we did a, a, a deep, much deeper dive just on that topic with Ajit here on a episode that will be, that comes out before this. So I’ll, I’ll link to it for anybody who wants to see that.But yeah, I, this, and, and a lot of these ideas were religious in origin also. Like that’s the other thing about new, new thought. And one of them actually, there’s a connection to Donald Trump in new thought because his, his childhood pastor was Norman Vincent Peele, who was one of the biggest proponents of new thought.And he wrote all kinds of books about, you know, trying, trying to tell people that yeah, if you if you have the right relationship with God and you have the right set of [00:21:00] mindset that, you know, literally anything is possible for you. So, so, yeah. And likeRABINOWITZ: There’s your origins of Prosperity Gospel right there too, right?SHEFFIELD: Oh yeah, it isRABINOWITZ: that’s where, that’s where it all comes from. Like, you know, if you will, it, it is No dream.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and, and so in a sense this is, you know, so the, the religious side, this is a, an act of faith. To have this you know, to have the blessings that God wants to give you if you have enough faith. But you know, the secular side, and I, I think, Carl Jung was also kind of in the mix in this regard as well.That, you know, the, that this was the, the, the mid 20th century, it was finally a moment where a, I’d say probably, you know, most educated people outside of, of or in the US and other countries had come to the, the idea, well, there’s no such thing as a soul. And, but there is a mind. And so we are discovering how it really works.And so like Leary, [00:22:00] his, his big thing as a, as a, I mean it’s not really a philosophy, but he had this idea of, he called it reality tunnels, that everybody lives in. And so with, if you took enough drugs, you could, you could go from the tunnel that you inhabited mentally to other ones and you could explore other realities.And,RABINOWITZ: Yep.SHEFFIELD: this was, so, yeah, there was sort strong sci-fi connections to this. And, and, and, you know, this is people were, they were doing philosophy without a net, if you will.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. And if you, you know, if you look at the sense makers, speaking of thought tunnels, like people like Jordan Peterson folks, they, they talk about these ideas of thought tunnels and they, they often are being critical of, they’re using it to be critical of mainstream culture and saying, people get stuck in these mainstream thought tunnels, and they have to break out of those into, you know, novel ways of thinking.There’s definitely a ton of religious stuff in this. The, you know, the co the folks that they were drawing [00:23:00] on, heavily steeped agnosticism as well as non-Western traditions. So a big impact was the translation starting at the beginning, you know, spreading of translations of non-Western Buddhist and, and Daoist writing into Western spaces.And then you look at things like Carlos Castaneda and Don Juan. Often these are half-baked, you know, like fictionalized, very problematic colonialist accounts of, you know, various spiritual and wisdom traditions that are then co-opted into their attempts to kind of assemble an alternative worldview to what they saw as sort of dominating society.And I think you see the modern right doing the exact same thing. And, and like the role of gnosticism is the same gnosticism, if you look at it as a religious tradition, is very conspirator conspiracy theory in nature. It basically says we are all trapped under the whims of [00:24:00] a creature that is preventing us from knowing the truth and that we can find our way to the truth by escaping that kind of mental prison.You know, so the, what you can see as being the thing that would inspire folks like Philip k Dick, or Timothy Leary to try to break out through drug use or through exploration of other ideas is the same mindset that’s telling people, you know, you have to escape the woke mind virus.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And, and, and, and it’s notable with these, this, this tradition that they’re not that it is very experiential orRABINOWITZ: Mm-hmm.SHEFFIELD: So in other words, if I feel something. Then it’s true. And, and, and that’s, you know, so they’re not saying, well, I can prove that these other ideas are false.No, they’re saying, well, no, I have this own experience. It’s, and it’s my own truth. And that’s, and I, and because I feel this then it is true. And which is, [00:25:00] and it’s so ironic though, because like they, they, especially Jordan Peterson, you know, is constantly railing against postmodernism. But his entire worldview is, is, is, you know, inflected through postmodern thought and the way heRABINOWITZ: Deeply postmodern.SHEFFIELD: But, but he can’t even see it. And neither can any of his fans which is funny.RABINOWITZ: I would say there are like two. Sort of source materials for that. Part of this, this giant conceptual map on the like secular side is phenomenology. So you have your, your Fritz Pearl sort of phenomenal therapy folks. Talking about, you know, getting directly more in contact with our lived experiences, you know, not filtering everything as much through our sort of rational assessments of things.And then evangelicalism, I just think American evangelicalism’s rejection of. Expertise in the form of rejection, of [00:26:00] mitigated access to God, right? Replacing that with the direct reading of, and the direct experience of God being the central part of the religious practice. Those two things kind of really come together to create this heavily individualist epistemology where you can only kind of trust your, you know, trust your own eyes and only your own eyes.you know, they’ll, they’ll, the, the oral quote that always goes around, right? They’ll teach you to not to trust your own eyes kind of stuff. and that then, you know, immediately like leads to do your own research, right? Where do your own research becomes a co-opted idea for conspiracy theories? It’s very hard.It’s very hard in the modern world where there are a lot of real conspiracies and there is a lot of inappropriate, harmful, powerful behavior going on to like ch. Yeah, Yeah.You know, like we, we can’t be generalists as Denti would say about conspiracy theory [00:27:00] anymore. You can’t just dismiss people who believe in conspiracy theories as being epistemically flawed because there are very, like we we’re all conspiracy theorists.Now it’s just a degree issue. And I think it, and I think that’s problematic because it, it does make it easier to then slide into, I think it makes it easier to then slide into believing certain other things like antisemitism.Quantum physics and a new generation of pseudoscienceSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, it is. I mean, that is really kind of the, the, the paradox that is interwoven throughout all of these people, that some of their ideas are true. You know, and, and like, and I think one area where that was very common and I know you’re not into quantum physics stuff as much, so I will spare you with that, Aaron.But you know, there,RABINOWITZ: to making fun of it, if that counts.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, but like, so there, there, there was a, there was a quantum physicist named David Bom who he, he came up with it with a quantum theory, which, you know, has all kinds of [00:28:00] it’s mathematically sound. But it’s, it’s not a commonly believed one. It’s called the pilot wave, if anybody wants to look that up.But basically this guy, essentially was trying to say but it, it wasn’t even just bone, like, you know, the the, the quantum physics really did also kind of mess with a lot of people’s interpretations of reality and they didn’t understand. Fully what it meant. so the, and, and, and, and you see that just over and over.So, I mean, David Bo like, yeah, David Bowen was incredible mathematician. and he ended up getting all kinds of weird, you know, ideas about, mystical stuff in conspiracy theories. And so like, this literally can happen to anyone because there is some basis to these ideas. It’s just we don’t, unfortunately in this country, have enough philosophical training.I think in our educational system and probably around the world, that’s a general problem. and the way that [00:29:00] people are. Trying to absorb ideas about reality as not being, you know, as being perceptively accessed is so these are, these are ideas that are common within Hinduism and Buddhism and, you know, other Eastern traditions.But the way, as you said, you know, they’re kind of bastardized and dumbed down when they’re put into popular culture. And, you know, and then so like we see with this idea that, well if you, and like new thought really kind of goes into that, you know, that, if, if I just think hard enough, I can change reality through my, the power of my mind and like this another guy we should talk about is Robert Anton Wilson.Like he wrote. That was his entire centerpiece of his ideas was quantum woo. He wrote a book called Quantum Psychology, and he described his political beliefs as non-Euclidean politics. And like the, like, mathematically, his ideas were [00:30:00] just ludicrous. Like the guy did not know what he was talking about.But, you know, he, he was able to import a lot of the, the prestige of, of science and math into his idea. But of course he didn’t actually make any equations or anything like that. But it sounded profound.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. All of these traditions, this was a period of heavily attempting to. Use the trappings of science or cargo cult science to bring in anything that feels good or even feels commodifiable. Like a lot of this is grifter stuff, you know? A lot of the new thought movement is tied up with psychic mesmer.Like Mesmer himself was a new thought guy. And, and Robert Anton Wilson is really fascinating. He writes things like the Illuminati Trilogy, which brings us, you know, a lot of discordian thought. It brings us a lot of counter-cultural ideas. And it also is at a really interesting, there’s an inflection point there about the concept, don’t, IM amenitize the [00:31:00] eschaton which is a phrase that was popular with William F.Buckley Jr. In the i in the straightforward sense of he didn’t want a one world government that was gonna try to control everybody. And these folks were also not wanting that. So they were also talking about how, you know, the book is all about people trying to mize the eschaton, meaning. Trying to control people, trying to control the world.And it’s all about, you know, the kind of anarchist counter control ideas. And quantum physics is, is really fundamental to a lot of this, I think because, the new thought movement didn’t, didn’t have the benefit of quantum physics to draw on, but they would’ve loved it so much. And it is now I think, the default scientific framework for a lot of new thought ideas around laws of attraction.If you ask somebody how does manifestation work, I think nine times out of 10 they’re gonna tell you something quantum woo based. They’re gonna say that our minds can change the quantum states. And we then that in turn bubbles back up and impacts us. I’ve got another article coming [00:32:00] out at the UK skeptic Mag about all of the arguments for why we should, you know, why people think it’s okay to have legalized snake oil sales.And one of the big ones is, is just quantum physics. They think, they think that quantum physics on some level. Proves all of this stuff when, when, like, it obviously, like it very much doesn’t, and a lot of, a lot of quantum physicists have done a lot of work trying to disprove that, but they’re fighting a losing battle a lot of the time because it’s, as you mentioned, such complicated stuff to understand, but the simplified versions of it are very appealing.Just one other example that comes to mind in all of this is you were talking about different kind of quantum theories, the like multiverse theory, the like quantum wave breaking down into multiple realities. These are ideas that are very popular amongst the high weirdness folks. And, you know, you, you see people talking about going to different dimensions.Philip k Dick, I think probably believed that he was just observing other dimensions directly at various [00:33:00] points. But it then, you know, becomes mainstream, right? You have the multi, you have the MCU multiverse, you’ve got Rick and Morty. Everybody is kind of on board with these things and they open up.They open up a lot of spaces for what if. Right. And then people kind of, I think, take that what if to two serious? Like if if, if I can imagine it, then it must be real kind of places.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and that’s, and the irony with that regard is that you know, this is just another variation of the the ontological argument for the existence of God. That you know, which was resolved a, a long time ago through the ideas of the flying spaghetti monsterRABINOWITZ: and things like flying. Flag Spaghetti Monster, an internet manifestation of the kind of high weirdness new religions that you see, like the Church of the Sub Genius and Discordian. It’s interesting, maybe we talk a little bit about like there are different metaphysics running around in these cultures too, and I don’t want to paint this as one broad [00:34:00] brush.So you have like on one end you’ve got like love crafty and metaphysics, which is the world is fundamentally uncaring and like there is no loving God that’s trying to help you and that’s why everything has fallen and terrible.SHEFFIELD: gods actually.RABINOWITZ: Or there’s evil gods right? There’s like actively, I mean like they’re not evil and so forth.They don’t care enough to be evil, but Right. It, you perceive it as evil because of the uncaring nature of it. Right? But then you have like the gno gnosticism kind of views of there is a loving God, but there’s also this kind of manican evil guy, Demi urge, who’s preventing us from knowing the truth.But then you have like the discordance and the discordian metaphysics is fascinating. If you ever read the Principia Discord, there’s a page on it where they explain their metaphysics as. When we experience the world, we perceive things as a mix of ordered things and disordered things, but the true nature of things is pure underlying chaos.And all that’s happening is we have these frames, they call them [00:35:00] frames of perception that you put over the chaos and according to your frame, certain things appear ordered and other things appear disordered. Right? So you think of like Newtonian physics. You put the Newtonian physics frame over the world, certain data makes sense and other data doesn’t make sense.They thought that was basically true and like disco accordions will argue that’s basically true of all knowledge of all ideas. So that’s a very radical kind of anti-real or skepticism about truth and knowledge. That I think then creeps in all over the place. You know, where people will say, well that’s just your truth, you know, I live my own truth.SHEFFIELD: That’s just like your opinion, man.RABINOWITZ: Yeah.That’s just like your opinion, man.Right. My dear sweet Lebowski, like again, I am a creature of high weirdness. I love this tradition for all of the horrible things that it has also brought into the world. So, like, I love Lebowski, I love that this Buddhism, I love all of those things. But like, it’s all, it is a, a recognition of the critique [00:36:00] of this, this kind of view.Alfred Korzybski and Robert Anton WilsonSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and the idea of the, the, the framing or the reality tunnel or, you know, that also did. Strongly go into a linguistic conception as well. And, and that was, the, the, the first person to kind of really put this all down in some sense, was this guy named Alfred Korzybski, who nobody nowadays has ever heard of this guy.But, you know, at the peak of his influence in the 1930s to 1950s, or 1950, I think is when he died, if I remember right. So he basically had this idea that he called general semantics and Korzybski, he had no training as a linguist. He had no training as a philosopher.He did not engage with, with philosophy or with linguistics. And in fact, I read a, an article, contemporaneous article, which claimed that, his usage of the word semantics was actually [00:37:00] inserted at the last minute in his magnum opus, because he didn’t even it wasn’t even core to his ideas, but essentially what he was saying, and people at the time said he was a cult leader and seems to be some evidence for that.But basically what he would tell people was that how you talk about things has a deep control over your mind and what you can know and, you know, and again, this is, there’s some, some truth to that but, you know, insisting that it’s absolute truth and that if I say I don’t have beliefs, then I don’t have beliefs.Or if I say that a thing is not there, then it’s not there. You know, like, it, it, it was, it was, itRABINOWITZ: Or if yourSHEFFIELD: of became a, huh.RABINOWITZ: or if your language doesn’t have a word for something, you can’t experience that thing, for example.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And so it was, it was like, you know, kind of one of the earliest self-help cults that was deeply, deeply influential on [00:38:00] other people as well. So including on sci-fi authors. So Robert Heinlein, who you mentioned was, was big into Korzybski and so was Robert Anton Wilson.Like they would, both of them would cite him a lot, especially Wilson.RABINOWITZ: Yeah, I think Korzybski’s a very interesting kind of bridging fossil between the new thought and the high weirdness space in that.way. And it reminds me, he also reminds me a lot, the stuff that I was reading about him when you mentioned him is very similar to how I think a lot of people misappropriate the SPI wharf hypothesis in linguistic theory.So this is most famously in most recently in the movie Arrival where the aliens show up who have. A different language and when you understand it, you experience time non-linearly. The sap, your war hypothesis is just, you know, in its weakest form how your language can shape your experiences of reality.But in its strongest form, it’s things like, I don’t know if you remember the movie, what The Bleep Do We [00:39:00] Know Really Terrible Pseudoscience movie that was very popular for a second back when I was a, you know, back when I was a kid. And one of the claims, one of the famous claims in that movie is the Native Americans couldn’t see the boats when Christopher Columbus showed up because they didn’t have a word for it.SHEFFIELD: Wow.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. Like, it’s a very extreme, like, again, mind over matter, right? If you don’t have it in a conceptual space for it, then you can’t experience it. You can’t learn anything about it.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and I guess in the, there’s the common cliche, if a tree falls in a forest, no, it doesn’t make a sound. Like obviously that is a false idea. But if you come from this mindset, it can at least be true and, and maybe is true, if you have this, you know, like that everything is perceptively accessed, and so it doesn’t exist.And yeah, and this is, is, is a form of, of idealism in, in, in many ways. And, [00:40:00] but it’s also, I mean, so the, the kind of paradoxical thing is that it expresses itself through post-structuralist language, but ultimately it is idealist modernism is if, I think we could say in a lot of ways that they believe that there is a objective reality and that they know what it is.And even if they don’t, you know, can’t articulate it fully, it’s what I, what feels good to me. That’s reality. Not what feels good to you. No.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. And that’s often where it ties back to like conspiratorial thinking and, and distrust of experts that like I am breaking through to the direct phenomenal experience of the true logos, the true god or reality. And the experts either are incapable of doing so or know that this is possible and are actively trying to prevent people from doing so.Either way, like everybody is trapped in this kind of conspiracy. The movie [00:41:00] The Matrix, I think for much, for all the ways that I love it and think it is a wonderful, brilliant movie, also has a lot to answer for on this front in terms of mainstreaming, essentially the idea of, you know, like pilling people, of helping people wake up from the world that they are being lied to about.And I think that has just become, that’s just an incredibly powerful image for people when they are feeling. You know, disillusioned when they are feeling cut off, when they can tell that something is wrong, but can’t put their finger on what it is, it’s, a really vulnerable time for someone to come in and say, here’s what the problem actually is.It’s experts or it’s, you know, the government.SHEFFIELD: Or it’s women, or it’s Jews or you know, whatever. It’s anyone except for these right wing elites that are sucking the money out of the economy and making your life shit, not them.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. I mean, for their credit, the high weirdness folks did recognize that capitalism was the problem at the time. A lot [00:42:00] of them. I think, they just, there was no way to like COA towards an alternative because America was so radically anti-communist that, you know, they just, there was, there was nothing left but anarchism at that point, I feel like.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and that’s the idea of dropout from Leary in a lot of ways. And Wilson, he kind of did exhibit this ongoing conflict in his own political ideas. And he did eventually kind of end up with anarchism after initially identifying as some sort of libertarian socialist.And we saw that also with Robert Heinlein as well, who in many ways was, you could argue, kind of the, the progenitor of this worldview in terms of the chronology in that you know, because his book, Stranger In a Strange Land that came out in 1960, like there were, there was no counterculture by and large at that point in time.And, and certainly people weren’t reading the beat poets. Like no one, no one reads poetry, guys. [00:43:00] Sorry!RABINOWITZ: I mean, we still use the word gr, we still use the word grok today, completely derived of its stranger in a strange land meaning unfortunately. But yeah, I agree. He was hugely impactful and also a messy, complicated, like even like Stranger in a Strange Land is not a, as progressive a book as you would like it to be.First of all, if you read it, it’s full of homophobia and sexism. It’s very, like much of the golden age of science fiction, it’s full of racism, homophobia, and sexism. Not as much racism, but the other ones of that time. Yeah, very much so. And I, yeah, I, go ahead.SHEFFIELD: oh. But I was gonna say, but also, you know, the core kind of epistemic conceit of the book. Was that the, the protagonist who was a human that was raised by martians that came back to Earth. He had learned the language of Martian and it, it changed his interface with reality and it gave him a power to manipulate reality and to make people disappear and do other all sorts of [00:44:00] magical things.You know, and, and it really does tie back to these, you know, these original mystical ideas of, you know, like the, if I know the true name of a magical being, then I will have power over that magical being. And, and you see that in a lot of, of ancient myths and medieval ones as well, that and so this is, you know, they really, they really do believe that, that there is some underlying reality in that if, through my my feelings, I can find it and I can have control.And, and it’s a way of trying to find order in a, in an unjust world and that if I know it, what, you know, what the underlying reality is, then I and my friends and family, we can partake of it and restore the order.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. I do a lot of when I’m not. Obsessing about conspiracy theory stuff and high weirdness. I am interested in the philosophy of luck and how it relates to this thing [00:45:00] called the just world belief or just world illusion, which is just our felt need for the world to be just like we have a strong, deeply felt need for our worlds to be, just because it makes it feel fair and controllable and that illusion of control, I think that you’re talking about.There is a big part of all of this is that these, all of these traditions are try, are wrestling with the loss of control that they experience in modernity and they’re trying to regain that sense of control, whether it’s through mind over matter approaches, whether it’s through drugs or some other kind of enlightenment mechanism.At the same time through metaphysics that explain why things appear unjust, but really actually are just that if you really do learn the secret truths of the universe, the universe will treat you justly. That is really at the core, I think, the laws of attraction mindsets.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And there’s a religious component to this as well. When you look at and I, and I have a, [00:46:00] another episode on this, so I’ll link, which I will link about the, the, the emergence of Satan within Judaism. So Satan is not part of classical Judaism. There are multiple Satans, in fact, and, and they are the angels of God.They are God’s employees. But it was only after the exile to the various exiles into the broader, you know, Iran, Iraq area, Babylon, that, that when they came into contact with Zoroastrianism, that a lot of Jews begin to think, aha, well maybe this explains why we keep getting taken over by all of these people.And even though we have believe in the most powerful being in the world, in the universe, we always get our asses kicked. It’s because of the, of this bad guy, Satan.RABINOWITZ: Or the demiurge. Yep.SHEFFIELD: And that’s where you see the apocalypse tradition of, of Daniel which then of course is imported into [00:47:00] Christianity, that, but apocalypse isn’t the end of the world, it is the revealing of how the world really is. And it is this spiritual struggle between Satan and God. And, and so again, and you know, the, that fits very nicely, which is why you do see a lot of people once they do get into the QAnon, you know, beliefs, even if they weren’t religious, they become you know, fundamentalist Christians. Because it fits them so well,RABINOWITZ: Mm-hmm. Yeah, there’s a lot of forces I think that push, that kind of convergence, the people you’re hanging around with is also a huge influence, I think in these scenarios. I think there’s a lot to the idea that a lot of the interactions between gurus in these in sense making spaces is about interpersonal connection and feeling, you know, seen by this other person, but not in a way that is really actually [00:48:00] conveying deep meaning or understanding.So there’s, there’s a lot of, I think people trying to kind of. Make up for the loss of sense of meaning in the modern world by filling it with these things that are not actually helpful for it. They don’t actually fill that, that cup.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and if we wind back the clock even further chronologically, so, you know, I, I, we’ve mentioned the, the ideas of you know, kind of nothingness or, or skepticism within Hinduism and Buddhism. But within the European traditions, there was the, there, there were these ideas as well. And,Ancient Pyrrhonian skepticism and high weirdnessRABINOWITZ: Sure. TheSHEFFIELD: I would say. Yeah, well that’s what, that’s what I was gonna talk about, like, so that you have the skeptic movement in ancient Greece which eventually kind of propagated into Rome as well. And it was divided between the, the well, I guess, I don’t know if you could say it was divided necessarily, but because it seems like the academic skeptics won.But overall, like basically the [00:49:00] Pyrrhonian skeptics have this idea that, well, no truths about reality can be known, and so therefore we will just live by appearances and how things seem to us. And that right there is a very conservative epistemology, I think. And it’s, it, it shows why. So many of these people that have these high weirdness ideas that they come to that because they are modern day Pyrrhonian skeptics.Like, like Robert Anton Wilson, where I read his stuff. I’m like, this dude, he’s never heard of the Pyrrhonian skeptic, skeptics. But he sounds just like them, except he likes drugs, you know? And those guys were a bit asetic, but you know, the academic skeptics, they grew out of the Pyrrhonian tradition.But they realized, well, okay, yes, it’s true. We can’t really know anything, but we’re going to op, we’re going to say whatever seems to be the best tra, you know, explanation for something. We have to do something in this world. We have to act. And so we’re going to [00:50:00] go with the best proven explanation, but we won’t cling to it.And that to me, you know, you can’t be a skeptic unless you are a skeptic about yourself. First and that’s the problem with this high weirdness and, and this, you know, modern day. It’s epistemic nihilism, I would say.RABINOWITZ: Yeah, it’s, it’s interesting. So like the, the, the apocryphal story about pirro, the skeptic, the father of skeptic of Pyrrhonian skepticism is that people had to follow him around to make sure he wouldn’t run in, get run over by a cart because he wouldn’t believe that a cart was rolling towards Sam or something.Now, I mean, if you read the Pyrrhonian skeptics. They’re, they’re more in the phenomenological tradition of saying, well, you can believe your direct experiences, but you shouldn’t believe any inferences from them logically, or any claims of knowledge that you haven’t directly experienced kind of approach.So in that sense, it was kind of the earlier versions of do your own [00:51:00] research. Right? Don’tSHEFFIELD: what I’m saying. Yeah.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And, and then, Yeah.you, you know, a lot of philosophy is struggling with, what do we mean by no, like, can I say I schmo it, I don’t know it, but I schmo it, which means I mostly know it enough to believe it.Right. And then, you know, you have Cartesian skepticism that comes along and re, you know, like brings back these questions of what it means to be certain or to have this absolute knowledge that I do think also again opens the door for the kind of new thought stuff. That, that when you can create that little space for doubt lots of different kinds of anti-real can get in.And you’ve mentioned a couple of times, and I think you’re quite right, anti-real in the sense of there are lots of different versions of anti-real. There’s a really good book I just interviewed the author of, of did the Science Wars Happen, where he lays out a bunch of different kinds of anti-real, from the most extreme disco accordion.There is no objective truth because there is no objective reality. There’s just chaos to like, there’s objective truth [00:52:00] but we can’t have access to it. Or there are multiple kinds of non-competing truth, right? Non-overlapping magisterial as it were. And a lot of, and almost all of these kind of anti-real traditions end up reinforcing conservative ideas, end up reinforcing reactionary worldviews and are not, which is a problem because. you know, like we say, high weirdnesses across the spectrum. If you look over at the, like, social justice woke left side of the world that I, that I live in and strongly identify with, one of the big problems over there, I think right now is a kind of reactionary response to objective truth, to the idea that there is objective knowledge.And that’s often it’s coded as rejection of objective truth as a tool of colonialism to oppress indigenous knowledge or non-traditional or non-scientific forms of knowledge. But it’s, it’s a real problem I think because it [00:53:00] does make people more susceptible to all of the kinds of woo and pseudoscience and medical misinformation that is running rampant right now.It, it just makes an easy permission structure for all of it.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I definitely agree with you there. And I mean, and I would say generally that, you know, post-structuralism, it is I mean if you look at what they based it on, you know, it’s, it’s based on the writings of nietzche ultimately. I mean, and, and that’s a serious problem. because Nietzsche was, you know, the father of fascism.Like if you look at what he was actually intending to do, and you look at his final works, the guy loves slavery. The guy hated socialism, he hated communism, he hated women. Like pretty much anything that you you know, if you are a, a, a post-structuralist that you say you oppose. That’s your guy that you are, that you’re hearkening to [00:54:00] with your, your your arguments and, you know you got, you know, different French misinterprets of Nietzsche like Deus and you know, people like Michel Fuco these guys, they’ve created this fantasy version of Nietzsche.And they don’t understand that you, you don’t need this, you don’t need Nietzsche to argue that you know, that politics is you know, about control by established groups. You don’t need Nietzsche to say that. And you don’t need him to say any of these things. And if you really want to go back to some ancient figures or like an older person to anchor your ideas on, like, you should read the Sophists of ancient Greece, that’s what you should do.Or you should read, you know the, the cho tradition of India. You know, I mean, there’s, there’s plenty of people you can look at if you really want to have some, some older figures assigned to I would say.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. there’s, there’s plenty of skepticism out there in the world. You got your Daoist, you got your Zen Buddhists, you know, there’s lots of, but all of, I mean, it’s also I think, important [00:55:00] to recognize that all of these traditions come with problems and challenges and risks. one of the things that I think is valuable in Davies see’s book High Weirdness is that he really does portray the skeptical path as a tightrope.And I think this is right, that it is so easy to to slip in one direction or the other in various kinds of reactionary ways as you walk this path. Even, you know, even approaches that are like, Well, just don’t have, you know, high confidence about anything. Right. Just be really uncertain about things.Again, Pyrrhonian skeptics about suspending belief where you cannot know that that can lead to kinds of passivity, that can lead to an unwillingness to recognize what is in fact the reality. Because it, it just, you lose the ability, the willingness to, to commit to ideas or you see it as dangerous to believe things too strongly during a time when I think part of the problem [00:56:00] that people are experiencing with a loss of meaning is they don’t know what to hold to fairly strongly at this point.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and I would say, you know, to go back to quantum just a bit that, you know, Richard Feinman the physicist who was the, the, the guy who he got a Nobel Prize for quantizing electromagnetism. He, he was also a, a big science communicator and he had some problems as well, we should say.He was a big sexual harasser of women. But one thing he said that was, was was right, was that you are the easiest person to fool. And that’s, you know, skepticism begins with yourself. And that’s, that to me is, is is the core problem of so much of this modern day woo and high weirdness is that they don’t understand you are the one you should be the most skeptical of-- not other people and not experts or whatever.It’s, you should understand you don’t know what you’re talking about. And [00:57:00] if in areas where you haven’t done serious engagement with the literature and, and Alfred Korzybski, I think is the, is a really good example of this that, you know, he, he wrote thousands of pages of books, you know talking about semantics and philosophy, and he didn’t engage with, with these people at all.You know, like he, he had a big he hated Aristotle and because he, he thought that Aristotle kind of invented Boolean logic, which is absurd because it’s, it is like literally we have the word.RABINOWITZ: for.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I know, but that, that’s, he was obsessed with hating Aristotle. And because, you know, but it, it, it, and, you know, so, but, but he wasn’t engaging with Aristotle because in fact, Aristotle has ex, in multiple books, talks about the idea that there are multiple logical conclusions that you cannot say that everything is true or false.That was the core idea of Korzybski. But Aristotle actually said that. [00:58:00] So it’s like he didn’t engage with, with the, the existing, you know, literature and the existing authors. And, and that’s really kind of, I think the through line also is with these people is that, you know, everything is about the first principles that, that I will deduce everything purely from first principles instead of, you know, empirical observation and disconfirmation of my own beliefs.That’s, I think is their, is their approach to the world ultimately.Balancing truth and skepticismRABINOWITZ: I mean, to your point about the self being the hardest, the easiest one to fool since being my friends, the beats earlier, one of my favorite lines from the beats is from William s Burrow’s, naked Lunch, which is the hustlers of the world. There is one mark. You cannot beat the mark inside. You know, we are always marks in that sense.And then to your point about, you know. Truth and falsity. One of the classic phrases of Discordian thought is every idea is [00:59:00] true in some sense, and false in some sense, and meaningless in some sense, and true and false in some sense. And they just go on and on like that. But you know, every conjunction of true, false and meaningless they would say is correct for all ideas.Very radical, you know, trying to break down sort of binary approaches to epistemology.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and you know, and, and again, like there’s, there’s some truth to that idea. But it’s better for people to have read Coral Popper than to have read Discordian because Yeah. You know, like forRABINOWITZ: Or do both.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. If you want, yeah. If you’re gonna read Discordian, you should read Popper for sure.And, you know, and, and, and the core idea of his epistemology is that nothing is absolutely true. That, that everything that you know, we think is true is just only un falsified. And I think that that’s a better, a better axiology or epistemology that, you know, [01:00:00] if, if, if you hold to it in that way, it’s more healthy because you’re not, you’re not saying that your own ideas are true.And I think that that’s the, the core, the core problem that we have here. Even though they say they, like I and I, the people that I’ve known who, who come out of these, you know, traditions, they claim not to have opinions. They claim not to have beliefs. But then when I say, okay, well here’s some things that show your beliefs are false.They don’t want to hear it because they do have beliefs and they do have opinions but they just don’t want to say it.RABINOWITZ: Yeah, I think I, I, I just put out a piece a little while ago about like skeptical epistemology or, or pessimistic epistemology where people feel like, because they’ve been convinced about. Confirmation bias and cognitive biases. They just shouldn’t strongly believe anything like I was saying earlier.And I, you know, I think like I love Popper. I love like falsification. That’s great. I think we should say certain things are just [01:01:00] objectively true and we know that they are objectively true, past a reasonable standard. I think our fear of doing that is a lot of what is driving problems right now. And I, I, you know, like I worry that folks on the left and the right, but especially like, you know, because I live in the leftist spaces, I worry that they are increasingly afraid to do that and it.makes it much harder for them to resist you know, arguments from the right.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Well let’s, let’s talk about that a bit more. I mean, I, I think that I agree with that in general but I would say that Popper is saying that some things are objectively false. And that’s, and, and so that’s, so he gives you a access to a common reality through falseness rather than through truth.RABINOWITZ: I feel like that’s a, that’s a word play game a little bit because like, let’s take a, let’s take a one example that I give in my article. You know, the Holocaust happened, like it’s objectively true that the Holocaust happened. I think. [01:02:00] I don’t think there’s any reason to be falsification is about, you know, like we just haven’t falsified that the Holocaust happened yet, or something like that.Like we know it happened and we know that it was wrong. Like those are two claims, like one’s a, one’s a historical empirical claim, one’s a moral normative claim, and they’re both ones that we can know are objectively true and that we can know that there is not going to be evidence that will come along and falsify them right in the human kind of sense.Any evidence that comes along that appears to falsify them, it doesn’t actually falsify them. It’s either fake made up or wrong.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Okay. Well, that’s, yeah, I mean, I would agree with that, that there, and there is a difference. I think also people should distinguish between scientific claims and historical claims as well. And actually that is a point that the Pyrrhonians did because like they were talking, they, in their, in their own writing, they were primarily talking about scientific claims about the world.They weren’t talking about the other stuff. [01:03:00] But,RABINOWITZ: So even if we do scientific claims though, like think the claim evolution is true, right? I don’t think that’s falsifiable at this point. Right. I just think it’s the, like we might, we might find out that some of the details of how it happened are different, but the scientific claim that, you know, like species evolved on this planet seems like, and this is why, as I understand, again, I’m not a philosopher of science, but my understanding of philosopher of science is that they have moved a little bit beyond popper’s.Falsification is because there are, it seems like certain claims for which there is such a sufficient body of evidence. Maybe this isn’t their reason, but in my mind it seems like a good reason there are. Certain empirical claims for which there is a sufficient body of evidence that we know it’s true, and that if we don’t ex, if we don’t believe it’s such a thing as possible, I. Worry that we end up in a place where, you know, we can’t ever get full consensus on climate change because people are like, well, some people think it’s true and some people don’t, [01:04:00] and maybe it just hasn’t been falsified yet, or something like that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, that’s a fair point. I think that’s a fair point and yeah, function functionally true. Perhaps is, is a way we can think about it. But you know, like in terms of the, the science though, there is this constant admixture and we’ve talked about it a bit, but you know, this idea of of, of the occult also like, and, and the occult is, was a very big thing for Wilson and a lot of these other people as well.And, and you know, when you look at the history, there was this kind of intertwinement of personal experience and you know, mystical thought especially when you look at the early scientists so like you know, people some people might be familiar with the idea of I, Isaac Newton was very big into biblical numerology.He was very big into you know, last days ideas and. Robert Boyle talked the, the, the kind of first [01:05:00] real chemist. He was obsessed with angels on talking about how they were how we, how we couldRABINOWITZ: Liveness was a staunch advocate of the best of all possible worlds theory.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, yeah, exactly. So, you know, but, and so there, there is a certain, like the, the, the, the other paradox is that this experiential idea of reality in some sense, it, it, it has the, the ingredients to, to help people get out of conspiracy beliefs. Because you, you should be able to ex, you know, directly prove or things that you say are true.And that is within their tradition as well. That is why science, you know, got out of and, and bifurcated. So chemistry, you know, left alchemy and physics, you know, came, came to be its own thing instead of arguing for God’s, you know, magically doing things. And we, you know, lost the idea of lum, lumous ether, and the ideas [01:06:00] of you know, that there was a secret ingredient of matter that is what caused fire.Like these were, these were common beliefs that were believed by many early scientists. So, you know, there, there are ingredients that can help people not have these beliefs within these systems as well. So, yeah.RABINOWITZ: I mean, I, I genuinely think high weirdness is a mixed bag, like a lot of traditions. I think what I see sometimes is a, a resistance to complex epistemologies, essentially, like the reality I think that is true is sometimes you need to trust your direct experiences. A lot of times you need to trust your direct experiences, but sometimes you shouldn’t.A lot of times you need to trust experts except when you shouldn’t, you know, and, and like it’s very particularist about when you need to be doing those things and there isn’t an easy formula that you can apply to know what to do. A lot of times we are muddling through epistemically, and I don’t think folks like that a lot.It feels [01:07:00] very unpleasant. It’s very nerve wracking. And so the appeal of these other views is often that they have fairly simplistic epistemologies once you shed all of the layers of gnosticism or whatever that they. Sort of fairly, it’s, you know, trust your direct experiences. Right. And, and that’s it, right?Like that’s, and, and stop there. That can feel very easy and relaxing to people who don’t want to work through the complexities of is this a good expert or a bad expert?Living with uncertainty and embracing the voidSHEFFIELD: And, and that is kind of the, the paradox is that, you know, science grew out of that idea actually. And that the rediscovery of the of the Pyrrhonian skeptics during the, the time of Descartes that, you know, they had a significant impact on early science. And so it was what enabled people to question religious dogma about, well, this is the nature of reality [01:08:00] because we say it is.And, and, you know, and, and so people were like, no, I can, I can test things and, and, you know, through my own experience, I can see if there are, you know, spirits inside of animals or whatever, you know, like whatever, various flames, you know, spontaneous com, combustion and spontaneous. Like, people were able to test all of these ideas and find that they were not real.So yeah, skepticism is both generative and also nihilistic at the same time. And as you were saying, it is a tight rope.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. I mean, so you got the pre-Socratics, right? They were doing a kind of science, trying to theorize about the physical nature of the world. Socrates himself then comes along and a lot of what Socrates is doing is, oh, you’re an expert in something. Let me ask you questions about it to prove that you don’t actually know what the hell you’re talking about.So there was that skepticism of expertise and the direct inquiry built in from the beginnings of philosophy. And again, for [01:09:00] better and like I, I think it’s for better and worse in my opinion Because yeah, it, it opens people up to new ideas. It creates new spaces for ideas, but it also makes them resistant to certain ideas and it makes it harder for them to seed kind of epistemic authority to other individuals and trust other individuals.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Because other people’s experiences are also real. And I think that that’s, that’s the core thing that people who have this, you know, self-centered epistemology, that they, they don’t, you know, that’s the thing. We gotta get people to realize that other, other minds are real, other experiences are valid and other ways of thinking you know, they can be more right than yours. And that’s,RABINOWITZ: Up to a point.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Up to a point. Well yeah, like, it, it, and these are, yeah, it’s uncomfortable. And, and, but at the same time, it can also be freeing, I think, as well. And that’s, you know, one of the things [01:10:00] that you talk about on your podcast a lot as well, and that’s why it’s called Embrace the Void.Like what do you, what do you mean by that?RABINOWITZ: Oh, I mean, many, many things by that, that’s a very high weirdness phrase. I, I, I later realized you know, embracing the void, the show originated as a way to cope with living in the worst of all possible timelines. We theorize that we are now stuck in. And it, you know, it’s about, so, so one of the, one of the ideas there would be abiding or attachment or non-attachment, right?I don’t know if you can even see the tattoo. Oh, it’s weird. Oh, there we go. Abide. Right, which is Lebowski. It’s Daoism. And it’s the idea of like, yeah, you’re living in a terrible situation. You have to some extent accept that while also trying to change it. You know, non-attachment I think is a really meaningful approach to coping with reality.but it has to go hand in hand with acting to try to improve things for people. [01:11:00] So, you know, it can be embracing the void between us. There are gaps between all of our minds that make it difficult for us to have direct interaction and direct understanding of each other. And so making peace with that you know, it means, it means lots of weird things to me.SHEFFIELD: Well, and people can definitely check out what you mean by that on, on, on your podcast. I think we’ll we’ll leave it there for so it’s been a great discussion, Aaron. So, where do you want people to follow you on social media if, if they choose to do so?RABINOWITZ: Yeah, sure. You can check out my podcasts, embrace the Void and Philosophers in space where we just talk about science fiction and philosophy a bunch. Very straightforward and you can find me on Blue Sky at ETV Pod. We’ve also got a philosophers in space Facebook group if people want to come hang out there.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Sounds good. All right. Encourage everybody to do that. Thanks.RABINOWITZ: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for having me, Matt. This was fun.SHEFFIELD: Alright, so that is the program. Thanks a lot for joining us for the discussion, and you can always get more if you go to Theory of [01:12:00] Change show where we have the video audio on transcript of all the episodes.And if you would like to become a paid or free subscriber, you can do that. If you go to Theory of Change Show, you can subscribe on Substack and you can also stay in touch on Patreon at patreon.com/discover Flux. And if you’re watching on YouTube, please do click the like and subscribe button so you can get notified whenever there’s a new episode.Thanks a lot, and I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryEverywhere in the news it seems, people are talking about artificial intelligence. The executives at the various companies keep saying that they’re just a few months away from a program that can think as well or better than a human. Whereas on the opposite side, a legion of critics are saying that AI is a giant scam with no value at all.But underneath this debate is an even larger question. What are minds? And do we even know what it means to think like a human?No one has final answers to these questions, but some are better than others. Psychology and computer science have plenty to say about the capacity to do things, but if we want to understand minds better, it makes sense also to look at biology, because biology has been studying living systems, behavior, and cognition for a lot longer than computers have been around.I’ve been working behind the scenes on a lot of this stuff recently, and as I continue to roll out some of my ideas publicly, I wanted to bring on some people to the show here to discuss some of their ideas as well, because these are really important questions that are worth taking seriously, regardless of whatever your position is on them, they are ideas that don’t just stay in the lab. They shape how we build our technologies, how we write our policies, and how we understand ourselves. On today’s program, I’m joined by Johannes Jaeger. He’s a biologist and philosopher who has published extensively in cognitive science and he advocates what’s sometimes called an an enactivist approach to mind, that is they are something that our bodies are doing and not something like a magical spirit or something like a software that you can pop in and out to some other device.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content* Experience creates minds, not the reverse* What’s going on with Pete Hegseth’s jihad against Anthropic?* Chatbots are more likely to give bad answers because they’re trained to provide an answer, no matter how incorrect* The reality of other people’s minds is the root of so many political conflicts* AI content is not going to go away, we should have some realistic norms for how to use it* Mediocrity and ‘satisficing’ are what complex systems do* The strong link between wanting to defy social norms and belief in disinformationAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:15 — Cognition is mostly an unknown unknown16:48 — The return of behaviorism30:28 — Reality is always mediated by experience which makes it not externally computable39:28 — The accidental dualism of mind-as-software44:19 — Cargo cult philosophy and Jeffrey Epstein52:34 — Meta-modernism and technology for life01:00:44 — The real singularity is whether humanity can learn to live togetherAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Johannes Yeager. Hey, Yogi, welcome to the show.JOHANNES JAEGER: Hi Matt. Thanks for having me on.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, this is going to be a really good discussion. And I’ve written and published things on these topics but I haven’t done a lot of podcasting on them. So you’re kind of the first one to kind of get, get my audience into my, my podcast audience into these cognitive science topics that I’ve writing about.So let’s maybe start though with so you were trained as a, as a, a biologist, and that’s your, your academic certifications, but that’s, that’s not where your heart lies.JAEGER: I’ve probably always been more of a philosopher, but I did start my career as an experimental lab biologist studying developmental and evolutionary biology, and then moved on to become a mathematical modeler. And I was always interested in the kind of methods that I was using and to sort of reflect on them.So I guess I was always a bit more of. Philosopher, a conceptual thinker. And what I’m doing right now is a bit weird because I think I’m still doing biology, but I’m doing it using philosophical methods. So I’m sort of interested in concepts, conceptual problems in biology, and thinking about how we do biology and how we think about life at the moment.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and that’s really important at this point in human history, I think, [00:04:00] because philosophy as a discipline is kind of the origin of all-- I mean, literally, this is true, like philosophy is the origin point of all sciences.It, they, they came out of it you know, going back all the way to Plato’s Academy and all the o other various, places that people, started up afterwards.And you know, and, and, and so now, we’ve had this, this, this new discipline or meta discipline, if you will, called cognitive science. And this is, you know, it is such a, because we don’t, we don’t know fully how, how minds work or brains work or what even how we can know anything, like it is just a lot of this is so unclear, experimentally because it’s hard to quantify a lot of this stuff.Because first you have to, you have to know what you’re quantifying before you can quantify something. like that’s, that, that’s really one the what it comes down to. And, and so biology and, and, even computer science and and psychology like are all having to become a lot more philosophical, I think, because, you know, as we started are starting to get more serious about trying to build things that can be more autonomous.That we have to figure out, well, what makes something autonomous? That’s really what it comes down to.JAEGER: I totally agree. I mean, the problem is that we don’t even know what life is and we don’t know what minds are. And in some ways I, it’s a bit provocative, but I joke sometimes that we know less about that right now than we did about a hundred years ago because we have these ideas about minds and bodies being machines and computers in particular that are extremely misleading.I guess we’re going to talk about this in particular, so we have ideas that can actually put us further from the truth, even though we have amazingly improved technologies and techniques to probe into what life is. And it’s, minute is detail, but we’ve kind of lost the forest for the trees there a bit.And I think [00:06:00] if we wanna make sense of all the data we’re producing and and also of course of AI that we’re going to talk about and the differences between those living systems and machines then we need to sort of zoom out and look at the big picture again.Cognition is mostly an unknown unknownSHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And and, and we’ll come back to this repeatedly as a theme, but you know, overall the, the there, there, there’s this idea that, and I, and I hate to to quote him here, but Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Defense secretary, he had one good idea, which is that when you’re going into a situation there are the known unknowns and then there are the unknown unknowns.And, and that’s the thing about science is that the, the paradox of science is that it actually increases ignorance at the same time that it increases knowledge. I, I mean that’s really-- and this is also why also I think why we see a lot of proliferation of conspiracy theories as well. Like there were no conspiracy theories of aliens abducting people until people theorize, oh, well what if there are planets out there?And what if there are beings that live on those planets that could come here? So there were no alien abduction ideas before aliens were existing. But even in a more scientific sense, you know, like people trying to figure out, well, how does this chemical induce this type of behavior and what would happen if you did this?And, you know, like there’s just, the more you know, the more you don’t, you know, the more you know that you don’tJAEGER: I mean, Rumsfeld, I use these quotes in my philosophy course as well, funnily enough, because it’s really good to, to show you that what’s really important at this frontier of what we know is the question is how you set up your experiment and. It is extremely important to realize that this is not just some sort of, automatic process, but it’s something that you have to use creativity for judgment that we’re also going to come back to later on.So this is the part of science where you [00:08:00] need to use your own intuition, school intuitions, and there’s no way around that. So it’s not right to see everything we do in science and the subjects that we study as pure algorithms or sort of rule-based systems. This is just not how nature works because it’s not how our experience works.And this is where I think the work that you’ve shared with me in cognitive science and my work on something called Real relevance realization, really overlaps strongly that the first step that a living being has to do to get to know its world, is to identify in that world what is important, what is relevant to it.And that is not a computational problem. This is something that we can go into detail about. But this is huge because that means that the intelligence of a living being, no matter how simple it is fundamentally different from what we can achieve in, in machine intelligence at the moment, no matter how sophisticated or even, impressively similar to what we can do with language or images the output of those machin machines may be.So there are underlying differences that really count because they are also connected in the end to taking a responsibility for our actions. And this is another thing that machines obviously can’t do. So we need to sort of think much harder about the application of those technologies and how we are going to attribute responsibility to things that happen because of them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, and, and the context that we’re having this discussion here is that we have cer seen the proliferation of a bunch of different large language models and other artificial intelligence systems as they’re called. And you know, I I, some people don’t like that term.JAEGER: I have two suggestions very quickly there. So first of all, it should be, if it’s properly used, it should be not AI, but IA intelligence augmentation. So a technology that augments our own intelligence. And the second is, I call it algorithmic mimicry. This is not something that’s going to catch on, [00:10:00] but it’s the algorithm mimicking, imitating what human beings can do.But it’s, a simulacrum, it’s not the real thing. And we can go into that, what that means as well. But it’s just superficial. and then, some of the AI bro have turned this around and said, oh, our brain is not that sophisticated. But if you actually understand the nature of a living being, that, that is probably very likely not true.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. That’s right. And, and, and so just for, just to give an overview though, for people who you know wanna get a bit up to speed or they never read the articles article essentially, you know, a large language model is a computer program that will, that is trained on, like a whole bunch of data is put into it into files, and then it classifies everything in the relationships between the words.And says these words are in this broader topic, and some, and this is, these are called features often or, or they’re called vector, vector space relationships. And then essentially, so when you, when you type in a question, what it does is it breaks down your query into what are called tokens but they, which is like a sub word, and then anyway, analyzes the relationships with all kinds of different ways.And then says, okay, well, to ans this question is about these topics. Statistically speaking, this is what it’s about. And then I’m going to respond using these statistically correlated words in these topic areas constrained by these rules alignment rules of grammar or facticity, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.But these are not you know, these, these rules. Externally imposed. And I, and I, and I think that that’s is an important thing for, for people to get. So like there, there is this concept, they do have a concept of alignment and it’s good, and it’s the only reason why you can make any sense of the stuff that they say.But these are, these are externally imposed requirements [00:12:00] by humans in order to make the outputs make sense because otherwise they would not make sense.JAEGER: Yeah, so that’s really important no matter how complicated they are, or even if those models are post trained in the reasoning reasoning models. That’s another really misleading name. What the model in the end does is it reproduces patterns that it’s recognized in a dataset or in a, reasoning exercise after the main training step.So basically there is no semantics, there is no understanding. It’s just patterns. So we can call that syntax. So there is no semantics. And then of course, there is also no action from such a model. So the software and the hardware remain just in like a traditional algorithm, strictly separated. So the software runs on the hardware, but it doesn’t change the hardware.And so if you compare just these kind of aspects to a living system, all of the meaning the semantics comes from inside the organism, or better put from the interaction the organism has with its environment. While in, in the algorithm it’s put. Into, first of all the way the training data set is set up, that’s done by humans, it’s curated and there’s a lot of human meaning that goes into the formatting of that training data set.Second of all, the way that the target functions are set and then third of course, the prompt that the human is giving the algorithm when it interacts with it. So this is where the meaning of the answers that you get from a LLM come from everything internal is pattern, is very complex, pattern reproduction.And, sometimes people use this, term called stochastic parrots. I, don’t think it’s a very good term because it, or also some, sometimes what I think is a better way to think about it is a very complex tool that you can use to make sense for yourself, but you as the human user have to be there for sense to arise from this interaction that you have with the machine.The other way, it’s not the same. So there’s no person in there if you, [00:14:00] if there is no Chachi PT between prompts, right? it just exists as a, patterns of magnetic bits on a heart disk. But it doesn’t really have a process state. While, as you also point out in your own work, a human mind or any living being is a process that constantly updates its state in relation to the environment.And that’s where experience come comes from. So basically what that means is that none of these algorithms can experience anything. And they are in that sense, not true selves. They don’t have subjective experience in that sense. It just doesn’t make sense to ascribe that to them. And the next question is then, so, so basically this is a pattern producer, a very complex pattern, producers that’s put in a very complex environment with people.In the training, meaning put into it in the training data set, in the prompt, et cetera, et cetera. And then it works in an environment on the internet. It interacts with other algorithms, it interacts with people. So this is not traditional computation, but it is still the execution of rule-based instructions one by one in the end, even if that happens in a massively parallel way.And there is hardware, there is a code base, and, these rules are set from the outside. There’s a training set. Everything is pre-given and supplied from the outside while the organism. And you also have a beautiful account of that in your work creates its own self through experience through itself.So you cannot make an organism. The organism has to make itself, and that is the very definition of a living being. It is a physical system that manufactures itself. That means it produces all the parts that it needs to function. And relates them and assembles them in a way that is functional, that is conducive to its existence.Its further existence. So you’re basically always working as an organism towards staying alive. [00:16:00] If you sleep, if you’re in a coma, you still, your cells work to be alive. While, it’s obvious that no, not even the most complex algorithmic system that we’ve created does that. You can just save it on a heart disk and then restart it.But it’s just fundamentally not the same thing. So everything that’s human-like about these algorithms that doesn’t come in, through like some internal interactions, but it comes through, these constraints, these alignment constraints that you were mentioning before that we put in to begin with, but we put them in, such an indirect way.There’s such a big gap between the person who creates the dataset, the training dataset, and the person who uses the algorithm that we don’t see these things and it seems lifelike to. We’re fooling ourselves if we think that.The return of behaviorismSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and that does raise the idea of that used to be very common in, in psychology of the school of behaviorism of, of BF Skinner that basically had this idea that, well, okay, we don’t, we can’t, well, let’s not bother trying to, to, to hypothesize what is, what’s going on inside of minds.Let’s just only look at the outputs of, of human actions. Like, what are people doing? What are they saying? Because nothing else is measurable. Nothing else is ultimately real, perhaps. People are just machines. Like, and, and so that. That mentality was quite popular, for a, a while or in the mid 20th century through Skinner and other people like him.And eventually people realize that if that wasn’t, it couldn’t explain enough in part because the, you can have the same behavioral outputs with totally different intentions. So, and, and a perfect example of that would be within if you live in a totalitarian dictatorship where you are required to praise the leader.And so, lots of people had that reality, [00:18:00] so they would praise the leader and say that he was great. And it was always a he notably, and they would always, you know, but, but they didn’t mean it. But they had the same behavior output.And so. That eventually most of psychology kind of moved beyond behaviorism, but now we’re seeing a return to it with this idea of computational functionalism, which is the idea, well, the only thing that really matters is, is, is the outputs of system. So the, the so-called turing test as well is, is a really bad example of that, unfortunately.JAEGER: No, it’s true. So, but, so there are a few things that happen here. So first of all, whenever you go and you speculate behind the behavior of a machine nowadays people say you, you’re making a metaphysical argument and metaphysics is this sort of bad word for a hundred years now already.And that’s something we don’t want. But the funny thing is that the assumption, the very assumption that the human body. The mind is a machine. It’s metaphysical it’s completely unproven. It’s just an assumption, which if you look into the history is actually quite funny and recent.So, so the whole idea that beings human beings in the world itself are machines is only about 400 years old. Descartes, we can date it. This to about 1642 when Decart published two essays that stated these two things exactly. So, so he declared all living beings Automata, and he declared the world a machine.And the machine was, of course, at the time, high tech was the clock. And they had all these really fancy clocks with ORs and everything in the cathedral so people could see them. That was like the computer technology of the time. And they said, okay. Of course the universe is like, a talk work.And the same thing is happening again right now in recent times. And it’s only about 30 years old 40 maybe by now, and not more that the world is a computer, which is really funny because the theory of computation [00:20:00] is about a human activity. It’s about making calculations with pen and paper according to fixed rules.That is the definition of what computation is. And based on this a guy called Alan Turing managed to build a universal machine that could basically solve all logical problems that you would pose to it that were solvable. That’s the universal touring machine. So that’s a model of a universal machine, a universal problem solver.And that’s. Also notice this is about problem solving. Okay? So then World War II came along, and after that, we somehow switched to the idea that our own thinking is like, that is computation. Okay? So because we built all these computers became an everyday technology. It was the best technology we have ever developed.And they were built to emulate the human capacity of problem solving. But problem solving is a tiny thing of what you’re doing. I mean, we’re not talking about motivations and emotions that need to arise from inside your body. They can’t be programmed into you. And then the other thing is we don’t, we’re not talking about that thing that we were talking about in the very beginning of our conversation.That you have to first point out what is important to you. That is not a problem to be solved. That’s something you need to do as a motivated being a being that is motivated to survive. Then things become important and unimportant and relevant to you, and that is not a computational problem. The idea that a living being is ca capable of judgment and of reframing problems.And that’s what we call creativity. That is outside what we understand by computation. So we’ve come up with a model of something humans do. And so we mistake this model, which is more a model of how we logically explain the world with how the world actually works. Or you can think of this as the ultimate mistaking the map for the territory.Okay? Somebody once said it was a computer scientist. The problem with computer science that it’s territory is a map. Okay? It’s studies, [00:22:00] a theoretical subject and so, but people are now o only in the last few decades coming to this idea that everything in the world is computation. And this is crazy because your experience.Your subjective experience your motivations, your drives your ability to judge, your ability to be creative are fundamentally not computational in nature.SHEFFIELD: No, they’re not. And, and, and, and the, and that’s the thing, like the, you know, saying that everything is computable or should be that’s just focusing on just one aspect of, of human activity, one activity which is, you know, s serialized, formalized logic and saying, well, that’s all we do. But everybody knows that is not what all you do as a person and or what anyone else does.Like, we, we are so much more than that. But, you know,JAEGER: I wish everybody knew that’s the problem. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, I mean, I, I think instinctively everybody thinks of themselves it’s that way, but even, and even the tech bros I would say they would, you know, if you cut them if you took that out of the context of computing, they would, they would admit that.You know, and, but the, there is kind of a, and, and, and this, this distinction or this idea of, of, of computation or computability it, it kind of bifurcated western philosophy in a lot of ways between what ended up, and these are, are bad terms, frankly. But the terms that people use are, are analytic philosophy and phenomenology philosophy, and, you know, and, and so the computer science largely became reliant on analytic philosophy. And then the phenomenological people, they kind of, a lot of them became kind of anti technology almost Luddite is, or, you know, even getting into [00:24:00] mystical stuff and in, in some of them in very bad ways, like Martin Heider as an example.So, you know, like, and so the, the both sides were kind of missing what the other one got, right? I would say that they both, they, they, they, they both had good points, but they also had bad points. And that, that, that’s kind of where I think Western philosophy kind of went wrong, is that it, it tried to split these two things off.JAEGER: Here’s the weird thing, right? Everything we know about the world comes out of the experience that some human being or maybe one of our ancestors had. And in the case of humans, because we have language and we’re social beings, we can share those views of the world as well. So we have a collective sort of imagination.About the world, but everything we know comes out of this subjective experience that we have a really hard time understanding with our abstracted theory because this is the act of abstraction. So we, by making knowledge objective from subjective to objective, we have to put them into language. We have to then put the theories into numbers, testable statements, and that those are huge steps of abstraction.And then the next step is that we confuse those theories, these abstractions that describe the world with the world itself, which is just that experience that we have. Right? And so I, I side here with the phenomenologists that say experience is primary and we have to sort of examine also eastern meditation practices that are trying to get through the conceptual layer that we have.We are very strange creatures on this planet because we have this massive reliance on language and both, these traditions of philosophy. Of course, philosophy itself depends on language. So, Wittgenstein, famous Viennese philosopher once said, whereof, you cannot speak thereof. You shall be silent.But that is a huge problem because as you and I explore in our work, all we do at the abstract level is deeply grounded in a [00:26:00] lot of stuff that’s going on. Underneath that is beneath the level of the conceptual level, the abstract level, it’s direct experience. The idea that we cannot directly experience anything without language is absurd.We do that all the time. But what we are aware of as self-reflective human beings is in the abstract level. So if you want to understand where this really basic level comes from, and then it’s actually useful to go much lower to simpler organisms. And there’s a great book by Kevin Mitchell, it’s called Free Agents.That is exactly arguing that you can’t. Understand, easily understand all these sorts of experience by starting from the human experience because it’s very complicated. So let’s sort of look at what kind of bacterium, the simplestBehaviorism and computational functionalismJAEGER: living cell on earth experience itself. And it has a sort of, funnily enough, it has the ability to judge in a very simple way.It’s not sitting around, there’s no bacteria philosopher or anything like that, but it can go for the sugar and avoid the toxins. So it has of course, evolved to do that. It does it very mechanistically. But every once in a while, those sort of preferences, those value systems, those interactions with the environment they change because we evolved from something that probably looked very much like a simple bacteria.So at some point in its career, it must have been able to do something unexpected. I mean, unexpected, like that is completely not formalize in advance. This is the work by biologist Stuart Kaufman, one of my co-authors, and he calls this the adjacent possible evolution and life in general. The behavior of organisms is always going into new spaces that we haven’t been able to imagine before they reformulate problems.It’s a truly creative process that you cannot just put in a bunch of equations and play it like you play an algorithm in a computer. And that’s the whole point of evolution and life. It is to break the rules. Of course it still follows the rules most of the time, but it is able [00:28:00] to do that and that is what makes living systems alive.And they can only do that. This is where it becomes a bit complicated because they are self manufacturing systems, so they built themselves and so they can in a way decide whether they built themselves in this way or in that way. Okay. Only if we have mistaken our abstractions, our theories about the world for the real thing.Can we think this is not real? So there have been several places in history of science. Famously Lala was a, lala was a guy in the very early clockwork stage of our science that said, okay, if the world is like a clockwork, everything has to be predetermined. And he called this the he called up this demon that could look into the universe from the outside and sort of see the universe and then predict its whole future.And this idea is coming back now with the idea that the whole universe is a computer. It’s the same thing again. A demon who sits outside the universe can predict everything and so can manipulate everything. And we can then engineer the whole future of the universe. But there are two problems now.So one is this demon is not part of the world itself. So it’s basically, God, it’s not a scientific. Or a natural entity. Right. And the other thing is that, of course, what the people who believe that the world is a computer and the mind is a computer want to do, is to control it from within. They think they can control their own minds, their own world.Although we are only this tiny part of the universe, and we certainly don’t understand it well enough to manipulate it in this way, we, and we see that there’s evidence for this. This is not just speculation. Every time we interfere in a complex system, there are unintended consequences. And I mean, every time, this is one of the most robust empirical findings that science.Has made over the last 400 years you interfere, something goes wrong. Okay? We know that from everyday life as well. So unexpected things happen all the time. And this is only [00:30:00] possible if you let this idea go, that the universe is somehow calculable is a computation, is controllable is predictable which is, and I want to come back to that, a purely metaphysical assumption.There is no evidence that the universe is like that. Not a single shred, but that’s always glanced over and this whole view is kind of sold as the only reasonable view there is, right? So that’s how that works,Reality is always mediated by experience which makes it not externally computableSHEFFIELD: yeah, absolutely. And, and, and this is why in my own work, why I think it’s important to structure a philosophy through a, an access to the external world. So, you know, in my view, everything is, there is an externality, and that exists regardless of what we do or where we are or who we are, even if we exist at all.But we don’t have direct access to all we can access is our local externality. And then within that only what we is perceptible for us within it. So there, like if you’re a bee and you see a flower, you see lines that show you where the you know, the, the, where you can get the pollant, or I’m sorry, get the the nectar from, and, you know, but if you’re a human and you look at that flower, there’s no lines on that flower.It’s just a red, it’s just a red rose. And so, but, so it’s outside of our perceptible externality and then it’s nested even further is our percepted externality. So that’s what we, of what we can sense that we actually register in our minds and say, okay, this is here and this is, this is like that.And so, you know, that’s but a lot of this, this worldview that we’re talking about here, this computational functionalism, it doesn’t draw any of these distinctions. It, it thinks, no, there’s an objective reality. And we can, when we have scientific laws Yeah. That we can model it and we know what it is.And, and, and yet this [00:32:00] is despite the entire history of science, show you that’s not true. That is not true. You know, and, and, and, and that it’s not just quantum physics, you know, talking about how ev everything is literally solid objects do not exist. So there’s that. But it is, it’s even beyond that, you know, like every, every single fundamental scientific field shows that there, there are, there are always new discoveries that completely upend everything.And, and, and, and yet we still have people with this, this sensibility that no, no, there is objective reality. And I can find it because I’m soJAEGER: Yeah. And often people are afraid of a slippery slope that leads us into this idea that everything that postmodern idea that we have nowadays especially also in the political right, that you, anything goes whoever has shouts the loudest has the right view. And this is extremely dangerous because.What we’re saying here is not that, but what we’re saying is that our knowledge of the world is grounded in millions of years of interactions of us and our ancestors In with an externality that you called it the perceptive externality I call it an arena. It’s also called the umwelt, which is just German for environment.But it basically means that the perceived environment, the things you can see and experience it all, and that is beyond your control. It’s not that you can just claim that it’s like this or that. It’s not it is a certain way and you interact with it and you basically go out and you try things out and you find out, and that’s how science works still.And it’s very robust, but it never ever gives you an infallible, which means. A complete or perfect view of the world. And so this assumption that the whole universe could be a simulation, for example, and we just live in a simulation that leaves two questions hugely unanswered. That’s first of all who is the simulator, and that’s just God again, I’m sorry, that’s a supernatural being.So this is a religious idea. It’s not a scientific idea. And the other thing is, of course, how do you get experience in a [00:34:00] simulation? I want to know, so I want a scientific explanation why I experience speaking to you right now. And I am me, and this is where it starts. And from that, I make abstractions once again.And this is called The Blind Spot by Adam Frank Marcelo Gliser. And Evan Thompson wrote a really good book about this. This is a strange loop, a really weird thing that we go from our subjective experience to these abstractive theories. And then we suddenly mistake those theories for the real thing, like physicists who believe.That their equations, the shorting wave equation is the only real thing there is in the world comes out of the equation that’s just upside down. That’s map not territory. And the same thing for computation. Computation is a way to describe the world. It’s not the way the world is. So, for example, in a famous example I think it was a philosopher, Hillary Putnam who came up with it first, the waterfall.Does it compute something? You can make it compute something. You can make the water run in different ways and do computations for you. Or you can simulate it in a computer. But you won’t get wet standing under that simulation. And that’s something that is so absolutely forgotten very often, which is amazing.I say, it walks like a duck. It walks like a duck. But you can’t make canara Lauren from it. And for sure it’s just a simulation. It isn’t real. So the question that I am really interested. Right now is why do our theories fail to describe that difference? Right? And I think we have a really fundamental, again, this is philosophy.We don’t understand how an organism causes itself because this is a mathematical problem, right? I mean, nothing is supposed to sort of be its own product. And so you have this circularity I think it was Aristotle 2,500 years ago, who outlawed this in analogical arguments already, rightly so, because it’s a circular argument literally.And it doesn’t make any sense. But the problem is that nature doesn’t stick to that logic that we have. Okay? [00:36:00] And it, it makes circular arguments all the time. And they don’t go around in a circle. They construct themselves. So they go up in a spiral, right? So they spiral in new directions.And this is how you can imagine. Living beings. These are processes that work together to construct each other and maintain each other’s existence in this way. And they spiral up in these different directions. And this is what we call evolution in the end. And this is extremely unlike any machine we’ve ever built.So the world is not like a machine. And also the machines we’ve built, they are something really strange. They don’t have anything to do with how the world out there really works. And this is something we’ve forgotten, and this is why I joke that we understand the mind and the body less nowadays than we did in the past.Because a hundred years ago, nobody would’ve come up with this idea that everything is a computation. Because even the most rational people, Charles Babbage or Condor Savin before who thought about the nature of rationality and intelligence set, intelligence and rationality are about judgment mainly.And then only rule-based computation. Secondarily, you have to follow rational arguments once you’ve decided what the problem is that you want to solve. This was always there until about World War II and the development of a little before that of computation theory that led to us forgetting that and thinking that thinking is computation.That’s a bad sentence, but you know what I mean. It’s it is. When you think, first of all your LLM does not think the way a human being thinks, not at all. There’s a fundamental difference and no matter how many data points you add to the training set, no matter how more complex you make the model itself, it will not be able to think.It will never, and you can quote me on that, be able to think as long as we stay in this paradigm of algorithms, software running on hardware. Of a specific architecture that we are, we’re running on [00:38:00] right now, and that’s just something that is not ever heard in public conversation about these problems.So all these claims that we have, conscious AI, or we’ll have it soon, they’re completely overhyped and mostly also completely delusional. A good example is Epstein’s favorite Yha Bach, who’s been claiming that you can emotions, consciousness are a secondary consequence of computation.Again, this is, if you look at this work complete one of the most obvious map and territory confusions. That turn his entire work upside down. And you can create machines that act as if they have emotions. But the funny thing is, a programmer always has to program the personality type in open claw mold book where we’re in the the news with these agents.And you have to have, they have a soul file. I really like that. So the thing is actually called a soul file where you have to write in the personality. So it has to bootstrap itself from that thing that you as a human being with human defined words, define the soul of this algorithm. And then it goes out and it acts in autonomous ways.And we say, oh look, that’s what you meant by the alignment constraints before. So, we basically made it do act in an intelligent way. We programmed that into it and now it acts in a seemingly intelligent way. And we say, oh, we can do that on its own. No, we can. We designed it so we can do it basically.The accidental dualism of mind-as-softwareSHEFFIELD: Yeah.Yeah exactly. And well, and, and this idea though of, of, of mind as software, I think that’s, is such a pernicious idea and, and wrong hit. And it also undermines completely what the people, at least a lot of the people who came up with it we’re trying to do when they need it. So, so Daniel Dennett, the, the late philosopher and cognitive scientist, he was the one that really kind of put this.Into the computational functionalism and, and, and mind as software. He called it a [00:40:00] virtual machine. The mind, the, the mind is a virtual machine that is, is made out of your neurons. And, and that then he didn’t understand how virtual machines work, I would say. ‘cause like I deal with them. I am a, I am a, a cybersecurity professional as well.And like, that’s not what a virtual machine is like. They are not sep They they are, they are separate from the soft, from the other software on the, on the computer. So like the whole point is they’re not interfacing with, with the lower level processes, whereas your mind, of course is and so, so this doesn’t work.But the other problem is that when, when you, when you have this metaphor of mind as software instead of mind as execution statement or the, the interaction of, of beliefs and of of, of heart, of, of body, when you, when you just thinking of mind as software, what you’re inadvertently doing is you are creating metaphysical dualism when you do that.And, and, and we see this, and I think probably the biggest example of how mind as Software really creates dualism is looking at Daniel Dan’s former partner, Michael Levin, the biologist, who has done a lot of incredible cellular biological research, which, you know, really does show the way that a lot of cellular entities can in fact, you know, discriminate with their environment and, and understand in a rudimentary fashion how to navigate themselves and structure and respond to things like he’s done a lot of great research on that.But he’s taken this idea of Mind is Software, which he got from Dennett and wrote several pieces with Dennett about and then is now saying, well, actually no Mind is software is. Of Platonism and dualism. And so like the, the, the entire point of computational functionalism was supposed to say, well, we’re against metaphysical stuff.We’re against, you know, spiritualized stuff. And now here it is being used to support the idea [00:42:00] of supernatural substances and entities.JAEGER: So, so this is completely crazy. So, so, and it’s a wonderful example because if you start with some logic sounding premises and then you come to completely bizarre conclusions. So before the platonic domain of minds that impinges on our domain as patterns in your brain Levin came up with the idea that sorting algorithms are thinking have experience, and so on and so forth.So if your framework, so this is what we said right in the beginning, what we forget nowadays, we think science is just a bunch of people doing some experiment that came out of nowhere that was rationally decided on, and they find out the objective truth. This is not how it works. The way we do science is we have a model.We have an imagination. We have an expectation of what’s going to happen, so we ask specific questions. We use specific concepts to address those questions and do experiments. This is all an interdependence between thinking about the things we’re doing, experiments about, and doing the experiments.So if your framework of concepts gives you absurd interpretations like that, shouldn’t you go back and think, okay, maybe my basic assumptions are wrong, but that since they were indoctrinated with this idea that it is science all the way down, there is no metaphysics, so there’s no metaphysical assumption underneath this idea that everything is computational.This computational is, or computational functionalism idea they don’t see anymore that this was also just made up. And that’s a map. It’s an abstract map already that comes out of the philosophy that’s underneath the science. Funnily enough, it was Dan Dennett who himself said there’s either science that has taken, that there is no science without metaphysical assumptions.There’s only science that is aware of those assumptions or. Science that hasn’t taken those assumptions on board. And Levin is a perfect example of someone who’s absolutely clueless that his basic assumptions are completely inconsistent. So when he starts going off on these tangents, he gets absurd results.And you think, why would a [00:44:00] rationalist empiricist like him not bulk at this? But, it’s the dualism is fashionable again. Because we have a lot of very rich people that are very religious, suddenly again. So it is a good thing to say these things. I call it burner science, but I think Feynman called it Cargo Cult Science.Cargo cult philosophy and Jeffrey EpsteinJAEGER: So what’s being done here? It’s cargo cult philosophy. Actually, it looks like it’s philosophy, but it’s really it doesn’t have any of the essential ingredients that good philosophy actually has. And this sounds a little harsh, but it’s really borderline fraudulent, the whole thing, because it’s really a way to tell a story to rich sponsors that then funnily enough, sponsor that kind of research.You can see that from Nick Bostrom and the simulation hypothesis. I mean, with the whole Epstein files, people say, oh, he was just interested in, in, in special scientists, special thinkers. Well, you can see one bias that’s he mostly paid men, very few women. And the other thing is that all of those men that were sponsored by Epstein were working in certain directions, right?And this what we’ve just been discussing, this idea that everything is computation that you can control. Everything that you can engineer and everything that you can become immortal through longevity and uploading your brain into the cloud. This is not just Epstein, this is now followed up by his also probably not quite clean successors like Peter Thiel and other people, Elon Musk, who are sponsoring the same people now that are, that were sponsored by Epstein.And it’s always the same pattern. It’s about building a humanity that is, it’s transhumanism, basically building a better humanity, always in their own image, of course. Who wakes up in the morning and thinks everybody should be like me in the world, that would be absolutely horrific, right? But that’s the kind of thing.And then, it’s about genetic engineering of humans. It’s about longevity research at the moment. They’re obsessed. It’s also psychopathological to want to live forever. And it’s it’s about uploading. So, so creating machines that are better [00:46:00] than us, more intel, super intelligent to use Nick Bostrom’s terms.So, so it’s fundamentally eugenicist, that’s eugenic, he wants to createSHEFFIELD: Well, and in Epstein’s case, literally he was a eugenicist. And he tried to inseminate it was horrible. I mean, if you read into the files, but these ideas of biohacking and what’s going on in these free cities, like Prosper Hour, people are ha trying their, they’re, experimenting on themselves.JAEGER: So I don’t care. But, as long as they don’t use other people. But this is all driven by this ideology that is supposedly rational, okay? That’s why they think because they have this superiority. it’s, completely, cultish. It’s a cult. It’s a religion. And so I call this Trumpism in science.So this is sort of, first of all, you make up a view of the world that you just believe in, and you pretend that it’s true. And then you invest so much money that, that, enough people believe it’s true. And that, as we may imagine both of us, it’s not going to go well because reality, there’s this book by David philosopher David Chalmers, he, it’s called Reality Plus, where he argues that virtual reality is just as real reality, which is true in some ways, virtual reality can affect the physical world, but you know, real reality has this one character.It will kill you if you ignore it long enough. And virtual reality makes your life better on Cisco. Hey, you finally pulled the plug. You will be much better off in your real life than in virtual reality. So this is the difference. And David Chalmers is another great example of a by now I have to say grifter, that is, pandering to these people with the money and the people with the money they want.What’s coming out of the Epstein scandal that’s not the files that’s not, restricted to that. They want, the humanity 0.2 0.0. Right? Because we’re not good enough for some [00:48:00] reason. And for me science has a completely opposite purpose. It has the purpose of making our human lives better.Okay? It’s very oldSHEFFIELD: End up doing it together. End up doing it together.JAEGER: Collectively improving everyone’s life. Okay. That’s always been a naive vision, I know, and in reality. But this is blatantly not the case here. So it’s a really sort of creepy thing. And I’m not saying these people are ill-intentioned.Sometimes they’re quite anxious people because they think again, that everything they do is scientifically justified all the way down. There is no philosophy. That’s just rational thinking. And that’s crazy. Okay. That’s exactly completely forgetting about these aspects of intelligence like judgment, like creativity, but also emotional aspects and compassion and things like that, that are not computational.And that should be driving you. It’s not a compassionate project at all. It’s, you can see that also with reactions by Yascha Bach, for example against his horrific things he said in in the. Files where he just says, oh, poor me. My career is now threatened and I’m the one who’s going to develop conscious AI.He believes that his network framework is the thing that’s going to give us conscious AI, but it’s a completely mistaken and inconsistent framework. So he’s going to be disappointed and they’re anxious about this. So that’s why you see a lot of, sort of really hard push at the moment for this.I think it’s all going to disappear in smoke, to be honest, the next few years or decades, because people will realize that, that these, it’s hubris it’s assuming that we can do things that we can’t, at least not without creating really devastating unintended consequences and isn’t the situation we’re in right now.Just like a bunch of unintended consequences from climate change to the mass extinctions we’re creating to. Geopolitical breakdown to the, it’s all social media is disrupting society, not because we intended it to do that. Everything we see is unintended [00:50:00] consequences at the moment. So why should we, by switching that to turbo, by going hyper modern, not just modern, why should we be able to solve that problem?We’re just going to create by, by accelerating everything, we’re going to create more unintended consequences. And one of those is eventually going to offer us completely, I’m sure. SoSHEFFIELD: And that would be before any you know, actual intelligent computer system would be existing.JAEGER: Maybe, who knows? But I think so. And why would you create an actual intelligent, artificial agent? I think that’s the other question that I have here. Why don’t we ask ourselves why we do something? And an intelligent agent like that would’ve to be treated no longer like a machine, but like a being.And if it’s actually smarter than us. Isn’t that a really bad idea? I mean,SHEFFIELD: certainly could be, well, especially if you don’t. develop a, you know, a fully res, you know, a fully respecting theory of mind that would you know, w would be able to show, look, this is why humans still have value even if we’re not as smart as, as you, or whatever you is, or alien or whatever.Like, and, and, and I, and I think that that is worth doing and we should do that philosophy work, and that’s partJAEGER: I think yeah. No, I agree. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: But youJAEGER: but, if I may say, I mean, also what’s important is to design the interface better between us and the machine. So the machine serves in the end as not your usual hammer tool, but in the end it’s a tool for you to think better and to make better choices and, not the other way around.So this is. Idea of the reverse center that the computer starts using you instead of you using the computer. It’s this, figure with human legs and a horse head, which is not ideal of course. And so it’s the metaphor for our technology taking care of us because, not because it wants to take over the [00:52:00] world, super intelligence.There is no self, there is no will, there is no motivation. But it’s because of us human beings giving our agency a way to a machine that has none and has no creativity and has no judgment, has no ability to take responsibility.SHEFFIELD: Well, and is owned by people who are that way also.JAEGER: yeah. No, totally. I mean, that’s the other thing we haven’t talked about, but the combination of the current type style of capitalism that we have, especially in the US and this technology is probably extremely unfortunate. And China as well, I.Meta-modernism and technology for lifeSHEFFIELD: Well, and that, yeah, I mean, and that is why, you know, my personal view is that, look, you know, these are, these are useful technologies in many ways. But they’re, they’re limited in what they can do. But, you know, there’s, there’s some ways that they are incredible. Like I have seen that they do work for computer code in some settings and they can be useful for that.And other things, you know, like analyzing x-rays and things like that. But, but ultimately they, they, they’re not autonomous. they, and they, and they, and the way they’re architected, they won’t be. But you know, it’s, and that’s why it’s important for governments and for people who are, who support democracy to do more than just say, well, this is just stupid stuff.You know, it’s nonsense. We, we should just get rid of it. We should ban it. Like you are not going to ban this stuff. That’s number one. Like, you will not ban it. Even if you could, you know, get your own country to ban it, people will just go to another country. So it’s not going to achieve anything, and you certainly won’t get a global treaty to it.so let’s just take that off the table right now and understand that, look, we need to, to understand how to deploy these things in a way that is, that is humane. Because ultimately, as you were saying, you know, the science should be for humanity and, and not the other way around.JAEGER: Yeah, no, I mean, I think this is, so this is where the second part of this conversation has to come in, and [00:54:00] that is we need this, these kind of thoughts that we were exchanging right now, these theories that we are developing both in amazingly parallel ways. I love your approach, by the way is a deep recognition of the difference between the living and the artificial at the moment.So, so what’s important is that I’m not saying that it’s impossible to create a real agent. I think it’s going to come out of a biology lab and it’s going to be a disaster, but it is possible to do this. I have two requests for humanity right now. One is just to, if we develop a new technology, can we.Stop the accelerationist bullshit and sit down for a second and think, why are we doing this? What is the purpose? I really think we’ve lost that completely. So we’re, we have to go somewhere and we’re in a race to the bottom because of that. And the second thing is if we understand the nature of the living versus the non-living much better, then we need an attitude change.Again, that’s philosophy. We really need a different attitude towards ourselves, towards the technology and towards the social systems that we’re embedded in. And we need to recognize that the ecological and social systems we are relying on are a part of the equation. And we’re not doing that right now, this entire.Crazy spiral. And again it’s a constructive process. So this is it. It’s funny, it’s so human. It only a living system can create this kind of disastrous situation. The computer by itself, I repeat, the technology itself is not bad. It would’ve never done this by itself. It’s just the way that it’s employed void.So this idea that, so first of all, we have this constructive processes that are the basic, the cell. Then we have multiple cells. Then this happens in your brain, right? Your brain is constructing the personality that you are, the individual that you are through your experiences in the same way that a cell is constructing itself.And then societies have also, they’re not quite as integrated as organisms and minds, but they also have this sort of [00:56:00] constructive aspect to them. And we are the ones with the agency to change the direction of that construction. So I also don’t want to hear any sort of predictions that this is super, intelligence is in inevitable and we’re going to be replaced.I don’t want to hear resistance is futile. It’s, you’re mentioning the Luddites before. The Luddites are much maligned, but they were a social movement that actually wanted a different kind of model for the possession of the means of production. They were not just stupid people breaking machines instead of going after the bosses.They couldn’t go after the bosses, that’s why they broke the machines. So we have to find better ways, not just to break machines. I saw talk at the chaos communication conference that, that showed how to poison AI data sets. So I think there is a certain I don’t know, satisfaction to that maybe in such a situation, but it’s not very productive.We need a better way. A constructive way. What’s happening right now? We’re deconstructing our societies, we’re deconstructing our relationships with each other. Through this technology. There is always talk about disruption. So the right has become incredibly postmodern and they will hate to hear that.But so this idea that everybody’s entitled to their opinion, you can just say something and it’ll become true. But also the fragmentation of everything and this sort of it’s a deconstruction. Disruption is the word right? That all the Silicon Valley people use disrupt what you will.But you have to construct something. Society has to get to this coherence again, where we’re constructing something together. This is what you learn from studying the mind and the organism. We have to find a kind of an organization for society that’s constructive again. And what we have right now is pure cancer growth.You can compare it one to cancer. It’s out of control. Accelerationism is out of control. We need to slow down. How is that going to happen? I think it’s going to take a major break breakdown of systems for this to hit the awareness of enough people [00:58:00] that we need to go ahead. As you say I am not against going ahead.I want us to go ahead carefully. Because in a complex system where you create unintended consequences, you need to test every step and see what consequences come up. If you just rush through it, these unintended consequences are going to fall in your head and kill you in the end. And this is what we’re doing and it’s a fundamental misunderstanding, not just of the nature of us, our relations with each other, the world, but the world itself.We misunderstand the nature of the world we live in, and we have rarely been so much out of alignment between what we can actually do and what is actually working. And this is surprising maybe to hear for people because they think, it’s an amazing time to live through, technological progress is so fast, but it’s very limited in most.Areas that are actually useful to people. Are we making progress in how to live together, how to provide basic needs for most people? Are we making progress in these kind of things? No, we have no, no way to value this. So we just value breakneck innovation because we have this stupid system that is venture capitalism right now, capitalism on steroids that needs to make a profit.And this is by now the same thing in science. We idolize people. Let’s go back to our friend Mike Levin. So he’s a person who, before AI already published about 30 papers, a scientific publications a year. It’s probably more like 50 right now. And why is that?Something that we admire, that there’s no way that this stuff is well done, well curated controlled, and now it open claw, and these autonomous, autonomous, a AI agents going around the production of unreliable vibe coded stuff is is going to be bearing as nothing can be trusted anymore. So we’re building software infrastructure that can’t be trusted. We’re building a scientific literature that can’t be trusted anymore.Almost all submissions to computer science conferences now contain made up [01:00:00] references. And that’s a clear sign that they’re all written by AI. So science is getting into this mode where we’re writing publications by AI. We read them by AI. Why don’t we just go and have a beer? Okay. There is no point to this.What is the point again? I want to ask what is the point of what we’re doing? I don’t know anymore. I wanna stop and think and breathe and say, what are we doing? This is a moment where humanity should really urgently do it. And of course, the way we set up our societies, this is the moment where we’re at least likely in our entire history to actually be able to do that, which leaves me a little clueless, to be honest.But I guess the political guests on your podcast have better insights on that than I may have.The real singularity is whether humanity can learn to live togetherSHEFFIELD: Well, yeah, I mean these, these are real questions and, and that is why you know, sometimes I think of the political challenges and the societal epistemic challenges that we have. Those are the real singularity, which is how can humanity have a, a globally connected? Con informational space and survive because that we have to do that first before and, and anything else that comes after that, we’ll be able to handle that if we can get through this one.And, and this is really what matters is, you know, understanding how can we take care of each other and how can we pa help each other know what truth looks like, or at least you know, what falsehood looks like because I, I, you know, that’s ultimately also what, what the other, one of the other kind of fundamental scientific principles that tends to get ignored.And, and Carl Pop Popper is, was very good on that regard, is that he’s, you know, said basically, look. You can’t note anything for absolutely certain. So in that sense, the postmodernist were right in that nothing is [01:02:00] absolutely true because if it were, then you’re, if you, if that you’re, you’re to say that is to say that you are a model of something is that thing.So that’s not right. But at the same time, we can know what falsehood is also, and we can know because it contradicts many other observations. And, and that’s, you know, getting that to be a scalable societal you know, belief and practice, like that’s, that’s how we can, can set humanity on the right path.It isn’t, you know, in imagining this, you know, fanciful future of a, of a computer that, you know, does all our work for us. Yeah, sure. Look, that would be nice.JAEGER: A hard problem. I mean, that’s, there’s B’S law that says it’s always 10 times easier to produce the bullshit than to, to to uncover it. But what you just said, like we have to construct again after deconstruction. So there’s a philosophy called meta modernism that’s saying we need to move on from deconstructing all our knowledge.And, that was important in the 20th century. We were too sure of ourselves. And it’s still important today because what we described before, the accelerationism, all of that. It could be called hyper modernity. It tries to solve the problems we’ve created with our technology, with more technology.And as I just said, I don’t believe that’s going to work. What we need is a, rethink of how we can establish ourselves in reality again. and there’s a project called meta Modernism, which is both a political philosophy. It’s not very well known yet, and and also a principle for doing a different kind of science that doesn’t treat the world as if it was a machine.I’m writing a book at the moment. It’s called Beyond the Age of Machines. And this is about the kind of science we would need beyond those unreasonable actually assumptions. Now, you will always have some assumptions beneath your science, but you don’t have to claim they’re a hundred percent certain or solid, but you have to say they’re solid enough, they’re trustworthy.And also they give us a much more humane and useful and fun world to live [01:04:00] in. I’m sometimes attack saying, oh, you, you’re building your philosophy just to build a world that you want to live in. I said, yeah, why would I want to build a world that I don’t want to live in? And I think this is paradoxically what’s happening a lot.and it has something to do also with, the, kind of, nerdiness of this movement of, Silicon Valley that these people have a lot of grievances towards other people. And so they are sometimes I suspect even a bit resentful. And, they do this deliberately deliberately. And again, from the Epstein files and sometimes from other symptoms like Peter Thiel’s antichrist lectures and things like that, you realize that they are actually planning and afraid of the crisis that’s going to come.And they’re planning with it. They, know it. They don’t actually see the world as just progressing any further. And then you can see all of this.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.JAEGER: In a, yeah. In a very, more, much more sinister light. And you can say these people are the control they’re working towards is also including other people because they basically treat the rest of humanity as machines, which is it’s not good philosophy, obviously, not just for logical reasons but for ethical reasons.So this is really leading to, to some really nasty outcomes that could be much worse than what we have ever experienced before. And I’m not saying that this is willful destruction. I think these people are truly deluded in, in, in a lot of cases about how the world works. Yeah. And they overestimate their own ability to judge their own situation.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And yeah, and, and in Thiel’s case, I mean this is explicitly religious. Delusions I mean, read any number. I’m, I’m sure the audience probably, hopefully, but we’ll put a link to at least one of them to, if you haven’t read the any of these pieces on this stuff, this is seriously you know, religious, solitary but you’re right, Yogi that you know, that we, there, there has to be an alternative.You can’t, [01:06:00] you can’t just simply criticize. And I think that that’s been kind of the, the, the loop that the progressive left has been kind of stuck in for so long that, you know, they, they, they, that a lot of them, you know, they, they’re, they’re against. They know what they’re against. So they’re against, you know, racism.They’re against sexism, they’re against you know, capitalism or exploited capitalism, wherever you wanna say it. They’re against those things and, and their right to be against, you know, extraction, capitalism. And as to, to quote Cory Doctor again, you know, enshittification. That’s great to be against those things.But you do have to have an affirmative vision because if you don’t then essentially the incompetence, the corruption, and the malignants of people like Donald Trump actually becomes an argument in their favor if you can’t present an alter. Because, because they can turn around and say, oh, well the reason why your life is terrible and why you can’t get a job, or, and, and why you’re addicted to drugs or whatever, is these people did it to you.I didn’t do it. They did it. And, and, and, and there’s no, and if there’s no affirmative vision, then, then you can’t really defend yourself and, and you can’t. And more importantly, you cannot move forward in a positive way and have a future that is bright in your own mind. Because if you, if you don’t have a, a guiding star, then, then you won’t get anywhere.JAEGER: I mean, I still do think that it’s hard to change things in the, state we are in right now because everything has become a sort of an immature popularity contest in this society. And I think this is this, a symptom of, universal capitalistic, neoliberal principles being applied where they shouldn’t be in, in science, in education, outside where they should be working and where they’re not useful.And that creates, a, very unhealthy dynamic of these races to the bottom where everybody just has to go somewhere, even [01:08:00] if they’re not knowing where, they go. And also I mean, these are hard problems. So if you want a really difficult problem, you’re one of those nerds out there, then work on those societal problems.They’re, actually much harder than even flying to Mars, which is hard enough. And you don’t want to live there, believe me. So, so why don’t you concentrate your efforts on actually understanding social dynamics. These are hard problems. You can’t solve them with your usual engineering mindset.But even going through that challenge of going beyond your engineering mindset and trying to, to sometimes. Acknowledge your limitations and say, maybe we shouldn’t do this. But then still boldly go where, no one has gone before. But just a little more carefully than, or a lot more carefully than we’re going right now.So that is a worthwhile sort of project because it, not only requires entirely new ways of thinking it, it requires new ways of doing science methods and forms of collaboration. Which is something I’m also interested in working on, where we have to work together and also harvest the differences between us.We, we, there is no single solution to the kind of problems that we have right now. So we have to try out many different things with tolerance, but also good boundaries. Because what’s happened right now is that the boundaries have gone out of the window. Every anything goes. And we need to reestablish a structure and organization for our signs, for our freedoms in society.And that’s the meta modern project. It’s saying you can only be individually free if there is a supporting and robust societal and environmental structure around you that allows you to be free. And I think that’s the, basic insight that we have to relearn on the political stage, not just to reform our politics, but everything from education to how we deal with health to, to science itself.And that’s also one of the main thesis of my book that we can learn from the organism how it survives. The organism is basically a physical system [01:10:00] that shows us how you can extend your lifespan. So the, most ironic thing with this whole craze about the survival of humanity, going to the stars and, living forever.Is that this drive the people who drive this are the ones who are most likely to, to jeopardize the future of humanity right now. And I’m sure they don’t intend to do that, but they are severely misguided and they are severely shortsighted and I have to say very often, a lot less intelligent than they think they are and are told constantly by the people around them.They are just because they’re rich. And that’s a huge problem. I mean, these people live in a bubble. And I’m trying to remember, I think it was Nate Hagens who said, if you could only change the minds of the 1500 richest individuals on earth and make them really engage the problems that we have with all their rich richest, then we would have solved most of the problems that we have in, in, in, a few years.But the, complex problem here again, is the societal problem. How are we going to work, make this work in practice with real people in the way? That we’re dealing with it with each other right now. So this, these are the real challenge that these, the most intelligent people on earth should be tackling.But again, we’re measuring intelligence based on what IQ tests, problem solving. So you have these people that score high on a IQ test. They’re sometimes the most incredibly stupid people in, the sense of not being able to read the room, not being able to anticipate unintended consequences and not knowing what to do in any given situation.So these are all forms of, knowledge, of intelligence that humans have that algorithms don’t have. So again, why are these people so obsessed with artificial intelligence? Because it’s most like. What they know as intelligence and they want to see that as, a good thing for the future of humanity.I think it’s very limited. We have to step out of that narrow minded narrow focused thinking. Sometimes it’s called left [01:12:00] hemisphere thinking. I don’t think the neuroscientific evidence is very good that it’s really in the left hemisphere. But we have to do more wide boundary stuff again and sort of scan for consequences and, tread carefully instead of just rushing ahead with this ultra rational mode that is in the end, as I told you several times during this podcast, irrational at the bottom in its metaphysical assumptions,SHEFFIELD: Yeah. That, yeah, that is the, that the unfortunate irony with that. All right, well, I think we’re, we’re going to have to do Yogi, we’re going to have to do a separate episode just on co cognitive science and minds because we got a, a lot more kind of meta political here, which is good and I liked it.But we’ll, we will come back for people who might have been expecting us to go into more on the mines. We’ll do that in a separate episodeJAEGER: Oh, I’d love to come back. This was great. Thanks. Yes.SHEFFIELD: Awesome. Alright, so why don’t you what websites do you want people to check out if they want to keep up with you?JAEGER: my personal website is just Johannesyaeger.eu, all in one word, except for the EU, of course. And the scientific results are on a website called expandingpossibilities.org. And I have an art science project. It’s called The Zone. It’s almost impossible to Google it. So it’s the dash zone, a T because I live in Austria.That’s that.SHEFFIELD: Okay, sounds good. And you got the, and you got shirts, so I see you got oneJAEGER: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: All right. Thanks for joining me today.JAEGER: All right. Thanks a lot, Matt. It was great talking to you.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation, and you can always get more if you go to Theory of Change show where we have a video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you’re a paid subscribing member, you have unlimited access to all the archives.You can get a paid subscription on Patreon or on Substack. You can go to patreon.com/discoverflux, or you can go to flux.community for that. And we do have free subscriptions as well. If you can’t afford to do a paid one do stay in touch anyway. And if you’re watching on YouTube, please do click the like and subscribe button so you can get notified whenever there’s a new episode.Thanks a lot for your support. All right, I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Chris Duffy is an award-winning comedian, television writer, and radio/podcast host. Chris currently hosts the hit podcast How to Be a Better Human. You can watch his comedic TED talk, “How to find laughter anywhere” online. He has appeared on Good Morning America, ABC News, NPR, and National Geographic Explorer. Chris wrote for both seasons of Wyatt Cenac's Problem Areas on HBO, executive produced by John Oliver. He’s the creator/host of the streaming game show Wrong Answers Only, where three comedians try to understand what a leading scientist does all day, in partnership with LabX at the National Academy of Sciences. Chris is both a former fifth grade teacher and a former fifth grade student. 

Episode Summary Each day’s news events seem to reinforce the cliché that truth is stranger than fiction, but the strangest thing of all is how so much of our current politics is quite literally based on fiction.That isn’t an exaggeration. The right-wing oligarch Peter Thiel has named his military surveillance company Palantir after the crystal balls featured in The Lord of the Rings, he’s also repeatedly told people to look to mid-20th century science fiction for business ideas—never mind that many of those stories were dystopias. Likewise, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk named his AI chatbot Grok after a term used in a novel by the authoritarian capitalist Robert Heinlein.Other Republican figures like fascist writer Curtis Yarvin, Vice President JD Vance, and activist Steve Bannon routinely reference The Lord of the Rings or even more explicitly reactionary novels like The Camp of the Saints. Why is it that so many of today’s far-right figures seem to get their political ideas from fiction? There are a lot of reasons for this, but one of the biggest is that some of the most influential novelists like Heinlein or editors like John W. Campbell wanted their readers to do just that. And who can forget Ayn Rand’s interminable political monologues?There is a lot to talk about here, and joining me to discuss is Jeet Heer, he’s a columnist at The Nation where he writes about politics and social issues, but he also tackles culture as well, including in his podcast, The Time of Monsters. One of the focal points of this episode is his 2014 book review of a Heinlein biography.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content* In an age of fictionalized reality, we need literary criticism more than ever* Why does ChatGPT lack consciousness? Because minds do not create experience, experience creates minds* Antichrist America: Trump, Nietzsche and post-modern Republicanism* To make a better technology future, we must first realize why we didn’t get the one we were promised* Mediocrity just might be the organizing principle of minds, biological and synthetic* What is ‘neo-reactionism’ and why is it so powerful within Trump 2.0?* AI is not the main problem—how we use it can be* The very strange intersection of Christian fundamentalism and techno-salvationism* Grok’s ‘Mecha Hitler’ meltdown was the natural product of xAI forcing it to have a right-wing biasAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:59 — Science fiction as a place for political experimentation12:17 — Why far-right libertarians turned away from philosophy toward science fiction21:34 — Editor John W. Campbell’s massive right-wing influence on sci-fi30:16 — Engineering versus research science kind of overlaps politically for speculative fiction authors37:47 — Is the political left missing the potential for AI as the perfect reason for a basic income?40:40 — Robert Heinlein’s evolution from socialist to authoritarian capitalist49:48 — Heinlein’s increasingly disturbing self-focused view of sexual liberation54:34 — Jeffrey Epstein as the pinnacle of authoritarian liberation01:04:11 — More humane sci-fi authorsAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Jeet Heer. Hey, Jeet, welcome to Theory of Change.JEET HEER: Oh, it’s great to be on.SHEFFIELD: Yes, it’s going to be a fun discussion today, I think. And we have the perfect news hook, which is that Elon Musk recently announced that he is basically abandoning his Mars focus with SpaceX to be focusing on a moon base. Which actually coincides with what he has said is one of his favorite novels of all time.And one that you yourself have written about as well. So maybe let’s kind of start there, if we could please.HEER: Yeah, no, I, think the novel was to is Robert Heinlein’s Moon is a Harsh Mistress which is from the sixties, I think, 1966 very well regarded science fiction novel. Arguably I think one of Heinlein’s best, maybe his last great work Because he went into a long period of decline after that. It’s set in a future lunar colony, that is exploited by earth. And there’s a libertarian revolution modeled, largely on the American revolution. Although, interestingly, there are elements of the Russian revolution that are also alluded to. And the lunar colonists with the help of an AI, achieve liberation.And then their goal is an anarchist future, like a moon where there is no government. and in the novel, he has this slogan [00:04:00] TANSTAAFL, there is no such thing as a free lunch, which he got from his fellow science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle which became then a major slogan of the Libertarian Party.Milton Friedman’s son, David, used to walk around with a TANSTAAFL medallion kinda like a pimp outfit. So the novel has been very influential. And one the things in Heinlein’s work, both in that work and in other works, like The Man Who Sold the Moon, is the idea of space as a new frontier for capitalism.this is a where. business can finally be unshackled from the regulatory state, and achieve a free market utopia. Which always seemed like very ironic and unlikely because the of declaration of the 20th done through massive state intervention. First with the Soviet state, and then like, as along with NASA in the American state.But now it looks like, in our new century Elon and others are reviving this idea that space will be new frontier where capitalism can finally be liberated from earthly laws and regulations.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And Heinlein is, so for people who are really into the tropes of fiction, that he kind of was the originator in many ways of the libertarians in space trope.HEER: And we should say like, just in case aware, but Heinlein was one of the major American science fiction writers. I think among science fiction fans, there used to be idea of the big three or the big four. So it’s like Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, and Robert Heinlein. Like these were the major figures of Anglophone science fiction and it’s hard to overstate like his impact.I think like what Ernest Hemingway might’ve been to like American literature, Robert Heinlein was to science fiction. He was just a major figure [00:06:00] for like four decades, for the mid 20th century, and cast a huge shadow over the field.SHEFFIELD: Extremely prolific as well.HEER: Yeah. Huge. Yeah. Yeah. Hugely prolific. Often winning the top awards in the genre, and also spawning like a number of imitators. So like, the libertarian space, but also military science fiction comes out of Heinlein. A lot of—SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, I mean, we should say, yeah, Starship Troopers was his novel.HEER: Yeah. Yeah. He wrote Starship Troopers. Yeah. And so, Yeah. I mean, like, we’ll talk more about him we progress, just as a sort of signifier like one should think of him as of the major figures in this genre.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And one of the other things about him that he has in common with some of the other people we’ll be talking about is that especially, starting with Moon is a Harsh Mistress a lot of his novels are characterized by having a character that’s basically a stand-in for himself.HEER: Yeah.Science fiction as a place for political experimentationSHEFFIELD: And this character goes on and on for pages at a time. And it basically became a thing for right wing what, I call authoritarian capitalists, so post-libertarians, whatever you want to call them, that they abandoned the idea of philosophy and they turned to fiction instead to make the exposition of their ideas.HEER: Well, think about like science fiction has always been literature of ideas. And obviously the sort of like novel of ideas is something that has deep like one way I can think of like Voltaire, you know Candide, many other sort of classical works.And even like going, back to the Middle Ages like sort of religious works, like the sort of mystery plays. Like, a that explores concepts and which has characters that are sort of figureheads for different positions.SHEFFIELD: Pilgrim’s Progress.HEER: Now what happens in the, Yeah, exactly. Yeah.Pilgrim’s Progress, Gulliver’s Travels.SHEFFIELD: Ben, Ben Hur. Yep.HEER: Yeah. But [00:08:00] what happens in the 19th century is that with the sort of rise of the novel, the realistic novel of family life business like novels of Jane Austen, Dickens, Tolstoy, that becomes a kind of dominant literary form.The novel of ideas like heads off into genre. It becomes more associated with fiction that is like imaginative and, what we now call science fiction. Although that term is, really popularized in the 1920s. But like, I’m thinking of people like mary shelley’s, Frankenstein and she herself of like two greatSHEFFIELD: Mary WollstonecraftHEER: Yeah, absolutely. W Craft and a Good Goodwin. Their father was a philosophical liberal who wrote ideas.And Frankenstein is this idea of, using extrapolation. ideas. and tradition was carried through by people like Jules Verns and H.G. Wells. And the interesting thing is it’s overwhelmingly, tradition of liberalism and the left, the socialism. It is a tradition of people who are coming out of the Enlightenment, who believe that history is change, that humans can actually take control of history and make history, as against earlier ideas that like, reality is fated, is providential and destined.And then these novels of ideas are explorations. Well, what happens when we try to take control of history? What are the consequences good or bad? Obviously in Frankenstein, like it is, like this is like how the could go bad. it could actually like, lead to creations of monsters.One sees that as well in like huls. Invisible man. But combined with that, there’s also tradition ideas of like, whoa, what ways in which yeah. Control of reality to make it better? Like utopian fiction,SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Edward Bellamy.HEER: Edward Bellamy but also at wells’ Shape of Things to Come.There’s a, long tradition of this. So, I mean, what’s interesting is that, [00:10:00] at some, I mean this show the to which libertarianism does come out of classical liberalism, what they call classical liberalism, but which is, this enlightenment project of amelioration and control of destiny that Heinlein I think is very that is a transitional figure.He came out of the sort of the thirties he was a very much in the of hs later moved to the right. and there’s, whole like science that comes out of that. And one can see if one is interested in ideas, that this is the type of literature that, one is interested in politics, this type of literature that would be appealing.Murray Rothbard, a major figure of the Austrian economics and very much an authoritarian libertarian, in his autobiography, he talks about how his mo mother loved uh Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, and he could never understand why she loved them. And then in the 1950s, he read Ayn Rand’s the Fountain Head, and Atlas shrugged. And you realize, wait a minute, this is This is powerful. This is what literature can do.And so, it, this is the literature that is appealing. For like politically engaged, politically active, and, heinlein, tradition of sort of, increasingly, way science fiction people like Jerry Pournelle, Larry Nevins, and some ways, one could cynically very true of that one of the appeals that in ways this is, a way the future of and also as in dreams working out tensions that, you can’t work out in life. So in Heinlein, one often sees, in Starship Troopers, one sees war without pTSD because they’re just killing the, these there’s no moral cost to war.In his sort of sexual fantasies, like Stranger in a Strange Land, one sees the utopian dream of sexual liberation like, any of [00:12:00] consequences of s and in a Moon is a Harsh Mistress is imagining a sort of utopian libertarian, world on the moon like, the sort of ecological and class tensions that emerge in every existing historical capitalist society.Why far-right libertarians turned away from philosophy toward science fictionSHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. and, it is it’s related, I think, so yeah, the, you have the emergence of the, novel of ideas. But, it became more important for authoritarian capitalism because well, because these ideas are not very coherent, frankly. And they don’t, they, they don’t, so they, can’t really work as philosophy, because if you’re writing a book of philosophy and you put it out there and have a big giant, volume and you’ve structured your argument and you’ve exposed what your true objectives are and where you want like. If they were to do that, people would be horrified, at what they want, right?And, like, and, Friedrich Nietzsche is the, example for that. But, and, I’ll come back to him in a second, but you know, like, so essentially we, but we saw this also with regard to economics as well, with this idea of Von Mises’s praxeology, that I don’t have to prove my arguments using data or historical instances, I just have to appeal to common sense because I can say, I can invent a scenario.And then that was literally what this guy largely did in his, work, is that he would invent scenarios and be like, okay, so we know this will happen because it’s obvious that this is what they would do.HEER: And like yeah,SHEFFIELD: that’s his work. And then, so of course this, a movement of that nature would, tend toward fiction, I would think.HEER: Yeah, no, absolutely. Absolutely. And the science fiction writer Samuel Delaney, very different politics in Heinlein, but admires Heinlein, but did say that like I, one [00:14:00] thing Heinlein was doing was trying up with scenarios that would justify, right wing politics. That’s to say like, in what circumstances would it be justified to deny everyone except people who belong work military, and, also to carry on a war of extermination.Well, if you do have like, humanities has existential threat these space are bugs, who have like consciousness, no morality then kind of war of extermination carried up by authoritarian military regime might be what is necessary, right? So he’s constantly trying to up with scenarios whereby what he is politically desires. Makes sense?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. and and that certainly is the case with regard to Ayn Rand aswell.HEER: Yeah,SHEFFIELD: So she, she called herself a philosopher, actually. And then, but no one that I know of who has any sort of respectability regarded her as a philosopher.Because she, wasn’t doing philosophy. She was just writing novels and, op-eds, like that was her output. She was not doing any kind of systematizing or and that’s significant because when you look to the politics of these people, their, descendants like Elon Musk and other people like them.They don’t, they hate debate. They don’t like it, they don’t like to be questioned. They don’t like it when you say that their ideas are dumb and here’s 20 reasons why they get angry at you. And, and like, or if the, even if you want to track their jet, like the Elon jet guy, he’s going to, he’s going to ban you for doing that.So they, they, can’t do this. Like, philosophy is based on argument. Like, you get two philosophers in the room, you get five opinions. and, so, they, can’t handle it, I think.HEER: Yeah. I should say like, with a novel of ideas though, like there are like, sort of, variations on it, I do think like the sort of [00:16:00] greater novels of ideas are the ones where there is some sort of actual philosophical debate where you have like, contestants that both kind of making, semi plausible or, treated with some degree of respect and then you have to some sort of like, difficult to resolve,um, issue Ambiguity. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I would say, like someone like dostoevsky even though he has a very reactionary point of view, doing sort of novels of ideas where different positions are And there a term that the literary critics use, coming out of Bine is polyphonic.That these, are presenting a range of and being contested in the work of fiction. And I think one of the interesting things about like Heinlein, kind of illustrates this, is I actually do feel like his earlier work which I regard as his of the forties and fifties.Is polyphonic. There is like range of different voices but that he’s increasingly, there’s a kind of authoritarian turn in his fiction where it does really become a kind of hectoring voice. Where, you basically have these characters that are like Lazarus long, where like stand-ins for Heinlein who voices opinion. if there are other characters, they just stand around and either, they exist like, sort of Socratic foils.SHEFFIELD: You’re absolutely right. ChatGPT.HEER: yeah. No, Exactly. Exactly. And i I think one that not just the problem’s, not just that they’re using fiction, but like a lot of, it’s that what I consider like a bad fiction of ideas, one in which there’s not a contested stakes or a, polyphonic range of voices.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Yeah, that’s, that, that is a fair point and I’m, glad you said that. Well, and, in that regard though, one of the other kind of problems that a lot of this fiction has is that the authors who are pretty much all men, except for Ayn Rand they don’t know how to write women.They don’t know how to write about them or how [00:18:00] to, or how their characters are authentic in the, in of, themselves. So like every, character in Heinlein who’s a woman, she’s she’s got big boobs and she’s incredibly sexual and, everyone loves her.And he’s super competent and witty and and it just like, after a while you would think he would’ve thought, okay, maybe this is a little annoying to have the same character all the time.HEER: Yeah,SHEFFIELD: But yeah, Just like flighty and dumb and like, so just cliche female characters.HEER: Yeah. no. I think a sort of like a fair criticism. I, think one way there’s a, critic, Farrah Mendelsohn and a few other people have sort of this, think one thing with Heinlein was that he wanted to imagine a world of sort of sexual equality. Um like, his sort of, progressivism in the thirties and forties when he kids out of wells was a belief in free, love and also, female equality. So, his women characters were like, like engineers.They had some, but then they would also always like, let’s have lots of babies, let’s we get but the, problem he had he was trying to imagine a world like gender equality, but let he had no basis for like imagining that world would be qualitatively different and that women would have other demands that would make changes.So what he’s ended up imagining world the two genders are basically the same, that the women like all the desires of and also that there’s no conflict. Everyone is happy in this free love utopia. And There’s heartbreak. There’s no, love triangle. There’s no, in and out, out of love.I mean a real kind of like a problem with the sort of like emotional range or imagination or a level of empathy in the work.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And, we’ll [00:20:00] come back to that as we circle back to him as kind of the of, sci-fi right wing sci-fi. But, like, just to circle back to the philosophy kind of thing, like to, I, think that in, in so many ways, Friedrich Nietzche is the apotheosis of all reactionary thought.It never got better after him. Everything was a decline after him. And which is ironic, or maybe, he would say that was inevitable, perhaps. and his writings, are just, various seic. but one of the things that he says, in multiple different ways at d in different books is that, things that are true, they don’t have to be proven through argument, and that basically having to make an argument is for cucks, essentially.HEER: Yeah, yeah. yeah,SHEFFIELD: And that’s kind of another thing that you do kind of see within this authoritarian capitalist milieu that comes after him. They all kind of have that opinion, even if they’ve never read Nietzsche which is interesting, I think.HEER: Yeah, yeah. The kind of the way I would describe it in not just Heinlein, but this sort of like broader tradition is, a kind of imperial self, is the idea that the self has an authenticity and authority and is, can be a final word. And so it does tend to lead to the writing of fiction that is simply a bunch of op-eds, which you simply have a bunch of characters that are opinionating and and there’s no necessity for kind of like a broader engagement with other voices or with conflict.Editor John W. Campbell’s massive right-wing influence on sci-fiSHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And of course, so there’s a natural inclination to this, but it also within the realm of, righting fiction it was cultivated also in particular by a guy named John W. Campbell, who was a very long serving editor of the magazine, which actually still exists. Now Analog Science Fiction. And, but at the time it was called Astounding was the [00:22:00] main word for it. When, mostly when Heinlein was writing for it.But, so Campbell himself was extremely white right wing, and actually probably more and more so than heinlein. And a lot of it, I mean, he, supported segregation. Can you talk about that?HEER: Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, No, so, so, so, so Campbell like, so, so science fiction as I mentioned this, European tradition of Verne and but within america, it really like emerged in of pulp fiction of these like magazines where the writers were paid, like, like a penny, a word and was at a very kind of crude, literary level.A lot of it sort of just like, maybe ancestor of things like Star just like slam bam.SHEFFIELD: Or King Kong. Yeah.HEER: Huh. King Kong. KingYeah. Kin Kong. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Just like, yeah, Just like, action adventure. with a lot of scientific rigor or philosophical content. cheap genre fiction.Edgar Rice Burroughs is Mars would be like prominent example of this. now Campbell who had like a little of a was a dropout at, mit, MIT had engineering background took over, astounding in the late like 1930s. And to he very successful in kinda like elevating science fiction by, like insisting on a greater level of scientific rigor.Like hebasically said,he wanted the fiction and astounding to belike an issue of the Saturday evening post, but ifit was like written like, a hundred years in the future. And what became known as hard science fiction. So a lot of emphasis on things like, like engineering and, well more rigorous extrapolation.He recruited a whole bunch of very influential writers Isaac Asimov. Arthur C. Clark theater Sturgeon. But one aspect of Campbell himself was that it, it this element of extrapolation and rigor was one side of his personality, but he is also like very divided amongst himself.And he had a kind of like, [00:24:00] lifelong attraction towards pseudoscience. And famously like, one of his writers was l Ron Hubbard who’s also a friend of Heinlein. And the l Ron Hubbard was a, pule science fiction writer, but then came up with this sort of crackpot form of psychoanalysis called dietetics.And the very first place dietetics was ever shown in the world was in the pages of astounding science fiction. It was as an article in Astounding Science Fiction, and it became the Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And loved it.HEER: Loved it. And Campbell said had a that sort of like nasal congestion and he credited, dietetics with curing his nasal congestion. There were a lot of science fiction writers in that circle.Dietetics began within science fiction and a lot of writers in world such as, e van bar. Kathleen many others, early Scientologist. I mean, I, think I, Highland’s book, stranger in a Strange Land is kind of like an working of like, what happens when a science fiction writer creates a religion ironically itself the of war religions. But, I the Dianetics episode, Campbell like increasingly was attracted to sort of like crackpot ideas. So the pages of Astounding, a science fiction magazine, but they also published like nonfiction articles. He would publish articles touting perpetual motion machine that someone had discovered.The Dean would have articles on telekinesis and eSP and--SHEFFIELD: And supplement food supplements too, actually.HEER: Food supplements. he very strongly built that when the f findings, he was a smoker. And when the ideas that came along, when the discoveries came along that, ca smoking causes he would publish like saying like, why, they’re And one way to think about him is, I think he was actually a type of person that is now quite familiar, which is the sort of, like the contrarian crank, right? Like whatever mainstream [00:26:00] science And he would use the same that now hear, like, like, well, like, we can’t accept the consensus, because Galileo came along and the scientific, he scientific consensus and, the consensus was wrong, right?So, so, so he used that kinda logic to like constantly the other for these, contrarian, ideas and, like, as well into the realm of. of politics like, the defendant, not just segregation. He would publish editorials like, why slavery was actually like a good thing. And this was like well beyond hein line.SHEFFIELD: And also rejecting black characters.HEER: Has yeah. Yeah. Famously, and Samuel an African American science fiction writer, sent him or this agent sent him nova a, science fiction novel, with a, black character.And, Campbell told the great book. I would love to publish it, but I can’t imagine, in the future you would have African astronaut. And so, yeah. Yeah. No, and within the fiction itself, like we’re talking about the we were talking his nonfiction ideas but within the fiction itself in sort of berian science fiction, there’s a very emphasis on Like he this was a major in many of the writers dealt with it, with the of like, can we actually create a Superman an Uber wrench that will go beyond and have the kind of telekinetic powers? Yeah. Yeah.And the the sort of this. Although one that maybe shows, the way of his outgrew own politics, is, Frank Dune which was first published in Astounding which is taking, like all the ideas in dune are the, from the astounding tradition.So it is this world Galactic empire genetic engineering to create a uber wrench. Superman.But if one reads, like, I think Bert, like, I think it is even in the first do in the subsequent do which and astounding tellingly enough, it is very clear that this is to be a [00:28:00] bad thing. Like meant to show that, if you create this kind of superior being, he will like disrupt the universe in a very horrible and lead catastrophe.So, this goes back to the idea of like novel of ideas. I think if, of ideas like works out the of, an issue, there’s some there.But, certainly, Yeah, I think Berian science fiction, increasingly was right way and so much that Campbell lost his best writers. I think it is not an accident that in the last decade of astounding of his editorship, he died in the early seventies. Like people like Isaac AsimovSHEFFIELD: Or he went and started his own magazineHEER: Yeah, he started his own mind. But, people like Leo, like people who had been coming out of Campbell science fiction weren’t writing for him because Ha Campbell clearly wanted a specific type of fiction, which is like adventure fiction, where human characters defeat aliens because this he said like, have a novel story where aliens defeat humans because that’s just not possible. Humanity has to be the greatest the universe.And I’m sorry, like, if you’re dealing with a, picture of ideas people who written like Thomas and I’ve written novels defeat humans because that should be a possibility. Like it is possible that we are not the summit of creation, right?SHEFFIELD: Especially if they can come here. We’re, not the smart ones in that scenario.HEER: Yeah. no. But, I mean, within Campbell’s, like his editorial mandate was humanity always win and there always has to be a to problems. it is but as I said, I think like in terms of, we’re talking about the politics, I that he was a sort of precursor of this kind of like, much more prominent, like, do your own science distrust.Like, you the establishments like and attraction crackpot ideas. And of that see in like Hy I like if give him any sort of he’s [00:30:00] modest that. he would actually, he had arguments with Campbell particularly on like racism where like, the hy like, had very dodgy, stuff.But actually try to be, he was aware of the and he did try to like imagine a sort of multiracial future.The dueling epistemologies of engineering and research science within sci-fiSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and yeah, with regard to this, mentality though, of crack pottery and the political valence of, the fiction, I think that in some ways one could argue that. So when you look when you look at science as a profession there’s basically, very broadly speaking, there’s two types of scientists that you could say that an engineer is a scientist.And often they are said to be. But, then there’s also the, research scientists, and the research scientists, they have to be collaborative. They have to exist within a community and bounce ideas off of each other and correct each other and accept correction and, be open to new ideas, and work as teams because, especially as science became more and more complex, as obviously the Manhattan Project is the kind of the first real illustration of that, that this is not a thing that could have been done by one person.And all major scientific projects that is now the case. There is not any scientific major discovery now that is done by one person. Doesn’t happen. And and so, so they have a communitarian tradition and ethos. And that is why research science, when you look at polls, they do tend to be overwhelmingly more liberal, or, democratic in the us.And whereas engineers, they, operate from what they think are first principles. In other words, things that are true then they extrapolate from them. And so, and that inherently, I think one could argue engenders an epistemic sandpoint where [00:32:00] I’m just applying what’s true.HEER: Mm-hmm.Yeah. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And, you don’t have to discover what is true or how do you even know what is truth or how, how, could you arrive at truth.They don’t have to answer those questions because they’re not, those questions are already settled for what they do as a profession. And Heinlein was an engineer.HEER: No, Heinlein was very much an engineer., I mean, like, I what you say is true, i’d also ask, emphasize the of educational aspect of engineering, but I think there is a sort and sort of like binary thinking of true false rather than, sort of a hermeneutics of knowledge that is sort of peer reviewed and tested, the realm of science fiction.I do think of the science in the sort of tradition, is old fashioned, like in the sense that they’re always imagining lone inventor, What the, literary critic John Klu calls the Edison aid edisonian fiction, like, you’re imagining Thomas edison figure. Who’s like working in his and something that is considered mian science. to And that has actually Not been like actual been true. Yeah, no.SHEFFIELD: And like, we see that with fiction of Arthur C. Clark, for instance, like his fiction, transcends that, idea. and it, and, it’s not just, it isn’t just because of his political perspective. I think it’s also his professionalHEER: Yeah. No, absolutely. no, Yeah. Yeah. And I even say like, Asimov bobby, he does have the sort of like Kerry as genius, but I a works working out of like, what would the long term, collaborative project like the foundation entail, it is a different way of thinking about science.And yeah, I do think that there is a kind of like right-wing view of science as the lone inventor which actually like, is very retrograde and, like, but had of resurgence thanks in part to Silicon Valley where you did kind of have this period where are early people were like [00:34:00] bill Gates or Steve jobs didSHEFFIELD: Although, frankly, neither one of those guys invented much of anything.HEER: No, they didn’t. there was like, there’s a kinda like the cultural mythology. The cultural okay. Elon Musk well. like, I think Elon Musk they’re all kinda like feeding into this idea that even though they’re working with teams they’re a Thomas Edison figure reinvented for the Like there’s a way in the that created for these figures and the way that they became the of companies allowed a kind of like a very and, I think what we could is a false of how works.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is. And well, and, I would say that this is yet another example. And that the scientific community, broadly speaking globally and, also in the US and every country generally seems to have exhibit-- which some people sometimes call the scientist fallacy-- which is everyone else is, a scientist, everyone else respects science. Everyone else understands the scientific method and wants to use it in their own lives.And that is not true. and I may import my own, HG Wells metaphor that, the Society of Science has become the Eloy and, we’ve, they’ve let this revanchist extremist, reactionary morlock group, exist without them, and now they’re coming for them, and Donald Trump is going after NIH and, tearing down these vaccine access and, all of these things.And RFK Junior is telling people to load up on fats and steak and so like, basically they didn’t they didn’t educate the public about why this is good. Like they, people liked what the products of science, but they didn’t know how they were made and why this [00:36:00] is the only way that they can be made. That the scientific method is the ultimate invention.HEER: Yeah, No, I think that’s true. And I maybe like, another, way to think this is that there’s a kind of disjunction between the republic of science, which is this kind of like incredibly collaborative, internationalist debate--SHEFFIELD: Humane. Open to all identities.HEER: Yeah. Yeah. With a sort of political economy that, was based on a different set of values, and the people who would be science, the or had a, like a different set of and where like-- even in the corporate world, like, you, could see there’s certain forms of corporatism actually like, kind of similar to science in of being like, like, involving large scale enterprises. But within like, capitalism, you had uneven development, and you had people, who are basically like Donald Trump, these old school predatory robber baron types. and as long as that, model existed, they were the sort of, Morlocks who could, who could exist to prey on the republic of science.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and I can say that myself as a former Republican, more luck. So I’m not dehumanizing anybody. I’m just talking about my former self!HEER: Yeah. but, I mean, I mean, I, think that like a key is, this distinction in political economy between, this world of science that was created and political economic system that didn’t quite fully align with it. And yeah, causing a lot of problems. like, really now where, like whether this kind of, predatory capitalism is compatible with the of scientific research that we’ve seen, or whether it’s become a, just a tool or servant or handmaiden.Is the political left missing the potential for AI as the perfect reason for a basic income?SHEFFIELD: Yeah Yeah, absolutely.Well, and there’s, another unfortunate kind of layer to this though, which is regarding current artificial intelligence research. So, the [00:38:00] reality is, yes, these things, they’re not minds in the same way that we are. But the latest models, they are really fucking good.And if you think that these are just junk, like what you might have experienced in 2023 or something like that’s not the reality. Like the, they are very good now at, the, at appropriate tasks. So like, they’re not going to help you report a news story or like, they can’t do that.There’s a lot of things that they can’t do, but, when it comes to writing programming code, they’re good at it. Like,HEER: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: I have tested it. I know it works like and like it works for, like a lot of scenarios. And so it’s not, these things are not conscious, but they’re really fucking good.And, like that to me is, should be an opportunity for the broader left to say, look, here is why we need basic income. Here is why we need right to housing here is why we need, right to jobs or, whatever. It, like, if you’ve never had in the post USSR world or let’s say, the post kind of rubber baron world that you were just talking about, we haven’t ever had a better argument for this is why government is good and why we need it.And you, and so we better, work toward it because this will help you, whoever you are.HEER: Yeah. Yeah. No, yeah, I know. I’m not an AI skeptic. I don’t it can I, don’t it’s going to, we’re, I don’t think we’re anywhere consciousness.SHEFFIELD: Oh, I’ve written a whole essay on why it’s not.HEER: Yeah. Yeah. And I even actually don’t see, based on what they’re doing, that this is the path for creating machine consciousness. But I mean, it is a path for creating machines that are incredible servants who And then it becomes like, who’s the master? Is it the broader democratic society, which is like my ideal, or is it going to be, a few plutocrats?Whereas that’s going to be a very dangerous thing because you’re putting an immense amount of [00:40:00] a very few hands. And that has always been the kind of, I mean, I think that has been the great debate since the Enlightenment, since came to this realization that are not of history, but of history and can, take control of our collective then it becomes a question well, which humans? and which of science fiction. I mean, this genre has, flourished in the last it is the, form of most clearly addresses this question. Sometimes, we’ve discussed, giving bad answers. but I certainly, putting forward, I think the right question.Robert Heinlein’s evolution from socialist to authoritarian capitalistSHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. So yeah, I mean, I, would like to see better left-wing content about AI in the future. But putting that aside like to, just to go back to Heinlein, like, so a, as we’ve been saying, touching on briefly earlier, he was somebody who started off as a, socialist.And then over hisHEER: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Became more re Oh. Oh, wait. Oh, I, gotta give a plug for your article though, Jeet. So, so, but yeah, so for those who, do want to explore this further, Jeet wrote a really great piece in The New Republic. It was 2014 that explore that did a, it was a review of a, biography of Heinlein. So it’s definitely worth reading if you want to delve into this topic a bit more, but, okay. All right. I, gave you your plug there!HEER: Yeah. Yeah. No, thank you.No, I’ll, just like briefly run through because I, the headline’s own biography touches on so many of the things that we talked about in very interesting ways. Because, it is like born. In 1907. Like this kind a very interesting, this sort of like progressive who had been abolitionists like in like, they were like Missouri, Kansas.I think they were like among the original sort of settlers that came in to, like, like make this a free state. And he was a big of science fiction, big reader of Wells, gets into the Navy. He gets TB, but then has this like amazing, naval [00:42:00] pension because he’d been an officer, so, like, which allows him like, during the Great Depression to like, get an education, try his at, a bunch of different things, like he’s tried to be a real agent, to like be a silver miner, ran for political office, and then finally became a writer.But He, is able to do this because he had UBI, inSHEFFIELD: He, had a free lunch.HEER: He had free lunch, he got a great free and he acknowledged it at the time. Like he had, in letters he like, from the taxpayers of America. Um And, but a free, like a really a sexual revolutionary.I think like, like his first wife there’s a story in the biography where she basically, slept with another man during honeymoon. And and then later, he would marry this woman uh, Zain and would like, she was also into free love, and his buddies would like, be sharing partners, wife swapping or whatever, including with L. Ron Hubbard. L. Ron Hubbard in a kind of interview said, like Heinlein basically forced me to sleep with his wife. But during this period in the thirties, forties, like a Wellesley and science fiction writer and the utopian science fiction that he wrote, one which was only published posthumously for us, the living, and one called Beyond This Horizon are fictions about UBI.They’re of utopian fiction where somebody wakes up into the future and it’s like, well, wealth is socially created. One of the novels, one of the characters says, like, he says, where do I pay? He, goes in, he is a, from the present, wakes up into the future, says, where do I pay for food?And says. Why would you pay for food? Like what sort of barbaric society would make someone pay for like a necessity like this? Of course we all, like every, all the food is free. but also with the dark side of that fiction, like he was always a kind of interested in eugenics, not, I would say in a racist point of view.Because he often would have characters of all different races. In one case, he did a kind of anti Japanese novel during World War ii, where the plot came from Robert Ca. John W. Campbell gave him the plot, and, Hy would later say that the racism of the buck, yeah, he, would blame it on [00:44:00] Campbell.but, law was a very enlightened figure. As I said, they had this open marriage then like, tries, falls in love with a much, younger woman who then brings in as a menage trois, but that doesn’t, is second wife, Lila, isn’t happy, becomes alcoholic. They divorce.And then this new, he marries this the younger woman, Virginia, who is like a real, like, a Republican, con, free market conservative.But I, don’t think it’s just necessarily the, the change of. Partners, but also in the fifties, the Cold War comes along, he’s very he is like, he thinks Eisenhower is too soft, like upset that Eisenhower is trying to negotiate nuclear testing with the Russians, and really goes off the deep end.And I think the nature of his fiction changes as well, like, a lot of the fiction of the forties and fifties, there’s a story called Solution unsatisfactory, which is written in the early forties, which is atomic before they arose. basically saying like, we’re going to have to live with these things, but there’s no good solution, like going through like, whereas I think like after that right wing turn, which I think really solidifies with, the publishing of Starship Coopers, this militaristic novel. He really becomes the sort of Heinlein that, like is, the right wing figure, exploring ideas of, militarism total, free market capitalism. instead of saying like, food should be free one of his later novels, he, talks about a famine. And this is originally at the time of the famine in Ethiopia, he says, stupid people, they didn’t grow enough food.Right? Like, so, so a total inversion, I think of his politics towards a kind of very selfishness with, I think maybe there had always been a little bit of a strand of that, because I think like in the biography makes clear, like from a very early age he had this sort of [00:46:00] philosophical attraction to the idea of salafism is that how I’m missing that?SHEFFIELD: Solipsism. Solipsism.HEER: Yeah, Solipsism. Yeah, solipsism. This idea, he age he thinking like, what if I’m all reality is a my And he would periodically write this in his fiction things like a they where, a character everything is just imagined.A very interesting sort of story by all you zombies which is both or sex change a combination of time travel and sex change character to become his and so he is like, like basically has created himself. And in the fiction like this som really becomes tied in a sexual way towards ideas of incest and pedophilia. Really.Like, like, so there’s a lot of, like where like in time for, Love. the main character Lazar Long lives basically forever. Most of the people in the universe his children. He, clones himself and has female clones that he has sex with. He has time travel, has sex with his mother. And a lot of the novels are about how the form of or individual self-expression is, is incest.Yeah. And incest well which is all, justified on a of, well, is just fiction. just, trying ideas or whatnot. but, like, I mean, I, know what to say about that E except like it is in some ways rigorous, actually taking the idea of individualism, radical individualism Heinlein’s, you know, universe leads to this like, logical conclusion of, sex only with those that are closest to you.And also, like, it doesn’t all matter because everything itself is just a creation of my mind. And then, yeah. Obviously I think it’s morally reprehensible and it does align with [00:48:00] a lot of what we’re seeing in the sort of Silicon Valley elite that we’re happy to with Jeffrey think, and who himself also has, like Epstein, all this interest in eugenics, he wanted to basically create a sort of seed farm where he would like have a huge number of children like Lazarus Long.SHEFFIELD: Or Elon MuskHEER: Or Elon Musk. Yeah, exactly. The, Like, like obviously like sort of morally reprehensible. I, wasn’t about hang Like I do think there’s a kind of interesting like rigor. Actually do think, like he’s like working out the of radical individualism in a like, I a lot of other away from.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, although oddly as much as he was talking about individual freedom for most of his novels, as far as I can tell, some of them are explicitly homophobic. And so, but he does have some amount of that. But yeah, like he, he, did, he doesn’t get to that point of working things out because, presumably if you are having full liberation, you would have sex with whoever you wanted to.HEER: would include people of your own sex if Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, he, had this sortSHEFFIELD: inHEER: of really a classical sexist guy where he actually thought like lesbianism was great, but Bill Sexuality turned him off because do actually think that there are like lesbian characters. AndSHEFFIELD: actuallyHEER: there sort of like also these very interesting contradictions.He was like more open to transsexuals than he was to gay they are kind of like sympathetically portrayed change in his in his fiction. And I think that he actually had a close friend who had a sex exchange operation. And, this person like, has vision about how supportive Heinlein was.So, so, so some very interesting sort of like, contradictions in his work.Heinlein’s increasingly disturbing self-focused view of sexual liberationSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and, one of the other probably, I guess, arguably his most famous work, which you have mentioned a bit is his Stranger in the Strange Land book, which [00:50:00] does, I think is really what kind of, at, least in his public writing. So that’s kind of where I, it, he was an example.So this book, I believe it was 1960 when it came out, if IHEER: Yeah. Yeah. Early sixties. Yeah. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: And so it was like, in, in, a lot of ways it was a, touchstone of the new left hippie movement. And even though the guy that was writing it was not on the left, and that to me is one of the more other interesting things about him as an author and, other people in this milieu as well. Like Robert Anton Willison is another one.That these are, these were guys that, that they actually were right wing libertarians, but for a long time, people on the left didn’t realize that these guys were right wing and only now during, like Q Anon and, Trump and whatnot.Only now are a lot of people on the left realizing, oh, these people are right wing. Like, even though like the hippie, so much of hippie culture was always right wing, and you look at Timothy Leary and I, the guy was straight up libertarian. Like the whole idea of dropping out of society that was anarchism and going away and anti-government and anti society.HEER: Yeah, antisocial I mean, I think that’s a, if I were to sort of back the most philosophically respectable this would the sort of, sort of Emersonian american tradition.And within Stranger in a Strange Land, there’s an idea in the novel, we’re all God, we all create, in which is a sort of transcendental idea.And it is very appealing like, on the left of anti-authoritarianism. which in practice, often do align with the right and also have this kind of like mystical strain. So now, as I mentioned, El Ron Hubbard created a religion, as did Robert Heinlein.Like, in some ways I think Stranger in a Strange Land, Heinlein is doing, if not quite a satire, I think it was like trying to through what happened with this friend Hubbard and [00:52:00] imagining what new religion, would be like, if people did have these like telekinetic, know, these powers, Hubbard claimed.But the irony is that Stranger in a Strange Land also led to like new religions being created. I think there’s actually like, like these churches that came out in Southern California, which were inspired by that novel.And it’s almost a sort of a paradox of science fiction that this, you know, especially Campbellian science fiction that wanted to be so rigorous in scientific that like, like its sort of decadence early decadence, it hit like it really became mystical and cult-like in, in the case of Dianetics, so, so what became the pro, the promise of scientific rationality quickly succumbed to follow the cult leader.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And do a lot of drugs.HEER: I mean, yeah,SHEFFIELD: This, yeah. Well, okay, so just going back to the, sexual predation as a form of liberation, because that’s really kind of what we’re talking about. And, that is kind of a pretty strong theme in a lot of these later Heinlein novels.HEER: Yeah. Yeah, No, think that there’s a kind of interesting, I mean, I think he was trying to work out what sexual liberation would mean, and once his that I think that he couldn’t quite re realize. this is, would be my great critique of the novels, which is not that there’s a of sex in there, but that there’s a lot of inconsequential sex that you don’t really get a sense of, like, a world where sexual activity, leads to heartbreak Or to like, emotional turmoil. where, like, or especially in the case of like incest, like, like obvious trauma, like, like he is tr he is like a free lunch. like, let’s, what if we could have all the sex we wanted? Without any consequences.Well, Yeah. That would be you could only do that in of You [00:54:00] actually we live in just as you wanted, like, let’s have total free market capitalism and like, but it all works out great.Yeah. Yeah, without consequences or how, let’s have like total militarism, where all space bugs And, nobody has like, shell shock or, PTSD or is damaged. Like,SHEFFIELD: And there are no dissidents.HEER: Yeah yeah, There’s no, yeah. Yeah. It like, this is the sort of critique of the kind of like later novel, like at every stage he’s like imagining his ideal world without consequences.Jeffrey Epstein as the pinnacle of authoritarian liberationSHEFFIELD: and yeah. And, going back to the Epstein angle here. So, Heinlein is actually mentioned in the Epstein files.HEER: Oh is he? Oh, I, didn’t see that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And he so there’s, an email that not by Epstein though I should say. But, there’s the, a German AI researcher named, Joscha Bach. And he’s writing to Epstein, and basically they’re having these long conversations essentially about fascism and how it might be good.Epstein and Bach are doing that. And so I’m going to just quote from Bach here in when he says:I rather like the treatment that fascism gets in the Amazon series The Man in the High Castle, which explores what would’ve happened if the Germans and Japanese had won the War. A society that tries to function as a brutal and ruthlessly efficient machine, eliminating all social and evolutionary slack.It is very dark, but not a flat caricature of pointless evil for its own sake. Heinlein’s late book, obviously not late book, but Heinlein’s late book, Starship Troopers explores fascism too. But unlike Philip k Dick, he does not see it as a form of insanity, but as the most desirable order.And Then he, goes on to say, I find your political incorrectness very fascinating.(Laughter)SHEFFIELD: So that’s, I mean, like, that’s what we’re [00:56:00] talking about here. Like this is, so essentially, what you’re saying, this idea of kind of liberty as, there’s always this tension of, well, who is liberty for, is it for the individual or is it for everyone in the society? And how, like that’s essentially what it comes down to.And, Heinlein and this authoritarian capitalist, Nietzchean fascist, reactionary, whatever you want to call it it basically has arrived at the idea that liberty, we must maximize liberty for some people who can have all degrees of freedom. And that is the best way for humanity to survive and become a multi-planetary species as Elon Musk does.HEER: Yeah. no. I another way to think this is. The role of democracy in like, all of this. And I mean, as I said, This is broad tradition. And I think like, democracy was late the tradition.Like there’s actually something that came out because of the and socialist movement of the 19th Centuries were pushing for this. And then you had some people within the liberal tradition like John Stewart Mill, who okay, we’re going to have democracy then, we’re going to have to change our notions of liberty to a more broader sense of general welfare.And in most case, also including like women and like, like imagining what a liberty for all would be in a democratic society where everyone has some say, in the polity. And I think that one way to define this authoritarianSHEFFIELD: libertHEER: libertarianism. Is that it doesn’t want to make that, thing.And once hes is explicitly in Heinlein where like, you like in, time enough for love, he basically says, like, democracy doesn’t make sense. Like, why is it that like if some, 50 plus one, percent of the people say, believe true, like that’s the way should go.Like, there’s no reason to have that, right. Well, [00:58:00] if you reject the idea that there, like we have to have some sort of like, system where like everybody’s voice is part of it and one has to attend to, other people’s voices and like, make some sort of compromises. If you, I think, Hein line and li authoritarian Libertarianism only works. If one rejects the Democratic imperative, if one says from the start, like, it doesn’t matter, what most people want, it’s like, what the elite want, And, then the characters in Heinlein’s fiction are this sort of glorified elite, like people who are, for whatever reason, genetics, intelligence, the superior beings.And he’s very explicit about that, as you know.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, he is. And another quote from to sale beyond the sunset that I thought was notable of his. His political ideology. And of course, I suppose his diehard fans might say, well, he didn’t say these things. His character said these things. And it’s like, well,HEER: But saying, like, I, I’ve read a nonfiction and the, a lot of his letters have been published now, it’s very yeah, it’s exactly as what would predict from reading these novels, because his hectoring voice that is all univocal. Like, one assumed that this is what Heinlein believes.In the, in the letters he’s basically saying all the same things, but continue.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. So I’m going to quote from it. So he says in To Sail Beyond the Sunset, which is literally an, ode to incest, basically of this novel. He says, democracy often works beautifully at first, but once the state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state.For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit. That the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them. They will do so until the state bleeds to death or in its weakened condition, the state succumbs to an invader. The barbarians enter Rome.Which again, the, [01:00:00] invasion metaphor, like that’s, the most constant metaphor that you see Donald Trump making.And, I, and like, and I do think that’s why Trump is so appealing to these same people, because even though they know that he’s stupid and incompetent and corrupt, like they know all of that, anyone can see that, who’s not willfully blinded.They know this about him, but they admire that about him actually, because he just does what he wants.And in that sense, Donald Trump is the, the Nietzschean Antichrist Ubermensch. Because as he said, in the Antichrist, he explicitly. I’m not against Christianity per se, and I don’t dislike Jesus. I’m against this culture that you guys have built up of restraining the Ubermensch.and so, Trump in a way is, this, Antichrist Ubermensch. And that’s why they like him.HEER: Which I think it’s almost the best refutation of ofSHEFFIELD: Of why it doesn’t work.HEER: Yeah. I think that’s right.SHEFFIELD: And so essentially like that’s kind of what I think is, the, message that we’re getting out of these Epstein files. So like the more stuff that comes out that people are reading there, like Jeffrey Epstein had this mentality he was a right wing libertarian by the end of his life, whatever he was earlier, this guy was a libertarian capitalist oligarch, and that’s what he was trying to build.HEER: Yeah, no, I think, that’s right. I I it’s about the evolution, seen, I, do think him as a fairly normalSHEFFIELD: globalist, neoliberalHEER: in the sort of like, nineties and twoSHEFFIELD: thousands.HEER: But I think that once that I think a lot of these figures, if they meet any sort of challenge, in it was like a criminal case. I think the global financial meltdown a lot of these people like felt much moreSHEFFIELD: beleagueredHEER: felt like, the like [01:02:00] retrench for a much more hard line politics.And then they, did retreat away from any towards the public good, a politics of pure sort of selfishness of the Ubermensch.So, yeah, I mean, I think that’s almost like a, in, ways they’re liberal when times are good. then become, libertarians, like, like, when times go bad. I, that’s the that’s the kinda like logic it. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And then Epstein also, like his, the, world that he was building for himself with these trafficked girls and women, like this, is the maximal individual liberty vision that, that these right-wing sci-fi authors we’re talking about.This is the total sexual liberation that Heinlein was talking about. This is the actual version of what it looks like.HEER: No.SHEFFIELD: instead It’s not just a fantasy.HEER: Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, I, know, think that’s right. Yeah, I mean, another way to think about is in sort of the genre of science fiction. Yeah. I mean, I think that science is the kind of like life or the and development project of both the national security state and the sort of Silicon Valley sort of plutocracy.Like I think a lot of people like Musk and Peter Thiel, a lot of this and then basically used it as a of like how to, and he because of his tuberculosis, he was not able to serve in the military, but like, sort of research stuff for the Navy in, during World War ii. he, basically up with a prototype for this spacesuit. But more broadly. A lot of his ideas, were taken up by sort of the RAND corporation and other outfits.So, I mean, one way to see genre it’s, it is a place where like, early ideas this the i, think almost Southern California combination of military, industrial surveillance state technocrats, and libertarians, which is a contradictory [01:04:00] but I, think is like been worked together and infused together.And that’s why the author of Starship Troopers is also the author of Stranger in a Strange Land.More humane sci-fi authorsSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. Well, thi this has been a great discussion, but let, if we can maybe end it with let’s turn to better sci-fi authors than these guys. Because as you said, there’s, and I do want to give a plug for my friend Ada Palmer, who is a historian and also a sci-fi writer.HEER: Yes, I know her work.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And she explores a lot of these same themes, but in a much more humane way, but there are a lot of other authors, so I’m interested to hear who you might recommend in that regard for people.HEER: Oh, okay. I think an interesting sort of counterpart is Ursula Le Guin who is coming out of sort of anarchism, but kind of like a left anarchism and in like The Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed explored in a very interesting way of sort of gender equality and the trade-offs that might exist in an anarchic world where things are poorer, but, you have like a greater sort of social satisfaction.So I think Le Guin in general is a, great example. Joanna Russ, I think explored, many these, same ideas.I think there’s the more dystopian fiction writers are the dystopian tradition, obviously like Orwell and Huxley, but, forward by someone like Octavia Butler exploring the dark side of this and one sees that also like Philip K. Dick and JG Ballard who are interested in all the same things as Heinlein was, but maybe are like much more attentive to the social psychological consequences of this kind of future.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Okay, great. Well those are some starter recommendations for anybody who hasn’t already gone for those authors yet. So, you got any any things upcoming you might want to plug [01:06:00] for the audience to check?HEER: Well, yeah, no, I mean, I just generally, write for the Nation magazine and have so, and to do the Time of Monsters podcast. So if anyone wants to hear more, from you can go to the Nation magazine and there’ll be a lot of content there.SHEFFIELD: Okay, sounds good. Thanks for being here.HEER: Oh, thanks. It was a, great conversation.SHEFFIELD: Alright, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation, and you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show, where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you’re a paid subscribing member, you have unlimited access to the archives and I thank you very much for your support.That does mean a lot. It’s a bad economy for media right now, so anybody who can support the show financially, that means a lot.And it’s only. a small amount of money per month, less than a cup of coffee where you might be buying them at Starbucks or whatever. so if you can support the show financially, that would be great. I appreciate it.And if you’re watching on YouTube, please do click the like and subscribe button so we can get notified whenever there’s a new episode. Thanks a lot. I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode Summary  A hundred years after quantum mechanics was invented, physics is still living with its consequences. Since Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger, the theory has transformed science and technology, explaining atomic structure and enabling much of the modern world. But its success has never erased a deeper puzzle: how the quantum world relates to the classical one we actually experience.Quantum theory is notorious for its “weirdness,” which makes sense: Superposition, measurement, and uncertainty are real physical ideas—but they’ve also been repackaged into “quantum woo” that labels superstitions as profound science.Despite the mystical nonsense though, understanding how classical and quantum systems relate remains the biggest challenge of the physical sciences, but as my guest on today’s episode argues, some of those difficulties are caused by the famous “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum physics, which can overstate the observer’s role and understate the continuity of quantum dynamics.In his account, reality is quantum all the way down, and what we call objects are stable processes, not tiny building billiard balls.Vlatko Vedral is a professor of quantum information science at Oxford University. He’s out now with a book explaining his theories in a more popular format called Portals to a New Reality: Five Pathways to the Future of Physics.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Audio Chapters00:00 — Introduction06:42 — An “observer” in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with a person15:28 — The confusion caused by the ‘Copenhagen’ interpretation of quantum fundamentals 22:47 — Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment was a criticism of quantum duality views 28:08 — Eric Weinstein’s Geometric Unity speculations35:11 — How to test new quantum theories44:16 — Information theory and quantum computing50:43 — Q-numbers, C-numbers, and quantum logic56:51 — The advantages of a process physics over a thing physicsAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So normally we don’t cover physics on the show too much, I would say. But what you’re doing here is really important, I think, in a lot of ways. So essentially, what you’re trying to do is to say that, and we will get into the details more specifically, but just generically, would you say that you’re trying to say that what people conceive of as classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, they’re not in conflict the way that a lot of people often think?VLATKO VEDRAL: Yes, I think so. I think you hear all sorts of statements. I think it’s a very nice summary of the spirit of most of my writing, that of course, quantum mechanics was, was a big revolution and it surprised many people at that time. But if you look at it in terms of how big a departure this is from classical mechanics, then it’s very similar to the past revolutions that we had.So certainly you can recover all of the classical ideas in, in a very special limiting case and the two theories. So quantum mechanics in that sense can reproduce the classical world. And if you [00:04:00] see it like that, you see that there is a continuity going through all of these theories as they develop in the history of physics.SHEFFIELD: Exactly. And we’ll get further into that as we go along here. But so just to do some, a little bit basic table setting here. I think probably the biggest difference from how people conceive of chemistry or classical mechanics is that quantum objects are not like little tiny billiard balls.VEDRAL: Yes.SHEFFIELD: They are processes of things that exist in, in a flux, if you will. But can you just kind of explain that a little bit better than I did just there?VEDRAL: Yes. I think that’s the key feature actually the technical word is the superposition principle, which actually states that any quantum object, any quantum particle, like an electron or an atom, and we’ve tested it with much bigger objects than than that in the last a hundred years, can actually exist in many different states at the same time.So you, if you’re thinking about an electron. It could exist within an atom closer to the nucleus of the atom and further away from the nucleus simultaneously. And that’s called a quantum superposition. And that’s of course something that doesn’t have any analog in classical mechanics because in classical mechanics, objects have well-defined positions.They’re localized. They’re either here or there, but not simultaneously in two positions. And the same with all other properties. If they have an energy, they have a well-defined energy, they have a well-defined velocity. Motion is well-defined. Whereas in quantum mechanics, it seems that you have to acknowledge that actually, we need to deal with probabilities at the fundamental level.so we can never say for sure where particles are. Unless we make [00:06:00] a measurement to confirm where they are. But even then, very quickly after the measurement, the particle will spread across the space and we’ll assume, this state of superposition of being in many different locations at the same time.And that gives rise to all sorts of other things that I think are out there in the, public domain. Things like entanglement the effect that Schrödinger talked about a lot, how quantum systems jointly can be in a super position in a way that they’re super correlated to one another. So there, there are all sorts of interesting phenomena, but they can all be explained through this property of being in, many states at the same time.An “observer” in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with a personSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. And the idea also the superposition state and how it can be perceived in multiple different ways that gives rise, to the idea of the observer. yes, but a lot, of times, when people who are not physicists are thinking about an observer, they think of it as a person. And that’s not what an observer means in quantum mechanics. and I think that, that ambiguity causes a lot of confusion for people.VEDRAL: I think you’re absolutely right, and I love the fact that you’re, stressing this right at the beginning of the discussion.because it leads to all sorts of statements that, that really go well beyond physics. And in fact, they have no support in physics at all, statements. like, if you really observe something, you can change your reality. If you focus on something, you can really make it happen and things like that.Nothing like that exists in quantum mechanics. what does exist is simply, again, going back to Schrödinger, is that when you make an observation and you’re absolutely right to emphasize that, An observer could be any other physical system, and observation doesn’t need to involve human beings at all.[00:08:00]In fact, it doesn’t have to be a computer at all. It doesn’t have to be as sophisticated as what we would call, a computer. It could be simply an atom being observed by another atom. and so what happens during the observation is that the states of these atoms become entangled, in Schrödinger’s language, which means that for every position of one of these atoms, there is a corresponding position of the other atom.So they’re somehow locked in this perfect correlation that their positions perfectly mirror one another, and that’s where the measurement stops. As far as the quantum physicist is concerned, you would say, I’ve now demonstrated that one of these atoms has measured another one. Now, of course you can, and ultimately a physicist does get involved, in confirming this, which means that you will now measure one of these atoms.And what will happen is that you will see only one of these positions manifest itself. and this is the property that I think causes many people to, speculate and to become confused because quantum physics does not tell us, and in fact, it cannot tell us in advance which of these outcomes you will see when you observe a quantum system.So this is part, this is something that’s called a Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which means that if you’re in a position in a super position of different locations, but you insist on asking what location is the system at a given time, you will only get randomly one of these possible locations.and all we can calculate is the probability to obtain that. So that’s what quantum mechanics gives us. So if you repeat the same measurement many, times and you get an expected value. And then that’s the value that quantum mechanics predicts. But [00:10:00] each individual measurement, if you like, is as far as quantum formalism is concerned.And as far as all the experiments are con concerned, really random, you cannot predict this outcome. And so that’s what’s interesting. And I kind of developed this in my writings. What does this really mean for our reality? What kind of reality is that? and, I think, but that’s the crux of the question.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, it’s also it appears to be random, but whether it actually is, not known at the present moment.VEDRAL: Absolutely, and that’s another excellent point that in fact when we talk about two atoms it’s not random at all. the state that you get between two atoms when you make it so that through interaction, one of them measures the other atom is a completely deterministic state.It’s a well-defined state. It’s an entangle state, admittedly, so it doesn’t have any classical counterparts and shorting a cold entanglement, the characteristic trait, it’s really the trait of quantum mechanics that doesn’t exist in, in any Newtonian classical physics. But nevertheless. There is nothing random about that state at all.The state is deterministic. And so that’s what’s interesting that if you treat everything quantum mechanically at the level, at the highest level, at the level of including everything into your consideration, you do recover determinism. and that’s fascinating that at the highest level it’s, is deterministic, but at the level of these individual interactions and observations, it looks random.so this is in fact what most of our research is about to confirm this in, in, in more and more complicated scenarios.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. and, and that non randomness though, but or indeterminacy like that is ultimately in your view, and I if I’m [00:12:00] summarizing it correctly here is you’re saying that you’re rejecting this idea that measurement is creating many realities it is rather a copying of the state to the local classical object, if you will. Yes. That’s from a observational standpoint.VEDRAL: That’s right. That’s right. And I think the consistent, the only consistent treatment, and you are right. Obviously physics is a very open-ended enterprise, and our story may well change, with the next revolution in physics. And in fact, my, my latest book is talking exactly about that, that I’m trying to anticipate which experiments we should be doing to probe, and go beyond the current, level of description.But the statement is that if you treat everything quantum mechanically, and this includes, the system you’re observing, the apparatus you’re using, if you like to use. Other computers, humans as observers, all of that is fine, so long as it’s included consistently into this formalism. And if you do that then you will not get any paradoxes in quantum mechanics is a perfectly consistent account, much like classic.It is different to classical physics, but it’s consistent in the same way the classical physics is consistent. Of course, it may be proven wrong ultimately that it’s not the ultimate description, but that doesn’t mean that, that it’s not useful in its own domain, which is the current domain.After all, we’ve had a hundred hundred odd, years, 120 years of experimentation and not a single deviation from quantum mechanics. So I think that gives us, a lot of confidence that that it will be certainly true at a certain level of of generality.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, part the, challenge that quantum mechanics has had in quantum physics, in extrapolating classicality from that is that because these objects are so small and the things that we have to measure them Yes. Are so big in [00:14:00] comparison, it’s, it’s like trying to say, well, I’m going to measure how a tennis ball behaves by smashing a, bowling ball into it.And that there, there’s fundamental limitations on how you can do that. and so the instrumentality is, really what has been our challenge in terms of extrapolating further from quantum mechanics asVEDRAL: Yes, extreme. You’re right. And, I think the major stumbling when we dis, when we discuss, for instance, these outstanding questions as I do gravity, you know what happens with gravity?It’s the only outstanding force that we haven’t managed somehow to quantize, we don’t really understand what it means to quantize gravity. And while many people would say that there are lots of mathematical problems with with these kind of theories, that it leads to all sorts of infinities, nonsensical probabilities, negative probabilities and things like that.The real big problem here is that we don’t have a single experiment to give us any clues as to what we should be doing in this direction. And it’s precisely because of what you said, this is a very challenging domain and controlling systems in a fully quantum mechanical way to stay in these super positions while making gravity relevant, is a huge challenge.And we are probably, at least five to 10 years away from being able to probe that. But we are getting closer, which is, exciting to, to a physicist.The confusion caused by the ‘Copenhagen’ interpretation of quantum fundamentalsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and then there’s also, as you’re, as you saying in the book that there’s the challenge of, the conceptualization of Yes. How quantum mechanics is the dominant perception.So, because of the instrumentality cha challenges a lot of the discussion. Perhaps most of it is tending to be philosophical oriented rather than empirical oriented. And then yes, further add upon that is the challenge that the Copenhagen. Interpretation is so dominant. So, but if you can maybe kind of [00:16:00] get, unpeel that a bit for the audience here.Yes.VEDRAL: I, think I think I can explain Copen, so That’s right. So Copenhagen interpretation is really due to Niels Bohr, I guess. He, he was from Copenhagen. And, the question, the way that he tried to understand quantum mechanics, and I think this evolved into an interpretation and, some of the early practitioners did subscribe to that.So people like Heisenberg is often quoted as being a member of and, of Copenhagen School of Thought. But it’s not clear. If you really read Heisenberg, I think you will see many differences with Bohr. So I think it’s probably fair to say no two physicists really agree with each other on any of these aspects.But, but, this interpretation of quantum mechanics. Emphasis is the notion of complementarity. So it takes this idea from classical mechanics that you either get particles or you have waves. And in classical mechanics, particles and waves were described by two completely different theories.We had Newton’s theories for particle, and we had Maxwell’s equations for waves, for electromagnetic waves, and for about 50 years or longer, they peacefully coexisted in, in, in this way. but then when with some of the early quantum experiments people realize that sometimes quantum objects can behave like particles.And they almost fully comply with Newtonian description. And sometimes they behave like waves. And in fact, you can almost use equations that look remarkably like Maxwell’s equations. After all. Schrödinger’s equation is a wave equation as well. They behave like waves, they can interfere. If you have two slits, then these particles can really go through both of these slits at the same time and produce interference fringes like, [00:18:00] like normal waves of light or water or any other waves would do.And so, Niels Bohr thought that the main message of quantum mechanics, and this is where it becomes. A bit mystical, and I think this is what promoted some of these views that, that, at least as far as I’m concerned, go well beyond anything that quantum mechanics, is really telling us. The mysticism there is simply how does a quantum object know whether it should manifest itself as a particle or a wave?And then Niels Bohr would say, well, that’s to do with the observer. That’s how the observer comes into the Copenhagen and becomes kind of, central to, to this interpretation. So Niels Bohr would say, if the observer chooses to witness the wave nature of the object, then the object will behave like a wave.And if the observer chooses to manifest the particle nature to set up the experiment in that way, then the object will manifest itself as a particle. And you’ve got many, many unanswered questions here which people immediately ask themselves. For instance, when you have a double slit experiment, if you close one of the slits, then the particle will only go through the open slate.It will really behave like a classical particle. But if you open the other slit, then suddenly one particle, each particle at a time. Seems to be able to go through both of these slits at the same time and produces an interference like, like a wave. So then the question automatically arises, how does the particle going through one slit know if the other slit is open or not?How does the particle know that at that moment it should become a wave? And this sounds extremely mysterious and mystical. It seems as though quantum objects have a superpower that they can know locally. This is [00:20:00] something that Einstein, of course, disliked very much, and he kept complaining that he couldn’t.No. And evenSchrödinger himself,VEDRAL: even Schrödinger actually indeed, Schrödinger was very much against this, this picture of reality. So somehow it adds this mystical properties to particles, and at the same time, it suggests that it’s all about observers. If I, as an observer decide. To witness a wavelike property of these particles, then I can set up the experiment in, in, in, the Wavelike way.And otherwise, if I monitor the particle continuously and I keep asking the particle, where are you now? I will get a sequence of locations, much like a path, like a trajectory in Newtonian mechanics. And so, so to me, this interpretation it, it happens to be the dominant interpretation, simply because it’s very pragmatic and it’s frequently, extremely easy to work with in terms of calculating the outcomes for given experimental setups.But if you want to understand what’s going on, it seems to me it’s not the right way to go. Actually, Dirac by the way, Dirac had a, had a fantastic statement about it. Along, along very similar lines, he said. He said, Copenhagen interpretation is good if you need to pass the quantum exam, as an undergraduate at Cambridge, but actually if you want to know what’s going on and understand quantum mechanics, it’s certainly not sufficient.and I think that’s where we are. that’s why the interpretation has become dominant. But it seems to me less and less so with the recent experimental progress, the fact that we can now prepare larger and larger systems in this superposition of many different states at the same time, seems to [00:22:00] actually suggest that all of these extra systems, observers, anything we include into this, should also be treated quantum mechanically.They should not be treated any differently. To any other physical object. And of course we haven’t really done experiment at that level to, to test this, but it seems to me that the right way to think about it is not to draw an artificial division between the observers and the observed. And in fact, any paradox when you hear people saying quantum mechanics is paradoxical, here is yet another paradoxical and, counterintuitive feature.All of this, in my view comes from the fact that we are introducing these arbitrary observers that are completely unnecessary into the picture.Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment was a criticism of quantum duality viewsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and that does go to the Schrödinger famous cat example. Like he, he wasn’t using that as an illustration of the paradoxical, he was using it as to say, this is an absurd belief.You shouldn’t think this. and it’s like people took the opposite meaning from what he was doing with that.VEDRAL: Yes, I think so. Yeah. He was advocating and, I think I, I tried to communicate quantum mechanics in that way. That you should really think about every particle as being part of a, of an underlying field, of a wave that corresponds to this particle.And rather than thinking about these abrupt, sudden quantum jumps where when you observe something, the state changes in a discontinuous fashion, something unexpected happens in all of this, you should simply think of one wave and tling itself to another wave. And the joint state that’s formed is a state that’s perfectly well described by quantum mechanics.And there shouldn’t be anything paradoxical about it. And I think if you read sharding as, [00:24:00] this is possibly even his last set of lectures, I think maybe a year or two before he died in the early fifties in Dublin. He does actually talk about this as his ultimate kind of realization. and that’s what quantum Mechanics is all about.And you are right that in it’s, radically different from how we even teach quantum to mechanics. If you pick up a random textbook it will probably follow some version of Copenhagen actually. It will not be talking about it the way Shadier thought about it.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. It’s a unfortunate irony.VEDRAL: Veryunfortunate.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And so, but still because of the, the, well, frankly, the dominance of Copenhagen, it’s, it has in a lot of ways, in my view, kind of been a it’s almost like a. It’s like a god of the gaps in physics.VEDRAL: Yes.SHEFFIELD: That’s almost what it is. and so it, it can explain something, but it doesn’t actually tell you why it exists or how it is.VEDRAL: Yes.SHEFFIELD: It just merely says, well, this is how it functions, appears to function to us at this moment, but it doesn’t tell you anything about,VEDRAL: no, it doesn’t tell you anythingSHEFFIELD: of how these things are. And like, that’s what this book is about really.VEDRAL: Yeah. That’s what the book is about. What kind of reality we should be talking about.And what’s interesting, actually, this is another, common misconception is that you eliminate all of these things like non-locality. people talk about entanglement in the way that you measure one of these particles and suddenly a particle that’s very far away. Mysteriously automatically, suddenly faster than the speed of light, if you like, jumps and assumes the same state.actually that’s not really what, what’s happening. And, we know that nothing in quantum mechanics violates, special relativity. So I think Einstein really didn’t need to worry about this [00:26:00] aspect of quantum mechanics, but it does assume that we should be thinking about quantum mechanics more like Schrödinger did.think about these underlying quantum numbers pertaining to all of the systems, and then simply think about interactions that entangle, all of these quantum systems with one another. And then everything happens continuously. Everything is smooth, everything is local. Nothing changes at a distance in an abrupt, way.And again, this reinforces this message that. All of these paradoxes, all of these seeming violation of other areas of physics like relativity simply happen because we are following this coppen hyken story in which these observers have these almost superpowers to change abruptly states of quantum systems.And of course, this leads us to conclude certain things that, that sound con contradictory, and in fact, they are contradictory. But nothing in our experiments so far has led to any contradictions. So surely that means that, there is a different story. And that’s why I think short was much closer to that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and the way I that I kind of think about it is and maybe this is dead wrong, but that basically, there is an externality that exists. And then, but we can only access it through a perception of it. And so when we, when you interact with a quantum system, you’re not changing the nature of the object.You are changing your percepted externality. You are creating a new one for yourself. Yes. It is not so, in other words, there’s not many worlds that are being created. It is. You are creating a new perception for yourself. That’s what you created.VEDRAL: Yes. I think there is only one world is just, exactly what you’re saying is just that.The only consistent way to understand it at present is really to quantize everything. So there is one quantum, it’s certainly not a classical world. We know that. Yeah. For a fact. and we’ve disproved that, on all of [00:28:00] these occasions, but I think it’s more appropriate to talk about one single quantum universe.Yes.Eric Weinstein’s “Geometric Unity”SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Okay. Great. Well, okay, so, and then, but because of the, the kind of conceptual and instrumental challenges that we’ve seen, quantum mechanics has seen, and a lot of people trying to advance, interpretations and ideas about it. And one of them, who is this guy named Eric Weinstein, who is, I guess a retired mathematician or something.Now he does, seems to be only a podcaster now. yes. And, but he, he, released a paper a, a few years ago trying to claim that he had re reconciled, what it partic, space time within a. Extra dimensional space. And, but on the other hand, a lot of his equations, he was just like, well, I don’t have ‘em, and I’m sorry.I but he’s very angry at people like you lako for, according to him, he says, you are suppressing him, you’re censoring his ideas. but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening here. It’s mostly like, well, you said the dog ate your equations. That’s what it looks like to me.VEDRAL: Yeah. To, to me too.I think you’re right. I don’t know Eric Weinstein myself and, he’s not the only person unfortunately to make claims of that kind. not at all. I think physics is a very open ended enterprise. it does happen to, to conventional physicists, of course, that you come up with an idea, you post it on archive and then you get very disappointed that, there is hardly any response.This happens, it happens to great ideas by the way that there is, 10, 20 year delay before someone actually realizes that there is something interesting there or that an experiment could be done and so on. But on the other hand, there are many dead ends. And I think, as you said, [00:30:00] if you’re a bit more mathematically minded, you will very easily think about all sorts of generalizations that you could go into.So, for instance, let me give you a very concrete example. Once you realize that quantum mechanics, relies on complex numbers, so the imaginary numbers, the square root of minus one becomes crucial in, in quantum mechanics. You cannot describe these, wavelike behaviors with real numbers only.SHEFFIELD: Well, it’s because you’re expanding degrees of freedom beyond like the normal tra traditional scaling Exactly right. You are going into that space. But now if you’re a mathematician, and in fact that’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do for a mathematician, but you mustn’t claim that corresponds to reality then that No, it’s justa formalization.VEDRAL: Yeah, exactly right. Yes, that’s right. And I think then you may say, well, why not use even more general entities, there are these quaternions why not use something that goes even beyond complex numbers? And of course a physicist would say, well, we haven’t had any need for that. It’s not that, it’s not that we are conspiratorially blocking all of these, beautiful mathematical obstructions.It’s just that nature is telling us that what we have so far is sufficient. of course, maybe one day these other formalisms. And we can never know whether they will become relevant in the same way that we couldn’t anticipate that their complex numbers would, they were discovered in in in, in, in the 17th century by some Italian mathematician who basically was solving cubic equations.and he found a, an interesting way of, writing down some of these solutions. No one dreamt at that time, of course that this would really correspond to some elements of reality. The same with general relativity, non liquidity and geometry. All of these ideas ultimately were absorbed into physics.But I think to become upset that your mathematical generalizations are [00:32:00] not taken seriously is a bit kind of, immature, right? I mean, as a scientist you should really. You should really understand how this works and I think it’s okay to speculate, but certainly you should not force your own ideas on, onto, an experimental science which of course, already contains methodology, how we find out what’s needed, what’s out there or what’s presumably out there, and things like that.So certainly there is no conspiracy within the scientific enterprise to block these ideas. In fact, we love crazy ideas. We love to hear that some ideas go beyond the current theory because it gives us extra motivation to go in that direction and try to test these ideas. But they have to be well framed.You really have to make a conjecture. You have to stick your neck out and you have to say concretely. In what situation and what will happen that’s different to what we already know. And that’s extremely challenging. Of course.SHEFFIELD: Well, and also you have to be able to specify idea experiments or other, formalization that could falsify your hypothesis.VEDRAL: Absolutely.SHEFFIELD: It’s not just to say, this is my proof that it’s true. You have to say, well, if how, this is how it could be false, and here’s how you would know.VEDRAL: Yes, absolutely. That’s crucial. and like I said, we have, for instance, all sorts of collapse theories in quantum mechanics, and I think I, I would probably say that 90% of practitioners do not believe that quantum mechanics will collapse back to classical physics.But there are some prominent people like, like Roger Penrose for instance, and many others, 10% probably of physicists believe that there could be some, domainSHEFFIELD: They’re really doing that in black holes. Like that’s their, For instance.VEDRAL: Exactly. That’s a big question in black holes. So there are many reasonable ideas there where where things [00:34:00] could, go wrong.And I can tell you that all my experimental colleagues love this kind of speculations even if they disagree with these speculations, they love them because frequently they tell. How concrete to test whether these ideas are true or not. And we’ve rule out, ruled out many of these collapsed theories, but there’s certainly many other ones that are still outstanding.So they give us extra motivation to continue with difficult experiments.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. and you really do, and it’s, and it’s, I don’t know how it is for you, but you know, it’s fun reading these papers of, well here’s how these quantum interactions within, black hole, of this type.But it would be different from this other type. like these, this is these are not ideas that are suppressed. People enjoy reading them, don’tVEDRAL: They enjoy reading them. It’s okay to be speculative. It’s even okay to say, I don’t foresee an experiment even within, next 50 years. That’s fine.I mean, many ideas of the past are exactly of that kind, that it took a long time for us to get there, to be able to test them. So we are extremely open to that. And as you say, it is part of the fun of being a theoretician.How to test new quantum theoriesSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So, but, and to that point though, on experiments so that is, one of the, I mean, that is the kind of the, narrative sort of through line of your book here is you’re trying to say, okay, well look, we’re in a, in some ways, because of the, our instrumental challenges and, conceptualization problems, here’s a way to kind of reset some of that and try to experiment on how we could perceive if.Yes. classicality is, fully derivable from quantum interaction.VEDRAL: Exactly. Right. and that’s by no means clear. Like I said, we tested objects that are very large as far as an atomic physicist is concerned. So you have objects which contain, let’s say billions of atoms, but that’s still nothing compared to even, let’s say, a [00:36:00] single biological cell.No one has put a biological cell into a superposition of two different locations. And in fact, many people doubt whether we will ever get there simply because all sorts of other effects, noise from the environment and anything else could prevent us from, doing something like this. But that’s exactly the direction we are taking because what you want to do when you have a theory is you want to.Test it in domains where you think that it might fail, that’s the more, rather than just confirming it in one domain after another and doing kind of incremental stuff where you think that the theory will anyway up, be upheld. We try to really stretch it into exciting domains where there are reasonable arguments, why it might fail there.And you already mentioned black holes. Anything to do with gravity is certainly in this domain, living systems as well. We haven’t really tested quantum mechanics much there. Even chemistry. Much of chemistry actually.‌SHEFFIELD: Yeah. No, it’s true. So, but, so within this idea though, there, there is the.Term of, the colloquial term, the qua quantum ghost. So what is that? And, talk about how you want to experiment with these things that wecalled.VEDRAL: Yes. that’s a nice, question, and I thought I, really wanted to talk about it because not many people are thinking about it.It concerns again this very awkward marriage between relativity and quantum mechanics. So we, have what’s called quantum field theory, and it puts together special, not general without gravity. So it’s relativity without gravity, together with quantum mechanics. And actually some people would call this the most successful description of nature so far.you can call it the standard model. In fact, it really accounts for all the other three forces other than gravity. However, what’s really interesting in this theory. [00:38:00] Is that when you’re talking about even basic electromagnetic interactions, if you have two charges and you want to explain how these two charges repel each other, if there are two electrons, two like charges, how they repel each other, or if they’re oppositely charged, how they attract each other.The interesting thing is that in relativity, everything every physical entity, every observable, if you like, every legitimate relativistically legitimate entity has to have four components. So it’s a little bit like three components of space, which is what Einstein realized, in his first, paper on, this topic and one component of time. So instead of thinking about space with three components separately from time, Einstein actually showed that you need to really think of them as one space time. And the different observers perceive differently spatial units and temporal units. They only perceive one joints based on in the same way.That’s what’s absolute, if you like, in the theory of relativity. So what’s interesting for us is that when it comes to the electromagnetic field, we have the four components that we are talking about, but our standard treatment claims that two of these components. Can never be measured. They can never manifest themselves.In fact, when we do our calculations, we leave these two components out. However, they must be somewhere there to comply with relativity. You cannot completely forget them, which is why, as you mentioned, they’re called ghosts. So they, serve the purpose to make quantum mechanics comply with relativity.But then the claim is that they can never be directly measured. And this should kind of raise all sorts of alarm bells to, to a scientist because you’re thinking, wait a second, why do you need to postulate this in the first [00:40:00] place? If you really claim ultimately that you can never have any observable consequences?So something that I thought would be fun is to really try to think of an experiment where you could detect these ghosts. So this is simply two components of the electromagnetic field. AndSHEFFIELD: What are these two components? If you can just kind of say that. Specify.VEDRAL: Yes. There are four components. Three of them look like spatial properties of the electromagnetic field.So they’re telling you, they’re telling you something about the strength of the electromagnetic field at different locations in space. And this fourth component, the temporal component, is telling you about how it behaves in time. So it very much mirrors the space time of Einsteins, which was applied to the three components of space and one component of time.Here we are talking about three spatial components of the electromagnetic field, telling you about the straight strength of the electromagnetic field in the X, Y, and Z directions, if you like, in the three spatial directions. And then there is this fourth one, which is the temporal component, telling you how the electromagnetic field behaves in time and suddenly.People say only two of these spatial components are relevant. There is another spatial component that’s not directly measurable. And then there is this, temporal component that’s also not directly measurable, and they’re known as ghosts because somehow the formalism needs to have them to comply with relativity.Otherwise, you would get instantaneous action at the distance. You could do things faster than the speed of light and, no one would want that. Obviously. None of our experiments are telling us that anything like this happens. So they’re necessary for consistency and yet somehow people say you can never detect particles of these extra components.You can never get a a, detector, which would detect a photon. Coming from [00:42:00] these extra ghost modes. And so I thought, and, this is again being motivated by shorting as thought experiments. it’s very reminiscent what I have in mind of shorting as cat experiment. Where what I’d like to do is take a single electron, a single charge, put it in two different locations.And, these are experiments that people do routinely. But now if these ghost modes are real, if they’re really out there, if they have these particles, photons that pertain to them, and and if we really, if they’re not just necessary for consistency, but if they’re really out there, then our theory is telling us that they must somehow couple to this electron, they must become entangled.To the electron through an interaction. And if you create this entangle state, then that’s something that you could certainly experimentally verify. So what I have in mind is really one electron, which is in two places at the same time, it becomes entangle to these ghost modes. And then I bring another electron in a position of different states, couple it to the first electron, and then ask what kind of outcomes I get.And actually the claim that I made in a, couple of recent papers is that you could in principle detect this. No one has done this experiment, but I think these are exactly the adventurous experiments because they’re challenging, the current best description that we have of reality. And they’re really asking these questions.Can we go beyond that? And it would be very interesting. I’m, actually betting on the fact that we could see the effects of this entanglement in much the same way that sch shredding. Talked about entanglement in general, but to me, again, given that it would be more surprising not to see the effects if we didn’t see any effects, I think this would raise a serious question [00:44:00] about our understanding of these fundamental interaction.The question is then what does, what does that really mean? how come that relativity is telling us one thing, whereas quantum mechanics doesn’t seem to require these extra components.Information theory and quantum computingSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and to that point, there, there are some theorists who argue that, information is the fundamental nature of reality.So, but let, so can we talk about that? But first define what information is within this context. ‘cause again, that’s another uncommon usage here, I think.VEDRAL: Yeah, very uncommon. I think the tricky bit is really the quantum side. So when, it comes to classical information, first I think is the, simpler one.I think when it comes to information, to define information, we, we follow Shannon in in probably all sciences, not just in physics.Shannon wrote a couple of groundbreaking papers in the late forties, and he really talk, talked about communication. He was interested in the channel capacity. How much information can we communicate down a certain. A channel and how do we specify this channel? And this was all about quantum information.So he, about classical information and then I will talk about quantum. So what Shannon needed is, first to be able to encode information, you need at least two distinguishable states of a physical system. So you need states which you can discriminate with certainty. Of course in our computers, for instance, these states would be the electrical circuits, which are either conducting current or not conducting current.And you can tell zero one, zeros and ones. That’s it. As soon as you have zeros and ones. going back to George Boole of course, and Boolean logic, I think you can encode information and you can talk about information, what you need. The second crucial concept, and you can now already see why I claim that [00:46:00] it’s much more appropriate to talk about quantum information.The second concept is that of probability. So Shannon said, if you tell me the probability to get a, the zero value of the bit and the one value of the bit, then I can calculate anything else. I can tell you the capacity of your communication in all sorts of scenarios. It’s actually a universal. A way of talking about information.So you need bits of information. You need to be able to distinguish two states of, each of these bits. And you need to know the probabilities for various strings of bits, zeros, and months. And so basically that’s what that’s what Shannon did and he showed that you can do anything when it comes to computation.You can compute anything that’s computable. You can reach any capacity that the channel allows with this. Now the tricky bit with quantum mechanics, and I think that’s where the difficulties arise, is that in quantum mechanics you have in, even with a single system, you have infinitely many ways. Of encoding classical information.So for instance and this now is going to go back to Heisenberg’s uncertainty. For instance, I could take positions of my object and two different positions are the values zero in one. If it’s in one position, that’s the logical zero. If it’s another in another position is the logical one. However, you can also talk about superpositions.You can say if it’s in one superposition between these two places. That’s logical value zero, if you like. If it’s in another distinguishable superposition, I can call that logical value one. And the tricky bit in quantum mechanics is that if you put these two together then they do not constitute classical information.This is something that goes beyond classical information. So my colleague David Deutsch would call [00:48:00] this “super information.” So he would say you have one property in which you can encode classical information, position. You have another property, let’s say momentum, speed in which you can encode classical information.But when you look at them together, because they cannot be simultaneously specified because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty, they somehow transcend this concept of classical information. So actually a single quantum bit can exist in many infecting, infinitely in principle, in infinitely many different states.Any superposition of the value zero and the value one, with any arbitrary weights between zero and one, you can have 75% zero, 25%, one are allowed in quantum mechanics. And that’s actually what’s behind the strength of quantum communications and ultimately the quantum computers that we are building. Yeah, so it’s in that sense that I talk about information.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, that is the really fascinating and groundbreaking idea of quantum computing because, the problem with digital encoding and Boolean logic. That it cannot, when you look at a biological system, they don’t operate under zero one. Yes. They operate under this probabilistic structure.VEDRAL: Yes.SHEFFIELD: Especially with, like, so like my current, philosophical project is deriving, mindedness from cellular collectivity and perception and all of these, so in other words, like they, they have to agree on what, on something’s there, but what that something is, and it’s bareness is not zero one.No. and so that’s, the beauty of using, of, trying to move com computation to quantum state, is that you can have that kind of fuzzy, almost analogical logic.VEDRAL: Yes. You’re putting it in a very beautiful way actually, [00:50:00] to the extent that we talked, so far about how quantum mechanics changed.Newtonian classical laws. But actually another way of putting it is exactly how you are putting it, that it changed the classical Boolean logic. It’s not a binary logic anymore. The fact that you cannot say that something either is or isn’t, but it could be in a super position, in fact, in multitudes of different superpositions forces us and some people believe that’s how we should be thinking, forces us to change the logic actually to, to adapt, to imp, to basically use a different kind of logic to describe this kind of com computation and communication.Q-numbers, C-numbers, and quantum logicSHEFFIELD: and that is also, what you are trying to, to why you’re trying to back classicality out of that as well. Yes. because that is the indeterminacy that we see when, from the measurement problem. Yes. And the observer problem is that if you don’t think of classical objects in that, in the way that we have.Then this, mystery and this indeterminacy, this randomness, it disappears. Like that’s your basic thesis.VEDRAL: That’s my basic thesis. Yes. And and, you are right. It’s interesting that, yes, it’s all about consistency. If you mix that’s exactly how you’re putting it. If you take a quantum system that are based is physiologic and you couple it to a classical system that’s deterministic and or based bull logic, you’re simply not going to be able to consistently even put them together.Because the classical system does not speak quantum logic. It simply doesn’t understand how it ought to respond to a quantum system. And again, we are back to Schrödinger, that’s exactly Schrödinger Schrödinger’s, thought experiment, which says, wait a second, what’s going to happen if I couple another system to a quantum system that’s in a super position? Well, it simply has to join that [00:52:00] superposition. And that’s it. That’s your entangled state. And that’s really the only consistent way of talking aboutSHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, people are resisting that though, and I guess that’s,VEDRAL: people are resistingSHEFFIELD: really what you’re trying to do.VEDRAL: Yeah, that’s what I’m trying to do. And, people are resisting. Sometimes people even get angry because they, I guess it’s very difficult to, to get rid of the, cop and hugging kind of, prejudice in many ways. And I think, like I said, we’re all taught to think that way. even in high school, the first time you meet quantum mechanics through Bo’s planetary model of the atomic structure and all of these things, all of these ideas creep in.And then certainly undergraduate physics, we’re all taught that way. Most popular books are written that way, which actually amplifies this kind. Mystical, side of things, and no one, it leads many people to actually conclude that it doesn’t even make any sense. It can’t be like this, it cannot be consistent.It must fail. It must collapse. But I’m arguing the other way that, that if you really think of it quantum mechanically, through and through none of these paradoxes, remain actually.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, to that, and, the other way that you kind of bring that home is di discussing that there are two types of numbers.So with the Q numbers and the C numbers. Yes. So talk about that a little bit, if you will, please.VEDRAL: Yes. I think this was the, this takes us back exactly to Heisenberg’s first paper, 1925. Last year was the, year of quantum, right. Celebrating a hundred years of his first paper. And that paper is taken as, of course there were many papers.Before that, that they were already very close to, doing to, to doing things this way. but the breakthrough there, the flash of kind of genius that, that he had and it’s really a magical paper to, to read is that he said something quite revolutionary in, and, it’s, again, [00:54:00] it’s not how we teach quantum mechanics.He said that the problems of classical physics are not at all the dynamical equations. So if you look at Newton’s equation. Force equals masstones acceleration. Or if you look at Maxwell’s classical equations, as far as Heisenberg was concerned, they’re all fine. Dynamics is okay and we don’t need to modify it.But the revolutionary idea was that the entities that obey these dynamical equations, which we think of normally in classical physics, is ordinary numbers. So you will say, a particle is located five meters away from me, and in three seconds it will be 10 meters away. And then you can write the equation.And all of these are real numbers that enter these equations. Heisenberg had this idea that they should be upgraded into what ator called quantum numbers. In fact, Heisenberg simply developed in that paper. He didn’t know what they. They ought to be such objects already existed. They’re called matrices, but Heisenberg, he was only 21, 22, I think.He wasn’t taught matrices at university. Matrices were already 50 years old then. I think they go back to Sylvester and people like Hamilton. Yeah. but they had no, not much use in physics. And I guess physicists were maybe not taught these things. And so he came up with these tables of numbers.So rather than needing just one real number, you need really lots of arrays and columns of real numbers, much like a, I think, Schrödinger called them catalogs of information, which is a very colorful way of talking about about matri is one and the same thing. And so Heisenberg said, if you now admit that a position is actually one of these Q numbers.Momentum is one of the Q numbers energy. Any classical property you can think of gets upgraded into a quantum number, a very complex array of numbers. [00:56:00] Then suddenly everything becomes clear. And he could apply that to spectroscopy. He could reproduce the, spectra that were known at that time. And basically people very quickly developed this idea later applied it to a multitude of scenarios and it became quickly clear that this is the way to think about it.So I find it beautiful because, and it illustrates discontinuity of quantum physics with classical physics. It, it, says you don’t throw away everything from classical physics. Of course, many ideas in quantum, in classic from classical physics survive and they’re still legitimate. Yeah.However, what you do need to do is upgrade certain concepts and if you have the right idea what it is that you need to upgrade, then suddenly everything falls into place basically.The advantages of a process physics over a thing physicsSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and the other interesting thing about conceiving of it, of physical object in this processual way is that you eliminate actually all interaction problems because, the, like within just like regular philosophy, there’s this idea that how can things which have persistence and are objects, how can mental causality make them right, affect them and, basically if everything is a process.Then there is no challenge of interaction because all, everything is a process interacting with the process. And ideas are just simply proce procedural variables inside of mind, which is itself a process which is made of cellular, entities which are in the cells, quantum fields, made of,VEDRAL: I, I like the picture that I, very much subscribe to that I, don’t like, dualism or any kind of duality, right?That you make an artificial split between, our mind or consciousness or whatever the brain does and what the rest of the world does. I think it’s much nicer to think that there is a unity to nature, that we don’t really need this artificial division. [00:58:00] And you’re right, this pops up even in quantum mechanics, right?That people would say, observers behave differently. Living systems obey differently. But I think. It’s closer to, reality to say that everything is the same. And you’re right, that many of these traditional problems disappear once you see it in this coherent fashion. I agree with you.SHEFFIELD: Yeah,VEDRAL: Of course, only time will tell. We haven’t done the experiments yet at that level, but yes.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. But it does offer a consistency that if everything is simply procedural realization, then it, then all the problems disappear. Agree. So many of problems disappear. I agree.VEDRAL: Yes, I agree with that.SHEFFIELD: All right. Well, so, besides this book, do you have any, particular papers or people who want to kind of follow the more, formal academic scientific papers that you want to recommend to people?VEDRAL: I think the best, the best one that talks about quite a lot of these, issues. And it may be.A relatively friendly one to, to read is, is a recent reviews of modern physics. So this is, a magazine that publishes reviews that usually talk about, a topical field of research maybe that developed over the last five to 10 years. So I have a very nice review with my colleague Chiara Marletto. It was published last January, so exactly a year ago. And it talks about how methods of quantum information can be applied to test the quantum nature of the gravitational field. So I think this paper is probably if anyone wants to read a bit more. Formal exposition. Plus, I think these reviews contain an extensive literature at the end.So I think we have over two or 300 references at the end of this review. So if anyone is interested to read this and see what people have been thinking about along these lines, that’s probably the best place to, [01:00:00] to look at.SHEFFIELD: Okay, awesome. And then, you’ve also got a Substack that people can subscribe to as well if they want to see more?VEDRAL: Yes. I think my, exactly. I think my website contains, sections with, with different, degrees of formality and difficulty, but I think I try to write my blogs in a very accessible way.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Awesome. All right. Well, thanks, for joining me today.VEDRAL: Thanks very much. Great pleasure.SHEFFIELD: Alright, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation, and you can always get more if you go to Theory of Change show where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. Of course the links to the different papers and books that we talk about on all of the programs as well.And if you are a paid subscriber, you have unlimited access to the archives and I thank you very much for your support. But we do also have free subscriptions as well, and you can get each of those at patreon.com/discover Flux, or you can go to Theory of Change Show so you can subscribe on substack. And I thank you very much for doing that.And if you’re watching on YouTube, make sure to click the like and subscribe button so you can get notified whenever there’s a new episode. Thanks a lot for watching or listening, and I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Democracy Is Not Passive: Chris Melody Fields Figueredo on Ballot Power in 2026 When we think about elections, we think about candidates. But some of the most consequential fights in 2026 won’t be about who’s on the ballot — they’ll be about what’s on it. Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, Executive Director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, joins me to break down the 24 democracy-related ballot measures already approved for November — and the wave of defensive measures, voter suppression tactics, and anti-trans initiatives emerging across the country. We discuss Missouri lawmakers overturning voter-approved minimum wage and paid leave, how supermajority thresholds weaken majority rule, and why ballot initiatives remain one of the most powerful tools for multiracial democracy — even in red states. Democracy cannot be passive. And this year, it’s on the ballot. From this Episode: Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC) BALLOT MEASURE HUB LUCHA AZ —Living United for Change in Arizona is an organization led by changemakers fighting for social, racial, and economic transformation. Missouri Jobs With Justice: A place for people who want to stop the wealthy few from mistreating and dividing us - and who want to start getting the dignity we deserve.  Voices of Florida: Voices of Florida is a Florida-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit formerly known as Women's Voices of Southwest Florida Fund dedicated to defending reproductive freedoms and human rights, and empowering our communities through education, outreach and direct action. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityEpisode SummaryWe’ve talked a lot on this program about how Donald Trump won the 2024 election due to people who were less engaged in the political process, and the evidence keeps piling up in that regard, including a study released last June by the Pew Research Center.Before Trump came along, however, so-called “unlikely voters” had strongly Democratic voting preferences, at least according to surveys by Suffolk University in 2012 and 2018.Figuring out what low-engagement people are thinking about politics is going to become increasingly important as both major parties are trying to move beyond just maximizing their most dedicated supporters.But understanding why people are choosing not to participate is difficult because Americans with these opinions are often unlikely to answer phone calls from strangers and are less likely to want to take a phone or online survey. That’s why in this episode we’ll be featuring Daniel Laurison, a sociologist at Swarthmore College who just released a new study based on detailed interviews with 144 lower-income Pennsylvanians who do not vote regularly.The full video of our conversation is available to paid subscribers. You can get unlimited access to this and every other episode on Patreon or Substack. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content* Flashback: How ‘unlikely voters’ could be the key to the 2024 presidential election* Flashback: Donald Trump’s bet on non-voters is high-risk, high-reward* Americans are deeply dissatisfied with society, Democrats must speak to their rightful concerns* Republicans built an infrastructure to attack democracy, Democrats must build one to protect it* The decline of black churches and media has indirectly increased black support for Republicans* How the American left became post-political, and how to change thatAudio Chapters (full episode)00:00 — Introduction06:57 — Non-voters feel the political system is for the rich; they’re not wrong15:50 — Trump constantly takes credit and shifts blame; Democrats don’t21:07 — Non-voters are choosing not to participate, not being driven away by barriers28:44 — Republicans stay in touch with voters between elections through advocacy media36:21 — The loss of third spaces and ways to meet friends and network44:13 — Democrats have redirected local engagement funds to advertising, and it hasn’t worked49:01 — Trump’s love of self-promotion matches today’s political need for constant communicationAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So this is a really important report, I think, especially given the recent trends we’re seeing in Donald Trump’s approval rating from people—there’s a lot of people out there saying, well, I didn’t vote for this. And they didn’t.But in fact, he was actually saying what he was going to do in a lot of ways, but they didn’t know. Let’s start though, from the beginning what the larger purpose, behind the report here. And then we’ll start getting into the details.DANIEL LAURISON: Great. Yeah, I mean, for me, the, the purpose is really to, to first of all highlight the real problem we have in our democracy, which is a lot of people don’t feel, feel included, don’t believe that they’re represented, don’t see anything in electoral politics that reflects what’s going on for them. And that means that a lot of them choose to stay home on election days. And a lot of what we what, what campaigns, what parties, what even civic organizations tend to do to try to bring them out is not necessarily effective. So for me, the most important thing about the report and about what’s going on is that we can’t have an effective democracy if a bunch of people don’t believe that democracy is doing anything for them, him.SHEFFIELD: Well, yeah, so I mean, with that regard though, I mean, yeah, people, overwhelmingly a lot of people do feel like the, the American political system doesn’t represent them. And they’re not wrong to feel that way. But how, how people are responding to that is very different. And you, you’re looking at the people [00:04:00] who, they’re kind of opting out in a lot of ways, it seems like.LAURISON: Yeah, I mean, this study is based on interviewing, especially exclusively poor and working class people, or low income and working class people. People who don’t have college degrees and or are earning under $45,000 a year and or are in, manual service, routine working class type jobs, jobs that don’t require college degrees. And so for them, I think part of the. What we call the disconnect is really the class composition of who runs politics, who they see in politics, who they see caring about politics, the volunteers, the politicians, all of that. And so that disconnect as we call it, is, is, is an important way as a class to disconnect.And that’s something that I think doesn’t get as much attention as we maybe need to give it.SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, and one of the things that I think is Im important here is that within, within politics, a lot of people that, that are trying to bring a data-driven approach, quote unquote, to it.They rely on polls and polls, they’re not as much of a science as people often imagine them to be. And I can say that as somebody who used to be a pollster. And so I’m not hating on it. It’s just that you have only one interaction. It’s a one shot interaction with the person on that topic.And you don’t know if you phrased it in a way that they understand in the same way. And but then at the same time, people also are doing focus groups and those also have problems as well. And you guys are doing something else.LAURISON: Yeah, so we did in-depth qualitative interviews. We talked to people for usually about an hour, sometimes an hour and a half. A couple of interviews went up to two hours. And so we could really get a sense in a conversation what, what they meant. if they said something and we weren’t sure what they meant, we could say, what do you mean by that? And we could follow up on stories they told us, or when they said, you. I just don’t like that guy. We could ask what they meant, et cetera. So I think there’s really something to be said for this kind of qualitative research. It’s not something that, that I would expect [00:06:00] a campaign in its final 40 days to be able to do.But it is something that that makes people feel heard and understood and listened to, and that’s really worthwhile. And for our purposes for research, you just get a different sense of, of. What people are thinking and feeling and what they believe. Then you can with other methods, especially polls.I’m a person who does both qualitative and quantitative research. I love surveys. I love survey data. But the fundamental feature of a survey is you give people a set of options to take boxes on. And if you’re not asking the right questions, you’re not going to find out what’s going on for them. That’s one piece. And then the other piece is a lot of people just tick the box that sort of seems right in the moment and you don’t have any sense of whether that’s something they believe really deeply, whether that’s something they care really a lot about, whether that’s something that motivates them or if it’s just like the box that appealed in the moment. So again, while I use surveys. I like surveys. I think polls are real information, but there’s some things you just can’t capture unless you’re having conversations with people.Non-voters feel the political system is for the rich; they’re not wrongSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and and especially I think with regard to disengagement and dissatisfaction because everybody has their own things that they’re dissatisfied about. Because, ultimately people who are deciding to vote for someone, there’s, they’re deciding, they’re unifying on that thing of this is who I’m going to vote for, whereas somebody who is not voting. They can have a, a variety, a wide variety of reasons for not participating. Although one of the consistent themes in the research is that people that you guys talk to are, they feel like that politics is for rich people and for people who are, are world apart fromthem. and, and you guys have several different case studies in that regard. There.LAURISON: Yeah, absolutely. And just to go back to the methodology for a second, the other piece that I think is really important is that polls and surveys increasingly just can’t be representative. And qualitative data is never even attempting to be representative because you’re almost never doing random [00:08:00] samples or that sort of thing. But the people who are least likely to respond to polls and surveys are also the people who are least likely to vote. And so you don’t get a good set sample of people who are non voters necessarily, unless you’re really making an effort. And you don’t get a good sample of people who are, who don’t have college degrees, who are low income, who are poor, who are struggling and waiting can take care of some of that, but it can’t take care of all of that.So one thing we were able to do is use community-based researchers who were from the communities where we were trying to talk to people to bring in their friends and family, to bring in people that they had connections to so that we were reaching people who would never, you know, if a pollster calls you and says, do you want to answer some questions about politics? These are people who would never do that. And they were, some of them were in fact, quite hard to recruit, even with an incentive, even by a friend or family member to talk about politics in an inter interview for an hour. So I think that’s, part of what’s going on for a lot of people is, again, just the sense that politics is not something they’re entitled or qualified to participate in.Not in the sense of they don’t genuinely know what they need to know, but in the sense of, if it seems like the kind of thing you have to watch the right news, or you have to know the right people or et cetera, then you’re, you’re not going to feel like it’s something you want to talk about for an hour.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and also the way that the economy is increasingly structured for a lot of people what we’re seeing in this research, but also a lot of other research is that a lot of people are having to work multiple jobs. They’re having to they don’t have time to look at this stuff.And even as early as Aristotle, he was saying politics is something that people who have leisure can participate in. But if you are scraping by constantly, where are you going to have that time? Especially if you have no habit of doing that.LAURISON: I think that’s part of it, and, and certainly, the efforts that people are making to make voting easier are. [00:10:00] a hundred percent worthwhile. The ma efforts that people are making to, on the other side, mostly to make voting more difficult, I think are, a real problem. But most people we talked to when they were talking about their own reasons for not getting to the polls, it wasn’t about the time that they had or, how convenient it was or finding a car, that sort of thing.It really was just a sense that either, either there was no point or why would they give their vote to people who don’t care about them or, this is, this is just, I sometimes make the analogy to who’s a football fan and who’s not. Some people, pay a lot of attention to football, love football, talk about football all the time.Some people, and I’m one of them. Didn’t grow up in a football family. People start talking about football, my eyes glaze over. I don’t have any idea what the thing is that I should say, and I just don’t want to be in that conversation. And I think that politics feels to a lot of people we talk to, the way football feels to me, right?It’s something that they know other people care about. They know is something that maybe as a good American, they ought to engage with, but they just don’t feel like it’s something that, that they have access to.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, that’s, yeah, that’s true. And that is an important thing to note because there have been people that have, have been trying to talk about this and, and they focus on only on, well, let’s make voting easier, not, well, why don’t you vote? And that’s, it is a serious issue because, especially if you are somebody who is trying to work on behalf of democracy and you don’t like a lot of the tyrannical things that Donald Trump has been doing.I mean, the reality is his campaign was trying to find these people in 2024 and there were numerous studies that showed that the less that people were paying attention to the news or followed it the more they were likely to support Donald Trump because he was trying to talk to him. He was there in the places that they did watch.So he was there in the Ultimate Fighting Championship places. And he [00:12:00] was going to football games, and going on lifestyle podcasts talking about just any random thing that they wanted to ask him about. And, and that’s not what you see a lot of Democratic people doing.What they seem to do is, they’ll do a interview with Morning Joe and they’ll, they’ll have a New York Times op-ed, and then they’ll say, okay, well I’m done. And that’s, that’s just not where these people are. They’re not looking at that media and they never will. And they have the right to. This is a job for people like you and I, but we’re a minority and the people who are political junkies and, really interested in, in these topics, they’re also a minority also.LAURISON: Yeah, absolutely. And they’re usually also from, not always, but usually from educated families from upper middle class families, more likely to be white, more likely to be men. Here we all are.And so they’re not as likely to have organic connections to regular poor and working class people across race.And that’s really, I think, a problem, especially, especially for the Democrats. Trump also in the last election, his campaign not only in terms of media, but also in terms of campaign strategy was knocking doors of people who had very low voter propensity scores. The kind of the kind of doors that don’t tend to get knocked in most standard Democratic campaigns these days.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that’s true. But it’s, and I want to just go back related to that. So there’s something I asked earlier where you had to address something else, which was good. But you know, just this idea that politics. Is not it, it’s for people who are rich. And when we look at the research of, of compared to, this is the public opinion on X and this is the law that comes from X, that opinion to say that politics is is not about me and that not about people like me, that’s a true opinionLAURISON: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you could, I think there are many politicians who are very interested in making the lives of low income and working class people better. And there are many policies that have been passed, o often by Democrats [00:14:00] that do in fact make people’s lives better in, in some ways, but they’re so often hard for people to see those effects.You pass a law that results in block grants to the states that results in grants to nonprofits that results in services that people might not otherwise get. But no one receiving those services has any way to see. In fact, even the people working in the organizations often don’t have any way to see that, that, that funding came from a federal grant that was part of a bill that was passed by Democrats a year or two or three ago. And so that, I think you’re, I, I say all that because I, on the one hand, I think you’re right that by and large politics is by and for the wealthy. There are, the people who, politicians are disproportionately wealthy people who work in politics.There’s a number of books and studies that show that if you look at public opinion by income, the policies that we get tend to reflect either and the beliefs and interests of the people at the top, or when there’s wide consensus, they tend to get implemented.But the people at the lower end of the income spectrum, if they have policy preferences or, issue, issue beliefs that don’t line up with the issues and the policies that the people at the top care about, they’re much less likely to get implemented. So that’s, that’s absolutely true. The reason I sort of hesitate when you say they’re right, that politics is for the rich, is it doesn’t have to be that way.It doesn’t have to be that democracy. As it, our democracy in the US only reflects the interests of well off people. And you see examples all over the place where that gets, that’s not the case, right? Where there’s state laws that really do help low income and working class people, where there’s city policies that do that, where there’s, attempts to do things at the national level.The question is just, how can we make it more in that direction rather than, rather than less.

My guest this week is Alex Guerrero, a professor of philosophy at the Rutgers University and author of the book Lottocracy: Democracy without Elections. We talk through the major problems with democracy and how a lottocracy might avoid them, as well as unique concerns of its own.Lottocracy: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/lottocracy-9780198938989Music by GW RodriguezEditing by Adam WikSibling Pod:Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!This show is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.Next Episode: AI consciousness with Matthew Sheffield

Episode Summary  Amid the constant contradictions of Donald Trump’s second administration, some of his policies have been remarkably consistent, especially those out of the Department of Health and Human Services, where Secretary Robert Kennedy Junior has been ripping up decades of scientific consensus on many areas, including vaccines, diet recommendations, and transgender care. But as a lifelong politician and lawyer with no actual experience as a doctor or medical administrator, he has needed to develop a staff of people with at least some medical experience in order to tear and destroy. What kind of doctor would want to work for a parasite-ridden lawyer who brags about eating roadkill, seems to not understand how viruses work, and advocates eating lots of saturated fats? The answer is: almost none of them. But, unfortunately, there are always a few people out there with enough personal grudges and crank beliefs to do the job.Our guest on today’s program, Jonathan Howard, knows all about the new medical establishment after having seen firsthand how they promoted anti-vaccine lies and dangerously underestimated the effects of Covid-19. We had him on the program in 2022 to discuss his first book, We Want Them Infected, and he’s out with a new one examining the policy insanity of Kennedy and his underlings called Everyone Else Is Lying to You.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content--Covid contrarians want you to forget that they were much more wrong than the scientific consensus--How 1970s tobacco companies pioneered the deceitful marketing strategies used by today’s conspiracy peddlers--Why the “naturalistic fallacy” is the basis of so much anti-science thinking--Marianne Williamson’s ineffective self-help politics--How “post left” grifters use contrarianism and know-nothing socialist rhetoric to push people to the far rightAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:36 — Robert Kennedy Jr. and his allies are the medical establishment, and they are responsible for what happens16:26 — The “Great Barrington Declaration” was initiated by political activists, not scientistsc20:48 — After claiming to oppose censorship, the Trumpian medical establishment is conducting it at a massive scale25:57 — Anti-vax activists have had years to do their own studies, but they have basically nothing33:34 — The cowardice of Republicans like Bill Cassidy who know better37:54 — Other people in the MAHA conspiracist movement44:41 — MAHA figures have more conflicts of interest than the scientists they hate51:24 — The looming conflict between polluters and anti-vax Republicans01:03:20 — John Ioannidis and the perils of medical contrarianism01:08:08 — Why atheist activists teamed up with far-right Christians who hate medical science01:18:44 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So, I literally just released an episode catching up with a previous guest who had been on the show who had marked a lot of the negative trends that we are now seeing. And unfortunately I’m in the same spot with you, my friend, that, there’s a lot of bad things that have happened. And there are so many things that I do wanna kind of summarize of them so that we can all keep track of what’s been going on for the conversation.And as we’re talking today on January 30th, the most recent kind of news headline of this awful medical establishment that is in installed itself thanks to Trump, is that, the measles in the United States are, they are what’s being made great, it looks like.JONATHAN HOWARD: Yeah, no, measles is spreading out of control.There’s the largest outbreak in 25 or 30 year, probably 26 years, actually in, South Carolina right now. Measles seems to be. Popping up in multiple other states as well. This is of course, [00:04:00] following a very large outbreak in Texas in the spring of 2025 that killed two children, and another adult.So these were the first measles deaths in the country in about 10 or 15 years, and the first children to die, I think since 1991. and our current medical establishment is trying to control it with vitamin a cod liver oil, and by spreading disinformation about the measles vaccine as was eminently predictable.SHEFFIELD: It was. And what we’re really seeing, I think, consistently is that, that these guys are kind of across the board are, they have these old fashioned medical viewpoints. Like that’s what really what they’re doing. And they have these ideas that really have been debunked for about 80 years roughly. but they want to try again on everything seems like.HOWARD: Yeah, I was gonna say, it depends how old fashioned you’re talking about because, the measles vaccine has been around since 1963 and, probably all current members of our medical establishment, except for maybe RFK would say that they think the MMR is a very important vaccine, but if they actually felt that way, they would not be working for RFK, who has spread more misinformation about the measles vaccine and all vaccines and probably any other American in the past 20 years.And what we are seeing is that. Disinformation about the COVID vaccine is very predictably bleeding into all vaccines. So all vaccines are kind of connected in, in that if you trust the doctors who recommend them people are more likely to get the measles vaccine if they’re also told accurate information about the COVID vaccine, which they weren’t.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And they weren’t. And this is part of when, if you look back at the history that there has always been suspicion about vaccines. People have always had it since they were first [00:06:00] invented. So it’s, I guess it’s understandable even though we don’t agree with those viewpoints for people to, it does seem on the face of it on the surface that a little bit counterintuitive.You mean you’re telling me that. Injecting diseases into myself is good for me? And it’s always been a challenge, right?HOWARD: Yeah. The history of the anti-vaccine movement is as old as vaccines themselves. Even preceding Edward Jenner, as far as I know, the first known vaccinator was an English farmer by the name of Benjamin Esti, who vaccinated his children against smallpox in the 1770s or something like that.And everyone can go read about him on Wikipedia. And he faced great backlash from his community. And then when a smallpox epidemic ripped through the community, his children were spared. But all, everything that we’re hearing about vaccines. Now, all I should say, all anti-vaccine disinformation, none of this is new.It, all goes back to this idea that vaccines are in pure in some way, whereas catching a virus is natural and therefore there’s no problem with it. Or that vaccines have never been properly tested or that they are just being given by pharmaceutical companies to pad their bottom line. So no, nothing that we’re hearing now is new.What’s changed is who it’s coming from, top government officials and top doctors who came from Harvard, Stanford, UCSF and Johns Hopkins. That’s what’s new.Robert Kennedy Jr. and his allies are the medical establishment, and they are responsible for what happensSHEFFIELD: It is. And they still constantly talk about the medical establishment and all that, but they are the medical establishment.They are the ones with the power. They are the ones with the money, and they are the ones who are responsible for the deaths of these children and the other people that will die.HOWARD: Absolutely. So our current [00:08:00] medical establishment, and I love that you called them that way, they, rose to power kind of portraying themselves as these outsiders who would have controlled COVID perfectly.So they became famous not for their on the ground accomplishments, but because of their social media content in which they said they would have protected the vulnerable, they would have kept schools open, or the fact that they proposed things and they argued for things and they called for things. But now that they are in power and have been given the opportunity to prove their re real world competency they’re failing.And it is, of course not just measles. Last year we had 28,000 cases of whooping cough in this country. We had a record number, not a record, but a very high number of pediatric flu death. And of course not all of this can be laid on the hands of our current medical establishment who had just been in power for a few weeks at this time.But they’re showing that they are totally inept at controlling viruses, and I shouldn’t say even inept, indifferent to controlling viruses. They’re not making any or bacteria in the case of whooping cough, but they’re not making any attempt to do that. And they are improving incompetent leaders at the agencies that they run, the NIH, the FDA, and to some degree the CDC as well.And I say only to, to some degree because I don’t think the current director is a doctor, but, they’re proving inept leaders who are loathed and mocked by the people who work for them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and you talked about this idea that it seems like a lot of them really actually do not want to do anything to mitigate disease.And that was the title of your previous book that We Want Them Infected. I mean, so what is this? I mean, I think the idea that doctors would want people to be infected with viruses, it seems so absurd that it’s almost [00:10:00] unbelievable that a doctor would say such a thing, but what is the idea behind this here?HOWARD: Yeah, so the title from the book, We Want Them Infected, came from a pretty low level, A person in public health in the Trump administration by the name of Paul Alexander who literally said that we want them infected. But this idea originated best. I can trace it back to in March, 2020, and it was really formalized in the Great Barrington Declaration, which was written in October 20, 2020 by three people, two of whom are now very high up in the Trump administration. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who leads the NIH and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who is a, vaccine advisor at the CDC and recently off the authored a, memo, actually both of them did to decimate the vaccine schedule, but. If you listen to what they have to say about their pandemic vision today they kind of just cherry pick the most unpopular mitigation measures and say, we were only against that.So they’ll say, we just wanted kids in school. We just cared so much about education of, poor children and minorities in the working class. We just didn’t want toddler horse to wear masks. But in reality what they wanted in 2020 was as many people to get infected as possible. At least if you were in what they.Considered the not vulnerable category, which was essentially everyone under age 60 or 70 who didn’t have some significant medical comorbidity. And their idea was that you could get rid of the virus by spreading the virus. So they proposed a world of zero COVID for vulnerable people, older people in nursing homes, and a world of pure COVID for basically everyone else.And they claimed that if you let the virus spread within three to six months, we would have herd immunity and the pandemic would end. This was brought to the White House by Dr. Scott Atlas, [00:12:00] who was one of Trump’s Coronavirus is ours at the time, who worked very hard to undo mitigations,SHEFFIELD: Who also, sorry, I, we should say, had no epidemiology background whatsoever. He was a, he is a radiologist.HOWARD: Correct. And, all of these doctors who I mentioned were, none of them saw what COVID could do with their own eyes. So they constantly said things that anyone who worked on a COVID unit would never say that the virus spared young people, or that death was the only bad outcome from COVID.Or even though it wasn’t really known, in the time of course, but they claimed that one COVID infection led to. Decades of immunity, even though the virus was just 1-year-old. So they were wrong, basically about everything. And all of them drastically underestimated COVID. So Dr. Jay Charia at the start of the pandemic predicted that COVID would kill 20 to 40,000 Americans.He will deny that he wrote that, but he did. And anyone can go read his essay in the Wall Street Journal is the coronavirus as deadly as they say in which he said that. He said that New York and Sweden had reached herd immunity by June, 2020. His co-author on this document, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, claimed that Stockholm and Sweden was, had almost reached herd immunity in April, 2020.So it was a very, so they drastically underestimated what COVID could do. But if you hear them talk today, they say that they will say that their pandemic vision has been vindicated and that it was everyone else who broke trust in public health, except for.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. and they were the ones who were the most wrong.I mean, let’s be clear about that. they, want to say. That, the original experts who are now dislodged in epidemiology and are not the establishment, the medical establishment they want to say that they were [00:14:00] wrong. And look, the reality is nobody was perfect in the predictions or the observations that they made.but ultimately it was the people who were saying, oh, it’s gonna be over. In two or three months. And not very many people would, I don’t know how you could be more wrong than that.HOWARD: Yeah. And it’s the, things that they were, right about weren’t things that were uniquely right to them.So they will say that school closures hurt children, for example. And I don’t know anyone who argues differently. I think what they did, however, is they portrayed every single mitigation measure as a choice. So what they did is they erased the virus and they essentially claimed that if only the people in charge had made smarter decisions, schools could have, remained open and functioned totally normally in this sort of thing.And again, we don’t have to speak about this in a hypothetical sense because we can look at what, again, what they are doing now that they are in charge and they’re. Failing to stop viruses and diseases from spreading. And when they helped run the show in Florida during 2021, especially during Florida’s Delta Wave, what happened?Schools closed and vulnerable people died in huge numbers and so did not vulnerable people. So we don’t have to speak about anything in the hypothetical sense. We can just look at what actually happened and they didn’t do a single thing that they claimed they would have done, and these guys are stuck in 2020.Dr. Jay Bhattacharya just gave a recent interview to the New York Times, I think just yesterday with Ross. Duch had, however he pronounce his name, one of their conservative columnists. And he spent the first half of the interview not talking about what he’s doing at the NIHA topic I’m sure he’s desperate to avoid but trying to re-litigate what was, what happened six years ago, the lockdowns of six years ago.he tries to answer every question by referencing, lockdowns. And this isn’t just something to laugh about because he is using this as a [00:16:00] pretext to help dismantle public health here in the United States. So if you ask him why did the United States withdraw from the World Health Organization, his answers is that they promoted lockdowns.So we’re really seeing this anger and this grievance over COVID manifest itself now by people whose aim was always to take a wrecking ball to everything.The “Great Barrington Declaration” was initiated by political activists, not scientistscSHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think that’s right. And, this is a, the their viewpoint here also, it doesn’t it, it, was never supported by, any kind of logic.Like when they’re talking about, oh, well we, this, whole idea of we want them infected or, let, the virus rip. It was completely incoherent. This Great Barrington declaration that they signed, which was basically the, it was initiated by a right-wing libertarian group. Not anything to do with medical establishments or doctors, anything like that.they didn’t have any plan in place of, well, how do you know? About somebody who has a co comorbidity and they don’t know it. Like, what do you, what happens to them? And, that really was, I think one of the biggest headlines outta the Pandemic from what I saw is that, that there were so many people who had conditions and they didn’t know that they had conditions because they had not had, symptoms.But in fact they still had ‘em. And we have, we saw a lot of people that were becoming chronically ill or dying as a result of being infected. And that was never even addressed at all in the Great Barrington Declaration or subsequently by any of its advocates.HOWARD: Yeah, I’m glad you brought up the origins of the Great Barrington Declaration because it was organized by a man by the name of Jeffrey Tucker, who sounds like a cartoon villain.He is andSHEFFIELD: Looks like one.HOWARD: He does. He wears a cape in public crazy stuff. So [00:18:00] he is a proud child labor advocate. He wrote an article in 2016 called Let the Kids Work, which is exactly what it sounds like. So all of these guys who are so concerned about children in schools have nothing to say as child labor laws are being rolled back across the country now.He advocated teenage smoking because he thought it would cool. Kids could break the habit that it wasn’t truly addictive. And I encourage everyone, if they have any questions about the Great Barrington Declaration to go and read it. It’s just one page long. Because again, the 2020 revisionist history of this document is that it was just about poor kids in school.This sort of thing the, these almost le liberal and leftist ideas. But in reality, it was all about herd immunity via natural immunity, which again, they claimed would end the pandemic in three to six months. That comes from the frequently asked question section. And you say that they had no plan. I mean, they would say.That they had a great plan to protect the vulnerable. But again, if you go to the frequently asked question section and read it’s just the most bare bones outline.So, for example their plan, if you even wanna call it that, to protect older people living at home was four sentences long. And it contains suggestions that were already pretty obvious. Like, if you’re having guests over, you should meet outside or suggestions that were completely impractical, such as. the, government should set up a national delivery service for groceries and other essentials as if it was in the power of Fauci, for example, to set up a, national home grocery d delivery service for 60 million home bound seniors.And for what it’s worth, I recently wrote my own declaration. I called it the Murray Hill Declaration. And I published this on science-based Medicine a couple weeks ago, and it basically calls on all of these [00:20:00] guys to actually do everything that they said that they were going to do. So they now, I mean obviously it’s not 2020 anymore, thank God, but they still have an opportunity to protect the vulnerable they can now do.Everything that they previously called for and proposed and argued for and would have done but they refused to do it, which shows that it, that they can’t do it, they’re incompetent, or it never could have been done in the first place because it was entirely impossible to just protect the vulnerable.I mean, it’s one of these things that isn’t wrong. but I, kind of liken it to a coach telling his team, the game plan is to score more points than the other team. Well, that’s not the wrong plan. It’s the perfect plan, but it’s not a very good one.After claiming to oppose censorship, the Trumpian medical establishment is conducting it at a massive scaleSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and one of the other things that has been really inconsistent also now that they have the levers of power is that before the Trump second administration, they were constantly claiming to be against censorship and letting people say what they think at all times in all places.And yet now inside of NIH and, other, scientific research institutions of the federal government, employees are being fired constantly or being censored. and they even have a, a issued a list of words that are prohibited that if you put them in your grant proposal, including basic words like women it’s kind of hard to do medical research if you’re not doing it on women among many other absolutely neutral things that that, again, you can’t do medical research without, studying things in these different ways. I mean, this is there. I don’t, and I’m not a, I’m not a, doctor and I’m not involved in the medical field, but to me, the amount of censorship and control from the top down that [00:22:00] we’re seeing right now under Bhattacharya and other officials in the administration, there’s never been anything remotely like this.And there are cer and there was certainly, nothing like how it was during COVID.HOWARD: Yeah. So one of the ways that these guys rose to power helped rewrite the history of the pandemic was to portray themselves as the pandemic’s chief victims, because they were silenced and they were censored. And this is one of the ways also that they, kind of staved off any sort of criticisms that anytime anyone disagreed with them, they were trying to silence and trying to censor them. So what are the facts? I don’t know all of the details of this because it’s entirely about social media content, like the fate of a couple of tweets, for example.Or a single YouTube video that was removed-- in a pandemic where over a million Americans died. I just can’t really muster so much energy about the fate of a couple tweets and Jay Bhattacharya, and I think Martin Kulldorff as well, even took their case to the Supreme Court where they lost, they were slapped down because they were found not to have any standing.They were found, I think that no one has censored them. Essentially, they, weren’t harmed in any way. But if you listen to Jay Bhattacharya, for example, type his name, into YouTube, along with the word censorship or free speech, you’ll find an enormous amount of content devoted to his supposed censorship.A matter of fact, in the spring of 24 when Kennedy was still a presidential candidate, Jay Bhattacharya spoke at one of his rallies in front of a thousand people into a microphone, claiming that he had been silenced and censored. And he promised that when he got to the NIH, he would change things and silence, scientists would finally be able to free to speak their mind. In reality, as you alluded to, what happened is they’re being silenced and censored. So several NIH officials have resigned due to censorship. The most prominent being a food researcher by the name of Kevin Hall. [00:24:00] Several others have been purged.There was a signer of something called the Bethesda Declaration, which was a document written by. And signed by hundreds of NIH employees, essentially declined censorship at the beginning of summer 2025. And one of the leaders of that Jenna Norton, was recently put on administrative leave.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Who actually has been on the podcast. So we will link to that episode.HOWARD: Oh, great. Yeah. No, I’ll have to listen. And another high up FD NIH official g let me find her exact name. Gian Marrazzo, I think her name was. she, was actually purged for pushing back against yeah, Gian Marrazzo for, pushing back against some of RFK junior’s anti-vaccine disinformation.Just today actually, there is a MAHA Summit where Jay Bhattacharya is participating, and he kicked out several journalists from leading scientific, publications such as, nature and Science. Because they have been critical of him. So even though he claims to value free speech and to be against censorship and to value debate, that is the essence of science.He refuses to take questions from anyone who might answer, might ask him a hard question. He only goes to his safe space and is censoring science. and I, just read an article a few days ago that 10,000 scientists have been, lost their jobs at the federal government in the past year, as you alluded to with word bans.he is banning any kind of research that he considers DEI. It’s unclear who gets to define that and, how those decisions are made. But it’s a, it is sort of a vast scientific censorship regime, especially compared to the fact that, he got famous because he lost a single YouTube video in 2021.That was just a, that was censorship according to him, not what’s going on now.Anti-vax activists have had years to do their own studies, but they have basically nothingSHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And, [00:26:00] and really what they’re I think if we kind of dig beneath their rhetoric, and their actions, what it seems to be is that the viewpoint, their viewpoint is, if I am criticized, that is censorship.And because I mean, the reality is they don’t have the research to support their ideas. I mean, that’s, they’re, they are not releasing studies of their own. And, several of them, not just, Bhattacharya, but others, they have had affiliations with very well funded institutions.They could have done studies to prove their viewpoints or, at least argue for them. And they don’t really have studies to, to put forward. All they have is their crank opinions, it seems like.HOWARD: Yeah. there, there’s one exception to that, which is actually Jay Bhattacharya did do one study at the very start of the pandemic.It’s kind of become infamous, in, in, in the fields. It’s called the Santa Clara Antibody Study. And yeah. Initially these guys argued that COVID wasn’t gonna spread that widely, that it wasn’t that contagious, so we didn’t have to worry about it. Then they did a study just a blood draw study of people in Santa Clara County, California and found something, and this is very early on in the pandemic.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.HOWARD: March, April, may, something like that. And they reportedly found that about 5% of people there had antibodies, even though maybe only one of them actually remembered having COVID or had symptoms consistent with COVID. And they used that to con collude kind of the opposite, that COVID was very widespread and that the vast majority of people who had COVID, didn’t even know that they were infected or they just had sniffles.they said at the beginning at that time that the virus is 50 to 80 times more common than we previously thought, which was also used. To [00:28:00] minimize COVID because if 90% of people hadn’t been infected, and we didn’t even know it yet, like, hey, maybe we were closer to the end of the pandemic in spring 2020 than towards the beginning as it turned out.so that’s an example of how, and, there were many flaws with the study ranging from the antibody tests themselves to how they recruited people this sort of thing. And it didn’t turn out to be the case that the vast majority of COVID infections are asymptomatic. Unfortunately, it would’ve been nice if that was the case.But they’ve been coasting on that study for the past six years almost. But as far as I know, it’s really the only. Potential, if you even wanna call it that research study that they did themselves. Other than that, it was just what we’re doing now, podcasts, YouTube videos, opinion pieces and they were content creators above all.Fox News appearances. So for doctors who were silenced and censored they wound up in a pretty good place. Head of the NIH, head of the FDA, head of the FDA are other very high ranking positions in the federal government right now.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and I guess I was thinking about the non COVID research as well.Like they, they don’t really have much to point to on that regard either. AndHOWARD: yeah.SHEFFIELD: and we keep hearing from, Kennedy and others in his orbit that, oh, we’re gonna do these things. We’re gonna do these things. and they’ve had, they’ve already had a year, like you, they could have had something out by now.And or, and again, like even, but even before that, like, there are not studies that, again the anti-vax movement of which, Kennedy has, really been the leader of it for quite a long time. They’ve had a lot of time, decades. To come up with something that people can look at and, and, they do kind of sometimes point to a couple of things here and there, but the way that they’re reading it is just [00:30:00] not correct.but you want to talk about some of that.HOWARD: Yes. So they are in fact impairing research into vaccines. even though one of their biggest complaints is that vaccines haven’t been studied, and especially in randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials the head of the Moderna recently made a statement that they are not going to be doing nearly as many vaccine studies coming up because the US market won’t support it.They have proposed a couple of, at least one that I know of a double blind placebo controlled study, but this was of the Hepatitis B vaccine, a vaccine that has been in use for 30 to 40 years and been given to billion people over the world. They are trying to do a randomized double blind placebo controlled study of that vaccine in a small African country whose name I will probably mispronounce Guinea Basu.And this is basically Tuskegee Experiment 2.0 because there’s a very high rate of Hepatitis B there. And so they’re essentially condemning. A certain number of children to getting this chronic disease that can lead to liver failure and liver cancer. I do think that probably in 2026 they are going to produce several studies, which I say in air quotes proving that vaccines cause autism.Kennedy has brought in several of his right hand man and men and women, who have a history of doing cherry picking fraudulent, horrible research into vaccines. And invariably they’re going to scour some CDC data bank and they’re gonna find, the children named Billy, born on a Tuesday to mother’s named Lisa who got the MMR vaccine.On a Friday have doubled the rate of autism of some other group of children. but that’s not how science works. I’m afraid we’re gonna be having to rebut some very poorly done so-called studies very soon. And these are gonna be one can imagine RFK junior standing next to Trump, having a major [00:32:00] sort of press release about this sort of study and turning it into event.Hopefully I’m wrong about this, but so far all of my predictions have been off only in the other direction that I underestimated how bad things would get.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and I mean they, they pretty much did exactly what you said with regard to Tylenol and autism. Re release something that was not a study and we’re very confident about it.And when the entire rest of the world pushed back on it and said, this is junk, what you put out. They kind of had to sort of walk it back, but they still believe it. They still believe it.HOWARD: Yeah. I don’t know that they’ve walked it back. There was a major study,SHEFFIELD: well, trump did. I’m sorry, I should say.HOWARD: Oh, did he?I didn’t know, I didn’t know that. Good for him. I never saw that.SHEFFIELD: Well, I said he sort of walked it back. He didn’t fully, he was like, well, if you really need it, you should still take it.HOWARD: I see. Yeah. And they’ve also, the FDA is working on approving a quack treatment again in air quotes for autism leucovorin, which is probably harmless.but that’s not how medicine is done. And the FDA has taken off several of its previous pages that warned against quack autism treatments, which Kennedy has long favored. And some of these things are very nasty, like bleach enemas, for example. And one can imagine that this is what the future holds for us in 2026 and 2027, along with more measles and pertussis and flu and COVID.The cowardice of Republicans like Bill Cassidy who know betterSHEFFIELD: Yeah. No, it’s really awful. And a lot of the responsibility for this happening is on people who, outta partisan, I identification and loyalty have had decided to just go along with it. and, there’s the, worst offender by far, but there are many, is Bill Cassidy, [00:34:00] the Louisiana Senator, who very clearly did not like Bobby Kennedy Jr.When he was up for the for his post. And, but nonetheless, he’ll try to vote for him or voted for him anyway, presumably based on the idea that, well, if I vote for him to be the HHS secretary, that Trump will endorse me when I run for reelection. And Well, huh. Look at that. Trump has betrayed him. And, despite that betrayal I haven’t seen Cassidy, really go hard after. I mean, I mean the reality is just based on the measles outbreak that we’re seeing, Kennedy should be impeached just for that. And irrespective of all of the other horrible things that he is done like this guy is literally imperiling the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, probably more.And Bill Cassidy was fine with that because, I gotta support my party.HOWARD: Yeah, there should definitely be an annual award, the Bill Cassidy Award in cowardice. He was a doctor. He is a doctor a GI specialist who, spoke about treating patients who had liver failure due to hepatitis B and the success of that vaccine.And several children have died in Louisiana, his home state of pertussis. And yeah, he caved and gave us Kennedy and is now complaining about all of the things that he, enabled. I think he may have been fearing for more than just a Senate seat. I think a lot of these guys got death threats and maybe their families did too.I think there was a lot of pressure on Cassidy. I, don’t say that to excuse him. Nothing justifies putting Kennedy in charge, but he was just part of a massive support network that helped all of these guys gain power. They couldn’t have done it on their own, and it wasn’t just people like Cassidy.it’s an extremely long list of people who enabled MAHA doctors who [00:36:00] defended them. Who treated them as good faith actors who published their work and who supported them. So this includes top universities again, Harvard, Stanford. Actually Harvard was okay, but Stanford, UCSF, Johns Hopkins, for example, all promoted their disinformation spreading faculty publications such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, the Hill Stat News.I could just go on and on. Even several medical journals such as JAMA and the BMJ all promoted these guys, only to later realize. That, but after it was too late, what they really were, even though they didn’t hide their intentions to wreak havoc. So all of these guys openly campaigned for Trump.They openly campaigned for RFK, but they were treated as good faith actors by broad swaths of the medical community. I, think, my profession doctors showed more courage running into treat COVID patients six years ago with a lot of us paying for it, with our lives and, our health, than we did in calling out bad faith actors in, our own profession.And again, a lot of that is because if you tried to do this as I did, you were invariably called a censor and someone who doesn’t wanna hear other opinions and doesn’t wanna debate this sort of thing, or just called. The number of juvenile insults I received I was gonna say it, it could fill a, book chapter, but it did fill a, at least part of a book chapter.And, just the way that, that those of us who, warned about this were treated not to make this about me, but it was really unfortunate, but it had the effect of trying to stop people from speaking out. And if I was a little bit younger, my beard wasn’t quite so gray and had a little more hair like there, I might feel I probably would’ve been intimidated too, intimidated or unsure of myself to speak out.Other people in the MAHA conspiracist movementSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and there are a lot of people here. I mean, so we’ve [00:38:00] talked about Bhattacharya, but there are several other people that you discuss in the book. but let for people, let, can you just run through that? Some of them for people who don’t know who they are, ‘cause they definitely should know.HOWARD: So a couple other names. people who are prominent now. Marty McCarey, who is head of the FDA, who spread volumes of COVID disinformation. this time in 2021 he was claiming that the pandemic was. Basically over, he wrote an article in February, 2021 called We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April, and then when April came around and we didn’t quite have herd immunity, he went on Fox News and said in May, 2021, he said we had herd immunity to CID.Then when Delta came around. The Delta variant in the summer of 2021. He called that a, a flu-like illness. When the omicron variant came around a couple months later, he called it omic cold in nature’s vaccine. He claimed that one COVID infection led to decades of immunity or lifelong immunity.He vastly overhyped the vaccine in the spring of 2021, claiming that it would block transmission and offered perfect protection. He drastically minimized pediatric COVID falsely saying that zero healthy children had died of COVID I, and treating rare vaccine side effects is a fate worse than death. And now that he is at the FDA, it, it’s like a junior high school every week.There’s some sort of drama there. he is blending. Having all these sorts of conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and wellness devices, he’s attacking trans people, of course. So it’s just kind of chaos. At the FDA, his right hand man, there is someone by the name of VNA Prasad, who was a very well respected oncologist.Before the pandemic, but also became attracted to Contrarianism in 2020 2021, he [00:40:00] also vastly overhyped the COVID vaccine at that time, claiming that it would end the pandemic and that it blocked transmission. He was also actively very anti-vaccine for children and in fact, it was pro infection.He wrote an article in Unheard Magazine in, I think it was published in February, 2022. This was right after the worst month of the pandemic for children January, 2022, when about six children were dying per day, and at the peak a thousand were going to the hospital every single day. In January, 2022, during the Omicron wave, he wrote his article called Should We Let Children Get Omicron, which was full of this pro infection rhetoric, that it was natural and healthy and it’s best to let children get this virus while they are young, and that infecting children would help protect vulnerable people, this sort of thing.and he is also now at the FDA where he is, People hate him. He is a horrible manager. Two months ago he leaked a memo that 10 children have died from the COVID vaccine and has still not produced a shred of evidence that’s the case. so these guys, rose to power just spreading disinformation and they were very emotionally manipulative.I think that’s a very important point to make is they weren’t neutral science communicators. They talked about any sort of mitigation measure as just this draconian government overreach, and they made it seem as if we tried to control COVID that we would have troops in the streets just attacking innocent civilians.Fast forward to today, they are part of an administration where there are troops in the streets attacking innocent civilians.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And, and there are, I, guess in, [00:42:00] in recently the MAHA doctors are now trying to say that, well, if you resist our ideas, you are politicizing science not us, the ones who are the political appointees who are making scientificHOWARD: decisions, even though that has never been doneSHEFFIELD: in the history of these agencies.No. It is the people who criticize us. Again, going back to this idea, if you criticize me, that’s censorship. Not if I fire people who criticize me. That’s not such ship. Not if I ban people from grant proposals. No, it’s, if you say, put up, tell me your evidence, show me your ideas. That’s politicization.HOWARD: Yeah, they, were very good at doing that as well. Saying everyone but them was political or everyone but them was tribal. And the only reason that we objected to the mass infection was because we didn’t like Trump, this sort of thing. I will say that finally a little bit too late. It’s very good that people are standing up to them and their fate in some ways the best case scenario.Right now is that large swaths of the country are just going to ignore them. So a lot of states have banded together to form these public health consortiums, major medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, which they hate. And the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, for example, came up with their own vaccine guidelines.So it’s sad that the FDA, the CDC and the NIH can’t be trusted now when it comes to vaccines, but basically everyone is onto them. No. For example, they recently cut the vaccine schedule to make it look more like denmark’s. As if Denmark is the top of the evidence-based medicine period. They removed, I think, six or seven vaccines, the meningococcal vaccine, the flu, COVID, hepatitis A and B, vaccine, and [00:44:00] maybe, one more, the Rotavirus vaccine.But large swaths of the country and individual pediatricians are gonna correctly ignore them. And I, I hope that is the fate for the rest of their careers, is that they are permanently linked to everything that Kennedy does. And really everything that Trump does, these guys, again, openly campaigned for him.And it’s very possible that without the Union of Kennedy and Trump in August, 2024, Trump would never be in power. I mean, obviously we’ll never know, but if you kind of flash back to then Trump’s campaign was sagging and Kennedy really threw him a lifeline. And here we are with three more years to go.MAHA figures have more conflicts of interest than the scientists they hateSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and with this. And you touched on this a bit earlier, that the MAHA movement often tries to claim that people who have a science-based evidential view of medicine, that they have people like yourself or other, many other medical professionals that you have conflicts of interest.but the, then when we look at the people that are coming in the R-F-K-H-H-S and other agencies, the, I’ve never seen more extreme conflicts of interest. Like, I mean, just all down the line. Every single one of these people has massive conflicts of interest, including Kennedy himself. But I mean, these are people.That the reason that they are, they’re in that position in a very large degree, is to get you to buy things that they are personally invested in and have companies that.HOWARD: Yeah, so that’s one of the biggest myths about any doctor who promotes vaccines that we are just kinda shilling for big pharma when in reality vaccines save a lot of money by keeping people out of the hospital.You can [00:46:00] look up any doctor on this website, open CMS payments.gov. I think that’s the URL, but it lists all of the money. That doctors have received from the pharmaceutical industry. I think in the past, since 2018, as far back as it goes, I’ve received 788 from pharma all but 150 of that in the form of sandwiches that they deliver to my office once a month for like the whole office.And I just can’t resist. I’m, only human after all. but Dr. Marty McCarey took 130,000 from pharma in the two years before becoming FDA director an eye drop company of all things. He’s a pancreatic surgeon. Why? They had him on the board and we’re paying him, who knows? Jay Bhattacharya made about 12,000 from posting on Twitter, not a huge amount of money.Vina Psad also monetized to social media content and. Probably made oodles of money doing that. Kennedy himself made a lot of money as a trial lawyer, and that seems to be one of the things that he’s trying to do now, is make trial lawyers rich again, this is probably going to be his most serious attack on all vaccines, is if he tries to make them more vulnerable to lawsuits.The history of this is that in the 1980s vaccine makers were being sued out of existence. So they established this vaccine court, which isn’t perfect, but there’s a small tax on every vaccine to help pay for people who are injured by vaccines. The most common injuries being shoulder injuries due to the inject the needle itself.And this has always been our, it’s morphed into something that the anti-vaxxers have hated, but if they make, its. So that vaccine companies can be sued, which sounds like a reasonable thing. they’re just gonna be hit with a bunch of frivolous lawsuits and they’re gonna be sued out of existence. It’s not like anyone’s getting rich off of the polio and the diptheria and the HPV vaccine at this point.[00:48:00]So that is potentially the most dangerous threat to vaccines because it’ll be something that the states may have a very hard if no one’s making the vaccines, it doesn’t really matter what their vaccine schedule says.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and and this, idea though, of these conflicts, I mean, it not just with those guys, I mean, like we, we see that, they have these conferences now that they’re doing and they’re just filled with grifter groups selling all kinds of random things.And, getting, paying people to make these. To promote them. And, the, these are scams. Like, I mean, when we think about it, like it, the biggest pushers of the anti-vax stuff are these supplement companies. Like ultimately that’s who’s doing it. Like, this idea, oh, we’re gonna treat it with vitamin D, or, or, and, fill in the blank vitamin, fill in the blank, herb and spice, whatever it is.Like, or bleach, like these guys are, they’re the ones who are the most incentivized because I mean, when you look at the, the insurance companies, those are the ones who really have the bottom line and they say, look, we’re still gonna cover these vaccines because it is cheaper for us to do that.So like you cannot get any possible better endorsement that vaccines are effective. Then the people who actually have to pay for n non-vaccinated people, like they, they, the, right wing often loves to talk about, oh, well show me the money. I’m all about the money. Well this is the money. And you can’t get any bigger of an endorsement than that.I thinkHOWARD: you’re absolutely right, about the supplement salesman as well. Probably the best example of this is Kennedy Advisor. Callie means, [00:50:00] he’s a pretty nasty guy and a conspiracy theorist, but also runs a company called Tru Me, where you can buy all sorts of supplements. And his sister Casey means, who was nominated for Surge in general, made a bunch of money selling these AI wellness wearable devices, which Marty McCarey, the head of the FDA was recently went to one of their trade shows and was kind of almost like an advertisement for those.He almost made an infomercial.SHEFFIELD: And Kennedy too himself, sorry. yeah. Also docs up.HOWARD: Yeah. Yeah. Right.SHEFFIELD: I want everyone to have a wearable, he says,HOWARD: right. And there may be some value in learning how many steps you take per day, but this idea that you can just put some device on you, even if it measures, your blood pressure and your heart rate, how do we use that to make people healthier?Certainly those devices have been tested less than vaccines, that’s for sure. And they’re probably gonna try to deregulate supplements even further. Actually, I don’t know if that’s even possible, but maybe by getting rid of what’s called the quack Miranda Warning, that a lot of these, supplements have to say something along the lines, this product has not been evaluated by the FDA for its safety and efficacy, this sort of thing.But or to see more examples of this treatment, leucovorin, which are quack treatments receiving, approval of the FDA. So that may be coming down the pike too.‌SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and they, talk about how they are against the pharmaceutical companies, but you know, if you really wanted to hit them where it hurt, you would ban the televised medical commercials.Like in most countries of the world, those are banned. you cannot advertise pharmaceutical products to consumers because they can be misleading. And you can have all sorts of, getting, people think, oh, this thing will help me. And, it doesn’t. And there’s no evidence that it would, but they want it really bad because they saw it on tv.[00:52:00] Like, if you really wanted to go after the pharmaceutical companies. That’s what you would do. But the Trump administration isn’t doing that. Yeah. And yeah, so go ahead.HOWARD: I mean, they’ve talked about that may be on their power because of free speech concerns. I don’t know. You’d have to speak to a, lawyer about that.I suppose to his credit, I think Marty McCart, the FDA has sent a lot of warning label or warning letters to companies that they’re overselling some of their products. I don’t know if those come with any sort of enforcement, for example, but they are making changes to make it easier to get drugs approved.And some of these things are of questionable legality. So they’ve come up with this voucher program where they are trying to just approve drugs in record time and speed up the process and use ai. And it all sounds very good. When you hear them talk about it again, kind of like the Great Barrington Declaration, it sounds perfect on paper.But a lot of people involved in that program are questioning its legality. A very high FDA official who worked there for 25 years. He was. Head of the CDR Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research for one month before he resigned in protest. A guy by the name of Rick Pader, not exactly a household name, and I’ll be honest with you, I hadn’t heard of him until a couple years ago, but he is a, legend in the field of, drug re regulation, especially in oncology.And he essentially said, this program is a disaster. It has it, it’s ripe for exploitation and for corruption, and decisions are being made by a small group of political appointees behind closed doors without any sort of transparency. So I think that the FDA and, actually it’s interesting because some of their rhetoric about getting drugs approved faster and easier.Hasn’t always matched some of their actions. Some of the drug companies are very frustrated with the FDA because the current version of the FDA has changed the rules as they go. I’m not super duper expert in this. I [00:54:00] only know what, FDA reporters tell me. But one thing that drug companies do have to have is stability in the FDA and some sort of predictability about whether their drug is gonna get approved or not, if they meet certain milestones.In other words, if I have a, an idea for a drug today, the earliest it might get approved is gonna be the year 2036. I mean, it takes a decade or 15 years to, for a drug to go from idea. To finish because it has to be, subject to all sorts of testing and this sort of thing. And one thing, the current version of the FDA seems to be doing is just changing this regulatory framework at a whim.It’s called regulatory whiplash. And so drug companies, they’re not perfect, but without them, I couldn’t do my job. And they’ve certainly transformed several fields of medicine, namely the one, the main one that I treat. Multiple sclerosis, a totally different disease than when I first started treating it in 2010, thanks to drug companies and basic researchers.but the, these drug companies are complaining that the current version of the FDA is, just totally rewriting the rules and upending a lot of what they’ve been working for, 10 years or more, this sort of thing. So there’s no predictability and stability there.SHEFFIELD: And there’s no consistency in the approach either, because like you have also Republicans are, look, looking to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, which would literally allow companies to pollute much, more.And this is a big thing that they are, are preaching for. And they just had a, hearing about it. And so like, again, if that’s, if you are concerned about people having toxic things in their body, what’s, what is worse? an FDA branded, branded red dye or, FDA tested red dye or toxic chemicals [00:56:00] pumped into the drinking water.I wonder which one is worse.HOWARD: Yeah, no. You hit on an important point. I mean, there, there are a lot of tensions in the MAHA MAGA movement that are gonna come to a front at some point because, there’s a very sort of strong anti pharma streak to MAHA obviously. but there’s also a very sort of libertarian streak that people should be able to decide what they put in their body and take any sort of drug as long as they feel it has promise.So, for example, during Trump 1.0, he signed something called the right to try law. Again, I’m not an expert in this, but essentially said, if you have some sort of fatal disease and you wanna try some experimental treatment, the government shouldn’t stand in your way. So that’s, tension number one.Another, tension is regarding COVID vaccines. So. Pretty much everyone in the current administration is against COVID Vaccines for young healthy people. But I think some of the more senior leadership, some of the names who we’ve already mentioned recognize that the COVID vaccine is important for older, vulnerable people, and they don’t wanna take it away from that population.They don’t wanna take it away from every single grandmother and grandfather in this country. And, read about people dying next year because they couldn’t get a COVID shot. But there are parts of the MAHA Coalition and they feel very strongly that the FDA should take every single COVID vaccine off the market.And the third tension is gonna come up with this abortion pill, which I can also never pronounce. Ms. Tiff. Ms. Tiff Perone. We’ll just keep going it the abortion pill, because obviously a lot of MAGA folks are against anything that can help a woman get an abortion. Some of the more science-based medicine people at the FDA, and I’ll include VNA Psad in this rec, and I don’t think he is against abortion knows that this pill is safe and that’s an effective, and that’s his charge at the FDA is [00:58:00] to make sure that drugs that are approved or remain on the market are app appro are safe and effective, and not take them away for political reasons, but they’re gonna be facing a lot of pressure to do that.They already are actually, and they’re trying to postpone that until after the midterms for entirely political reasons. But there are all these sort of tensions that are, have already started sprouting themselves or showing themselves, revealing themselves that are probably gonna be, that in some ways I almost hope, yeah, that’s the phrase.Thank You hopefully we’ll pull the coalition apart in the next year.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and ultimately, I mean, these tensions arise because. They’re not believing in evidence-based medicine. I mean, that’s really what they’re believing in politicized medicine or, religious I, religious inflected medicine.Like if you can even call that medicine, it’s not like, and so once you’re removed the idea of science and empirical evidence as the standard, then anything really does go. And so whatever standards end up is just a matter of political power and, and, survival of the fittest, which sadly is also what they want to do to the rest of us.HOWARD: There definitely is a sort of survival of the fittest vibe with this. I mean, to circle sort of back to measles, one of the myths that they started promoting in 2025 was one of the myths that they used with COVID that only vulnerable children died of measles are only children with severe medical comorbidities died of COVID, which is both false and kind of gross.I’ve heard this described by, I think Derek Baris at the Cons Spirituality Podcast coined the phrase, soft eugenics to describe this, just this idea that we should let these viruses rip through the population and if you survive. Then by definition you were fit. And if you died, well, you had some sort of underlying medical [01:00:00] comorbidity and were there for, and you would’veSHEFFIELD: died anyway, so,HOWARD: Right.You expendable, But yeah, there’s gonna be a lot of political battles that are gonna be fought coming up, and it’s gonna be unclear, especially over this abortion pill. how our DA is gonna navigate that. I mean, I hope that they make decisions as they’re tasked to do, based only on science and data and evidence, and don’t take that pill away.but they may, the political pressure may get to them. I mean, we’ll see, they’re lucky that’s one thing that Trump and probably even Kennedy doesn’t care anything about. and Kennedy may even officially describe himself as pro-choice. We’ll see. But some of the true believers Mike Pence, for example, not that he has any political sway anymore, but is really gonna put a lot of pressure on them to get rid of that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and really what’s kind of shaping up is that I think we’re headed for this, I mean, we already see to some extent that, there is a lower life expectancy in the red states and a higher left life expectancy in the blue states. And I think that’s, that gap is going to grow further and further, as time goes by.Because, as Kennedy, or at least during this administration as they relax federal standards on various things, then these red states are gonna lower them. and they’re doing that with insurance as well. So, trying to push these, junk. Insurance policies that don’t cover things.And the, I mean, ultimately, like, that’s the, tragic irony of these PO positions is that the people who are going to be hurt the most by them or the people who like them, like that’s who’s being put at risk the very most here. But of course, a lot of other people, unfortunately, who didn’t vote for that.HOWARD: Yeah, no, we’re gonna have a, as I alluded to, previously, we’re gonna kind of have a civil public health civil war where [01:02:00] certain states are seceding essentially from the public health union. I think California, for example, recently joined the World Health Organization. meanwhile, states like Florida under the direction of.Awful. Ron DeSantis and even worse, Joseph Ladapo, who is their quack surgeon General, who kind of mixes, mysticism, religion and medicine, and even anti-vaccine data fraud. they’re celebrating trying to get rid of all sorts of vaccine mandates in Florida, which no matter how you fe and we’re talking about not COVID mandates, which have been gone for a long time, but that in order to send your child to school, they have to be vaccinated against measles and vaccinated against polio.and that’s a recipe for even more measles outbreaks. Although some of these things may take several years, if not decades, to manifest themselves. In other words, if we stopped vaccinating for polio today, it would probably take. Who knows, five to 10 years before polio would become widespread are other diseases like HPV and he, hepatitis B.Those viruses don’t cause harm until decades, after the initial infection. So we’re gonna be seeing these effects for the rest of my career, the rest of my life, unfortunately.John Ioannidis and the perils of medical contrarianismSHEFFIELD: How is it that these people with these, ID, the, these people with a public health policy of, well, let’s not do anything about pretty much everything. How is it that they have been able to be burrowed so long in the medical establishment even before Kennedy?and I think, the, longtime Stanford, medical professor John Ioannidis, he’s the kind of patient zero of this, in my view, but I, want to hear your thoughts.HOWARD: Yeah, so he’s not a quite a household name, but I would describe him as America’s potentially most famous scientist. After someone like, [01:04:00] Tony Fauci, he was a, and is a, giant of the field of evidence-based medicine.He didn’t do a, ton of what we would call primary research, meaning he wasn’t out there in the field or the laboratory collecting data himself. But he did what is called meta research, which is kind of researching how scientists do research and was constantly saying, we need to do better research.We need to do more research. And he was convinced very, strongly in the start of the pandemic starting in March, 2020 that COVID was overblown. He predicted that it would cause 10,000 deaths, that it would cause 40,000 deaths. that we were close to the end of the peak in in, in April, 2020 that the flu was gonna be worse, this sort of thing.He also, I think, was the person who originated the we want them infected movement. He wrote an article in Stat News in March, 2020, which contained the line. I’m gonna paraphrase it a little bit, but that school closures may also prevent children from getting COVID and developing herd immunity. So these guys objected to mitigation measures, not because they thought they didn’t work, but because they pr because they knew that they did work, that they knew that they slowed the virus, they just didn’t want the virus to be slowed.and he was a regular on Fox News at that time, saying that COVID was harmless for people under age 60. And while he talked in these very calm. Reassuring ways about COVID. He talked in this histrionic way about all sorts of measures to contain it, warning that they would lead to financial collapse and civil strife and civil war, the collapse of society, Yeah. Look if Lockdowns lasted five years, he would’ve been right about that. but he was saying this sort of thing in March, 2020, and nothing that [01:06:00] the virus did changed his mind. So he predicted COVID would kill 40,000 people in the Washington Post on April 8th. 2020. And, the death toll for COVID exceeded 40,000 people in the United States a week later.And he was still going on podcasts and Fox News appearances, saying that it’s over and the worst is over, and we’ve contained the virus. So the fact that mitigation measures were reasonably successful in large parts of the country in April, 2020 and March, 2020 was then used as evidence that they weren’t needed.And he is at Stanford, which is sort of the hotbed of COVID and disinformation, and now kind of MAHA disinformation. There’s a lot of good people at Stanford, don’t get me wrong, but they gave us John Ioannidis, Scott Atlas, who we’ve already mentioned, and Jay Bhattacharya, who we’ve already mentioned, and John Ioannidis was in regular contact with Scott Atlas when he was Trump’s coronavirus czar. He is apparently in regular contact with Jay Bhattacharya now, and is saying things along the lines of, yes, we have he, portrays himself as sort of this elder state, this elder statesman of science who just wants to protect it from being politicized. When of course every accusation is a confession, no one has politicized science more than people like John Ioannidis and the people he’s enabled, Scott Atlas and Jay Barria.So, hi. His legacy will, it’s, a sad way for him, I think to kind of end his career, wind down his career. but will, I think he will only be known and he only deserves to be known, in my opinion, for his wild COVID disinformation and for enabling all of the people who are now currently attacking science.but he says that if we don’t listen to them, he gave an interview to Science Magazine that if we’re not careful, and, let Jay [01:08:00] Bhattacharya make reforms at the NIH, then we risk science becoming politicized, which is just absurd.Why atheist activists teamed up with far-right Christians who hate medical scienceSHEFFIELD: It is. And let’s maybe end on kind of a not directly science related topic, but, so you do a, lot of writing at the Science-Based Medicine, blog, which is a great resource for people who are interested in these issues.And one of the things that I think is notable about it is the ownership that it’s owned by the New England Skeptical Society. And one of the unfortunate things during the pandemic is that some of the people who had made names for themselves as as, atheist or skeptics of religion, they became some of the worst disinformation spreaders that these are people who claim to believe in evidence, claim to believe in rationality.And yet they went completely off the deep end and promoted all sorts of ridiculous ideas and, got in, got in league with, religious delusional people like, Joseph Ladapo but not just him. Lots of these MAHA people, their, you go to their conferences, they’ve got, oh, you can get, you can heal your cancer from crystals, or if you pray away your, illness, you can, get a, I mean, like, I, myself, I have a brother that has a schizophrenia and, my parents for a long time, they resistedHOWARD: getting medical treatment for him becauseSHEFFIELD: they thought that they could heal it through religion.HOWARD: and these areSHEFFIELD: really harmful ideasHOWARD: andSHEFFIELD: unfortunately a lot of them are being supported by people who made a name for themselves as the atheists. It skeptics.HOWARD: Yeah, so I don’t know if you’re, bringing this up because of my article there today, which was about a very famous skeptic, Michael Shermer, who is editor of [01:10:00] Skeptics Magazine and, portrays himself, it’s.We all kind of like to do right as rational and reasonable and science-based and evidence-based. I mean, very few, probably no one, that we’ve talked about today. Maybe with the exception of Joseph Ladapo w would say that prayer and religion and crystals are their inspiration for their scientific views, for example.but yeah, a lot of these people started taking a very hard right turn even though they would deny that. but my article today was about how Michael Shermer has embraced all sorts of anti-trans views how he has just become obsessed with strangers gonads in their genitals. And the idea that someone.Might, might say the words men can get pregnant is just a huge catastrophe for him at this moment. but yeah, he interviewed Jay Bhattacharya, a very friendly interview. I didn’t listen to the whole thing, but the quips that I listened to with Jay Bhattacharya and this summer of 2024. so he was part of the, what I call, he was just a big player, but part of this MAHA support network, for example.He functioned as a MAHA public relations expert. And a lot of these guys actually got together and wrote a book called The War on Science, which sounds like it should a perfectly appropriately titled book for this moment. and this was edited by Lawrence Krauss, kind of a disgraced physicist who.I don’t wanna say got caught up in the Me Too movement, because that makes it seem like he was an innocent victim of it. But his, he wasSHEFFIELD: accused by a lot of women of harassment and assault.HOWARD: That’s right.SHEFFIELD: but he denies it. We have to say that.HOWARD: And was, good, friends with Jeffrey Epstein as well and defended his relationship with him.So he put together a book of, 39 sort of experts and scholars, who wrote about this war on science, which was just this [01:12:00] dispatch from this alternate universe where the woke mob. One and the woke mob is the one who is purging scientists today. And, because someone said pregnant women instead of pregnant people, ah, you’re fired.that’s how they kind of portray things and what these guys did. Is they numbed people to the real threat by crying wolf about a fake threat, and they rolled out the red carpet to the real threat. I mean, it’s very sad because a lot of these guys did very good work and they could have been allies in taking on the Trump administration.and a lot of them are now, horrified. They’re all so horrified by everything that’s been going on. When instead of joining us and devoting every single effort, piece of effort to, to fighting it and trying to prevent it, they lost their minds because some, 22-year-old adjunct teaching assistant at some small college that no one had ever heard of again said men can get pregnant, and that’s just a catastrophe in their opinion.So, very disappointing.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is. And and, it’s definitely a, a, warning for everybody that you know to make sure you keep your. Your epistemology clean, I think,HOWARD: and make sure that, you’re, you are,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, keep continuing to look at evidence and, not use your personal prejudices against people that you might not have personally known.I mean, like, that is one of the things that we saw a lot during the the battle to legalize same-sex marriage is that, people who were the most against it were people who didn’t know someone that to them was, lesbian or gay, and once people started coming out of the closet, they realized, oh, well look at that.They weren’t trying to convert me to [01:14:00] homosexuality. they, they weren’t gonna molest me. Or, like, ‘cause that was the myth that all of these things had. and the sad thing is that, a lot of these guys who, did support. Same sex marriage rights and decriminalization of homosexuality are, they’re just, they are falling into the exact same arguments, bad arguments that were made during the, that they’re doing the same thing now with, trans people.HOWARD: Yeah. And I think what these guys do is they prioritize their need to be heterodox and free thinkers. I’m not part of the woke mob. I think for myself, and they all sound the exact same way. They all say the exact same thing. They all say the exact same talking points. And the point that I made in my science-based medicine article today is that the question, can men get pregnant?It to me at least, the most, the only thing that matters about that question is that it’s asked by malicious people who have malicious intent, who are out to in danger. Trans people. Right. Any, I’ve never talked about trans issues before, before today actually, because, not that I don’t care, but it’s just that I try to reserve my words, at least in public, for things where I feel I have something unique to say and different to bring to the table.And until today, I, don’t think that I did. But every time that anyone. Every that I talk about trans issues I think I’m gonna have one goal in mind, which is, does it make trans people safer or not? Because trans people are being attacked from all sides at this, not all sides, but from all over the place at this point.Including obviously from the president and the vice president and all of the people who we mentioned, Marty McCarey and Jay Bhattacharya, because they are victims of tribalism and they have to do whatever their president and their tribe demands. And so anything that I say about trans people, is gonna be with that goal in mind.Does it make them safer or does it make them more [01:16:00] vulnerable? And if it makes them more vulnerable, I’m just gonna keep my mouth shut.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. No, it’s,HOWARD: and that was the goal.SHEFFIELD: It’s really unfortunate.HOWARD: That was the goal of my Science-Based Medicine article today. I want all of these guys like Michael Shermer to stop talking about trans people, and I wanna show them I am a living model, that you can be like a sort of older, straight, white dude who doesn’t base your life around the genitals of 1% of the population who you’re probably never even gonna meet.You can do it, Michael. I can do it.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, they’re not affecting anyone, basically. Like,HOWARD: not in a good way. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes. Trans people are not affecting,SHEFFIELD: trans people are not, yeah. Like trans people are not affecting them, so leave them alone. Like in the same, yeah, there’s any number of small minority groups that, that you could say that about.And and, they’re really just picking on it because the right wing media, realize, oh, this is a small group that people don’t know, so we’re going to make them a scapegoat. Like, that’s, all this is. Like you could, there’s any number of, people with who seek medical treatments that are unconventional or, people might not have ever heard of.And people might think, oh that’s horrible. Why is this allowed? You could do that for any number of things. But the reason that we’re having to talk about this and talking about people who aren’t really affecting anyone is purely political. It’s all politics. It’s not about science. It’s not about concern for for reason or anything like that.It’s just you were manipulated into being obsessed with this subject and you should realize that.HOWARD: Right. And even when you talk about sports, I think the head of the NCAA testified that there were fewer last year at the end of 2024, that there were fewer than 10 trans athletes out of something like half a million, athletes in general.So it was just this, [01:18:00] this fake panic. But Michael Shermer has a history of doing this. A lot of these guys have a history of doing this. Dating back over a decade ago, I found an article of his warning about attacks on the science from the far left, from, liberals and progressives.And again, ignoring the real threat. From the right wing in the GOP whose attacks on science filled cemeteries when it came to COVID. I mean, hundreds of thousands of people died because they refused a vaccine. But again, to Michael Shermer and all of these guys, none of it’s real because they don’t work in hospitals.To them, it’s just all, you know what brings them attention on social media. VerySHEFFIELD: disappointed.HOWARD: Yeah.‌SHEFFIELD: It is. All right. Well, so let me, just give you a, chance to plug your, book here real quick before we, wrap up here.HOWARD: Sounds good. Well, I’ve written two at this point. the first one was we Want Them Infected, which was published in 2023, and it told the story of.The purposeful movement for herd immunity via mass infection. And it explained how it warned about and showed how the anti-vaccine movement was making inroads in mainstream medicine. And then the follow up to that book, which was just published about six months ago, everyone Else’s to you, is about how the history of the pandemic has been rewritten so that the horrific scenes of March and April of 2020 and beyond were replaced only with people remembering the the unwanted mitigation measures and how academic medicine has now completely merged with some of the rank quackery.and really it’s about the propaganda techniques, the emotional techniques. And none of this is new. This was all done by the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industries. To manufacture doubt. But that book, really explains kind of how MAHA [01:20:00] won. And both of my books are, very long. but they’re kind of half referenced books, half books that you can read, cover to cover, 25 pages of we Want them infected was just quotes of doctors like Dr.Idi declaring the pandemic over, starting in April of 2020. so, unfortunately I think the books have stood the test of time. Not that much time has passed, but in kind of the, in some ways the worst things get the more right I, have been proven which is unfortunate. I would’ve rather gone down in history or forgotten to history as some sort of guy who panicked and was hysterical, fear mongering.but that didn’t turn out to be the case, unfortunately.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is unfortunate, but, I’m glad that you did have, you’ve written it all down and that there is a record that, people can reference to understand the people who were and have been and continue to be the most wrong about medicine in this country are the people in the MAHA movement.There’s no doubt about it.HOWARD: Yeah. Thank you so much for having me. I’ll just say there’s one other kind of interesting resource that I have. I have a very small YouTube channel, I think it’s called, we Want Them Infected, which now has about 650 video clips of these guys, our current medical establishment, just saying one crazy wrong thing after another.I think I appear in about five of these videos, so it’s not even really my YouTube channel, and I haven’t made a new YouTube video with my face in it in probably a year and a half at this point. but it’s a real archive and it’s just a real collection of. Crazy, horrible things these doctors have said.So if anyone was, wants to just check it out and skip to a random YouTube video, you can see these guys saying we have herd immunity and vaccine side effects are the worst thing in the world. and on But it just really gives you a flavor of how the history of the pandemic has been [01:22:00] rewritten and how MAHA catapulted itself to power based on disinformation and emotional manipulation propaganda techniques.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. Alright, well, good to have you back.HOWARD: Thank you for having me. Let’s, do this again in a couple years or next year.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, sounds good. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

The Librarians: Censorship Comes for DemocracyInside the fight over books, schools, and power: A conversation with Kim Snyder, director of The Librarians Award-winning filmmaker Kim Snyder joins The Electorette to discuss her latest documentary, The Librarians, which examines the nationwide rise in book bans and the political targeting of librarians. The film follows librarians across the country as they navigate harassment, threats, and mounting political pressure—all while defending access to information in their communities. In this conversation, Snyder breaks down how these censorship efforts are organized, who benefits from them, and why they pose a serious threat to democratic institutions. The Librarians premieres on February 9th on PBS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What’s is wrong with mindfulness?  Where does the idea of mindfulness even come from?  How can we best use eastern ideas around meditation in our western lives?R. John Williams is a professor of English and film and media studies at Yale University. He is the author of The Buddha in the Machine: Art, Technology, and the Meeting of East and West (2014), and of the forthcoming volume Out of Mind: A Media-Theoretical Critique of Meditation.

Episode Summary  After months of chaos, censorship, violence, a deluge of Epstein files, and the untimely deaths of two American citizens, Donald Trump’s public approval ratings are at their lowest point ever. And though he’s loath to admit it in public, the president and his staff are having to make changes to try to stop the loss of support he’s seeing—including from within his own party.Despite the fact that Trump has never been more unpopular, Democrats in Congress are having internal struggles over how to oppose him, with newer members wanting to use anything possible to gum up the works that the leadership seems to generally dislike. There’s a rift among the Democratic voter base about their party as well. In a late-January poll, Marquette Law School found that 51 percent of Democrats and people who leaned that way approved of the Democrats in Congress, with 49 percent disapproving. By contrast, 80 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners said they approved of congressional Republicans. Only 20 percent disapproved. The poll also found that while respondents who said they were “somewhat liberal” were evenly split on their opinion of congressional Democrats, those who identified as “liberal” were more likely to disapprove, a 54-46 percent. Democratic voters seem to want their party to go much harder at opposing Trump, but this seems to go against the entire conception of politics that the party’s leaders understand, a viewpoint that has been largely fixed since the early 1990s—and has been shaped by conservative former Republicans who have not changed their viewpoints since becoming Democrats.Talking about all this today with me is Chris Lehmann, he’s the Washington bureau chief at The Nation magazine and a contributing editor at The Baffler.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—Even Democrats who disagree with him should be paying attention to Zohran Mamdani—The ersatz data science telling Democrats to pursue mythical centrist voters—Confronting Trump relentlessly and telling the public about it is the best way to counter him—Joe Rogan and how Republicans and Democrats handle dissent differently—What Republicans know about politics that Democratic strategists haven’t learned yet—The endgame of Trump’s top advisers is far more extreme than Project 2025Audio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:37 — Despite Trump’s historic unpopularity, Democratic politicians aren’t unified on responding17:07 — Democrats haven’t figured out that the opposition’s strengths can still be attacked21:18 — The myth of informed centrism and Democratic elites’ failed rebuilding of the party’s electoral model24:43 — Trump’s instinctive understanding of how to weaponize anger30:17 — The top Democratic operatives and politicians are cut off from regular Americans’ experiences35:20 — Many ostensibly liberal institutions are filled with David Brooks conservatives who call themselves centrists40:06 — The radical right has been at war with modernity for decades, but rarely taken seriously44:14 — The lost lessons of the World War II generations52:43 — Epstein files reveal that the ultimate ‘globalists’ are right-wing56:29 — Nihilism and Tucker Carlson01:00:59 — Need for hope and transcendence in politics01:09:02 — Anti-ICE protests as a sign of hope for the futureAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Chris Layman. Hey Chris, welcome back to the show.CHRIS LEHMANN: Very happy to be here, Matt. How are you doing?SHEFFIELD: Good, good. Well, good enough, right? Minus the whole possible end of the country thing.LEHMANN: Yeah. That’s always the disclaimer. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well on, on the other hand though, there have been a number of positive developments recently. And that’s kind of what we’re here to talk about. And I think probably the biggest one is that, I mean, it’s for a very bad reason, but all of the violence and killing that the Trump regime has been doing against private citizens, the general public has finally started to notice it, it looks like.LEHMANN: Right.SHEFFIELD: And, but Trump himself, of course, is saying that he’s more popular than ever, but there is not a single poll that says that. And in fact, he also did [00:04:00] recently say that he has a, quote, silent majority. Like that to me is the biggest tale that, that he knows something is wrong with his PR approach.LEHMANN: Yeah, absolutely. And I think, it is yeah, the situation is a perfect kind of storm of as you say, they’re objectively losing ground with the general public. And particularly what’s been striking is the group he is doing worse at is now the biggest group of, registered voters independents.And, we are coming out of the 2024 cycle where everything was about the low information voter being mobilized by maga. And that’s when, you had these surges in support among Hispanic and black voters that were historic for a Republican candidate. But, but yeah, that has plummeted very dramatically to earth now. and, for instance, Latino voters say they oppose trump’s immigration policy by a 70 30 margin. So that is, there was all of this loose talk after last election day that, we are seeing the lineaments of a new Trump coalition akin to the, coalition that Reagan put together or that Nixon before him. and that was never true. And it’s become very clear that you, kind of live by the low information voter and die by the low information voter and one bad information penetrates, which is I think the most important thing out of this hellish period we’re living through.They have no answer, they, just continually double down. It’s been, quite striking throughout all, esp especially the murderous siege of, Minneapolis, there’s a very standard presidential playbook for something like this is, [00:06:00] you sort of offer up whoever ty no’s head on a pike, you sort of acknowledge, okay,SHEFFIELD: you feel their pain? Yeah.LEHMANN: we got a little carried away and now we’re going to do, kinder, gentler murderous sieges, which, sadly the Democratic party would go for. And, would, they’ve already, what’s, you can always count on me to bring the clouds in any silver lining situation.But, things that, Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate said they were going to go to the mat for and closed down the government over were things like having ICE and, CPB agents CBP rather agents wear cameras.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.LEHMANN: The administration has unilaterally done that anyway.And because among other things, this is the kind of criminal gangster administration that, they’re, anytime footage from one of these cams is, going to be sought in a legal proceeding, they’ll say, oh, we lost it. It was destroyed, whatever. It doesn’t, it’s not going to change anything fundamental about the, the mass deportation program that is now spilling over into assaults on dissenting US citizens.So, so yeah, the, administration has created all the conditions that have sunk, its standing in the polls and they’re just going to keep doing it. ThereSHEFFIELD: Because they don’t know anything else. I mean, that’s theLEHMANN: don’t know anything else. Right. AndSHEFFIELD: the Republican, sorry,Despite Trump’s historic unpopularity, Democratic politicians aren’t unified on respondingSHEFFIELD: The Republican rights sole PR strategy for the past 80 years has been, well, we just have to be more right wing and then it’ll work,LEHMANN: Yeah, which, it, has succeeded in getting them power. And and largely because of the, failure that Democrats to be an effective opposition party throughout this [00:08:00] whole long stretch of time you’re talking about. But yeah, we are now at this point where, I think ordinary voters who aren’t, that, certainly not ideologically driven and not, that informed about everything the Trump administration has been doing.You see the the murders of Renee Good and Andrew Prince in, in Minneapolis, and I think just as powerfully you see the, deportation of. Liam, the five-year-old, in the bunny hat. there’s nothing the right can do to make that seem defensible or palatable.it just, I think, triggers this deep human revulsion that I’m, glad that, American voters are experiencing ‘cause I was starting to have my doubts for a while there. But yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, there’s a significant disadvantage that the American left has in that. The, far right Republican agenda is so monstrous that when you tell people what it is, if they’re not informed, they don’t believe you, that it’sLEHMANN: They won’t believe you. Right,SHEFFIELD: It’s unbelievable. And in fact, like people have done that in focus groups.They’ll say, okay, well, so here’s Donald Trump’s policy of x, and, the voters are like, no, that he doesn’t believe that.LEHMANN: That can’t be right. Yeah, no, it, it does militate against, and, that is the political challenge for, the opposition is, to, present it in these very stark ways and to Yeah. To have enough of a coalition behind you. And that’s what, that’s the other thing that’s happening right now is I think, the citizens of Minneapolis who are, being really heroic and standing up to this siege are, forcing the leaders of the Democratic party to pay [00:10:00] more attention.And it is striking, there was this long, in my view, extremely stupid interval where Matt Yglesias and the sort of popularist types of consultants and writers aligned with the Democrats were saying, we just can’t talk about immigration. It’s Trump’s greatest strength.We don’t have a good answer except, we also want to, crack down on illegal crossings and, heightened border control. But we want to do it in a more, notionally balanced procedural wave. And that again, it’s that old, I always go back to the, there’s an old onion headline where that was like, I think a representation of a Jimmy Carter Reagan debate and Jimmy Carter is saying something like, Must be reasonable and broker accords across the world, whatever. and Reagan’s line is, let’s kill the bastards. And, obviously the, Reagan slash Trump position is morally abhorrent, but it’s very clear and decisive and it makes a very clear point. And if you’re just kind of sitting on your hands the way that you know, Matt and glaciers and also this new think tank, the Searchlight Institute that promulgated this, again, stupid memo saying, we can’t have Democrats say abolish ice.They have to say reform ice, or better training, which I is especially insane because the, shooter who killed, murdered, Renee Goode was a firearms instructor. This is not inSHEFFIELD: is definitely a problem, but it’s far from the, it is not the main problem.LEHMANN: Right. And it’s not going to solve anything. You have, this is all under the, watch of Stephen Miller, who, is [00:12:00] a, fascist sadist, authoritarian goon, like, and it’s garbage in, garbage out. that is what you’re going to get as long as he is the defacto, sort of czar of immigration policy in this country.And so you have, I know Democrats don’t like politics. They think they’re above politics. We were talking earlier about, the, sort of scourge of credentialed knowledge elites atop the Democratic party. and that is the main symptom of it, in my view. They think because they’re, they have fancy degrees and they’ve, wade it through the pertinent policy papers and consultant, memos that they don’t have to bother persuading people, they, have a sort of quasi divine rights based on being part of the knowledge elite to, just administer policy. And, in something like immigration where you, absolutely need a forceful moral position that sort of addresses, everything about the Republican policy on I immigration is a lie that’s not, hyperbole on my part.Trump has, for a decade now, fallaciously claims that, there’s a, an out of control immigrant violent crime wave,SHEFFIELD: Invasion, as heLEHMANN: And invasion. And if you look at any statistics from, again, the past century really of, immigration. Immigrants commit violent crime at a significantly lower rate than the native born population.And all you have to do is think about their situation to understand like, yeah, you’re not going to want to draw attention to yourself by committing a violent crime if you’re not in the country legally, and you might be deported. Like it’s, just, it makes zero senseSHEFFIELD: And the stats show that too,LEHMANN: right? The STAs absolutely.Show that up and down Democrats don’t [00:14:00] effectivelySHEFFIELD: also they don’t draw on welfare.LEHMANN: Or you’re,SHEFFIELD: notLEHMANN: mySHEFFIELD: for it. they’re literally, they are paying into the economy and taking almost nothing out. ThatLEHMANN: it is the polar opposite of what the Republicans claim. You’re absolutely right. They pay into social security and, Medicare and welfare and they get nothing back. So it’s a net positive. This in 2024 the I’m forgetting the agency, but the major federal agency that tracks these things estimated the contribution of immigrant workers over the next decade at $10 trillion.So, like, if you just connect the dots here, and this is what I say when I’m in arguments with MAGA types, is like, what’s invading force gives you $10 trillion. Like there, sorry. You have to, find better words, to describe whatever it is. You’re, hallucinating. And on and on.And, people even forget the reason for this. Heinous mobilization in Minneapolis is ostensibly because of. Rampant welfare fraud on the part of Somali daycare centers and, which has all been promulgated by a right wing YouTuber and has been demonstrated to be total BS at the level he’s claiming.There was a little bit of,SHEFFIELD: seems to be remarkably stupid. Low IQ person.LEHMANN: yeah. No, I, that is all, true and taken as red. But and and again, just at the basic level of operational sensemaking, right, who mobilizes a paramilitary force to combat welfare fraud like you, the, if, it’s real, you get accountants, like none of this is, has anything to do with reality [00:16:00] and yet.You go back to when Abrego, Gar Garcia here in Maryland was wrongfully detained, and, the president of El Salvador said it openly. Everyone in the justice said it openly. Chris von Holland, my senator, who I’m very proud of on this issue went to visit him at Sea Cod and, made this an issue.And, reportedly Leonard Jeffries said, don’t do this again. It’s this whole idea, we can’t touch this issue. It’s, it’s Donald Trump’s, sacred source of popularity. And, that moment when, Van Holland sort of. Said, no, this is just wrong and I’m going to make it clear.I think that, is when you know the, Democrats were finally forced into a position of, like, okay, we can’t just pretend indefensible things can be wished away.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, or get away with just responding with angry press conferenceDemocrats haven’t figured out that the opposition’s strengths can still be attackedLEHMANN: yeah. Right. An angry letter like that’s going to do anything. So yeah, and it all, and again, going further back and, sort of the history and this is all stuff you know very well from coming up on the right, but you know, I often think when. I have been thinking whenever it is, I would come across Jefferies or Schumer or some other Democratic leader saying, or Matt Iglesia saying like, we have to just shut up about immigration. It’s, Donald Trump’s strongest issue. Think back to the 2004 election cycle, which you know very well, right? So, John, the Democrats and their infinite wisdom decided we’re going to nominate John Carey because he is, this strong military leader. It’s the best way to go After the militarist, Iraq invading Bush [00:18:00] administration and what did the Republicans do?They did not say, oh, John Kerry’s military record is so much superior to George w Bush’s, we’re just going to sit on our hands and hope this whole thing goes away. No, they invented the swift. Boaty where, you know, they, got these kind of under Carrie’s command who were high on, the, right wing supply to sort of confabulate all these things about Carrie’s record in Vietnam that wasn’t, that weren’t true.And they, made a big show at the convention of wearing band-aids. I, can’t even remember what that whole, I’m sure you do. But the larger point is like, and, by the way the architect of that whole strategy was Chris what’s his name? The co-chair of the, no, The co-chair of Trump’s 2024 campaign. But my point, yeah, my point is, that is the kind of raw street fighting mentality that the right has been bringing to, electoral politics over the past, all of my political lifetime and well before that. And the Democrats, again, are in that Jimmy Carter position of like, well, let’s, do nice things for nice professional people.It’s just not, it doesn’t work as politics.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and a lot of this mentality it comes from something that we have talked about a little bit on the show. Last night we were on, and as I recall the idea of who makes up. Politics. And on the Republican side they are, in terms of the workers in the Republican industry, if you will it’s a broad, obviously they’re funded overwhelmingly by billionaire oligarchs, but in terms of the people who actually poll the levers and [00:20:00] stamp the papers and, make the spam they come from all over the place.Like they, some of them were like me former trailer park kids and, and, some, like you a high school dropout. Like that’s, who’s running a lot of these Republicans, and especially in the Trump era, when basically Trump said to the existing Republican campaign professionals, get the hell out.And so the doors were opened for anyone who supported him essentially. AndLEHMANN: And, they have adapted well to this new media environment in a, a way that again, as, you have observed over and over again, the Democrats have not, they have, again, this anti-politics model of politics that, you know, if we just, fine tune the wording of the message in such a way per our consultants and per our focus groups, we will get, the, marginal outcomes we need and, X number of purple districts or whatever, and,SHEFFIELD: that they think people decide on issues. And again, that is the, class blind spot, right. That is like, I, think in terms of policy, I know the, kind of optimal policy solution for issue X, and I just have to tell voters and they will fall in line.and here’s the other thing. Here’sThe myth of informed centrism and Democratic elites’ failed rebuilding of the party’s electoral modelSHEFFIELD: the other thing that is so frustrating is so they’ve got this idea, well, we just have to be in the center because that’s where most of the voters are well informed. Centrism does not exist. It’s not real.No one is who actually knows about politics. It’s like, oh, I’m going to take my position exactly in between the parties. No one does that. Okay. Only people who are low information and don’t pay attention. But the other thing is, if that viewpoint were true, then Republicans would never win elections.LEHMANN: right, right. No,SHEFFIELD: a party that keeps getting more and more extremeeveryLEHMANN: I know right.SHEFFIELD: And so that alone should [00:22:00] disabuse democratic elites of this, cautionary nonsense because it’s not, it isn’t actually data-driven like the, these guys have. they’ve constructed a mirage of data and they’re chasing after it, like Don Quixote and his windmills. That’s what they’re doing.LEHMANN: I know. No, it’s absolutely true. And it is, it’s all, har harks back to, the, kind of, democratic Leadership Council, new Democrat model inaugurated in the Clinton years. And that was, after the crushing defeat of Walter Mondale in 1984, democratic elites decided, two things.One is like we need to. Re-engineer the entire Democratic party so that we can retake the White House. And, sort of the other thing is a subsidiary premise of that we have to, discard the existing activist base of the party. We have to be the kind of, culturally moderate pro business knowledge elite.this is the whole, the, literally the term yuppie derives from Gary Hart’s 1984 presidential campaign where initially, pundits first tried to call this new style of, knowledge driven Democrat the Atari Democrat. And that didn’t really take, ‘cause I don’t think anyone really knew much about tech or tech brands back then.and then someone hit upon the term young, urban professional, and that was, Gary Hart’s kind of calling card in electoral terms. And no one bothered to notice that Gary Hart didn’t win or that Michael Dicus who adopted exactly the same model, he was going to be the, candidate of competence who presided over the tech miracle of Route 1 28 outside of [00:24:00] Boston.And he was going to be, again, this managerial guy who was going to, be reasonable on, the cultural issues that had divided the country over the sixties and beyond. But be, this kind of stable managerial guy. And then finally, Clinton hit on the, sort of combination of traits that worked.And it largely just stems from triangulation, which is Dick Morris’s contribution to the lexicon. Which is to say you take the issues that Republicans that belong to them and sort of soften the edges and, find again, as you were saying, this sort of mythic center point to sell a pro-business agenda.Trump’s instinctive understanding of how to weaponize angerLEHMANN: And what actually happened over that long recourse of, or recess, I should say, presidential campaigns is that, the Democratic party kicked its, working class base to the curb. The main legacy of Clinton in economic terms was NAFTA and gat and, the whole globalization agenda, which, a generation hence is the fodder for Donald Trump’s success.He ran against most successfully in 2016, the. The real harm that globalization had done to the manufacturing centers of the country. And he didn’t deliver anything as a result. But he was the first candidate to sort of say, because, globalization is very much the oligarchs, kind of sweet spot.And Democrats supported it, Republicans supported it. It was, Trump’s sort of genius at, that time to realize like, yeah actual voters feel really neglected and condescended to and harms by these policies. So I’m going to rhetorically speak to them and, continue to [00:26:00] govern as an oligarch.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and the, yeah, the, thing is also that and this is another kind of inherent disadvantage that a party that is not, trying to destroy everything,LEHMANN: Right.SHEFFIELD: Is that, failure is actually good for Trump in some way because the worse things get, the more he can blame because his entire campaign, a approach and entire messaging approaches, those other people did this to you.They’re hurting you. And so the worse he makes things, the worse he makes the economy, the worse he makes education, the worse he makes healthcare, the worse he makes inflation and jobs, whatever it is. He can always say, no, they did it. They’re the ones that are doing this. I am standing up for you.LEHMANN: I am your retribution famously, right. And he can do that even in conditions like now where republicans, have a trifecta and of course the Supreme Court backing them up. So, yeah, it is, and it all goes long ago. Henry Adams said, politics is the organization of Hatreds.And, Kevin Phillips Nixon’s famous, sort of campaign guru who helps engineer the southern strategy, took that up as his mantra. And, that has been the story on the right, certainly ever since. And the democrats, again, even in this unbelievably target rich environment, I mean, if Steven Miller were a Marvel villain, he would not be believable.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.LEHMANN: and and, that’s just for starters. I mean, you have JD Vance who’s just an obvious, I would say empty suit, but you know, he’s full of internet lies and he is a complete he willSHEFFIELD: He is a four chan zombie, basically.LEHMANN: Exactly. Exactly. That’s a very good way of putting it.And Christina, all [00:28:00] of these, there is not a single con, I guess, maybe the interior guy is, I just don’t think he’s, gotten in enough trouble yet. But there’s, not a, and it’s all deliberately engineered this way. Pete Hegseth, all these people are just maga militant, I’m, I was about to curse, but,SHEFFIELD: Oh, can doLEHMANN: Oh, okay. That’s right. I’m, so used to being on the radio. I always catch myself. Yeah. But they’re just goons, I guess is the best term and, You can go after all of them. And somehow the Democrats, they don’t have any sort of unified theory of what’s happening right now. They don’t, I, it, is, I’m, I am, been very cynical for a very long time and I’m just kind of at a loss at this is the most advantageous set of, just leaving aside the horrific tragedy of it all and, and the massive corruption and abuse of power and, shredding of the Constitution and the rest of it.Like, you have all sorts of ways to organize. Hatreds is my point, and you need to do it. That is, it’s an ugly business. I am, I’m not saying, it’s, good for the soul or anything like that, but. You need to go hammer in tongs after these people and make the message that you know if, yeah, if, you’re feeling scared, to be on the street in your city.If you care about a five-year-old boy who’s been scooped up by this Gestapo operation, these are the people who are doing it to you. And that’s how you flip, the Trump reflex, which, you’re right, he is really good at always saying like, it isn’t me. It’s, enemy X. And again, and even outside the White House, like Elon Musk is, already a vastly hated figure.He’s the [00:30:00] most important donor on the Republican party. Like, yeah, I’m just, when, in the course of my day job where I’m covering this, I’m, just like, how can this, how have the Democrats made this so hard?The top Democratic operatives and politicians are cut off from regular Americans’ experiencesSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, okay. So, well, I would say, if we go back, just to the, so we talked about who comprises the Republican political class, but the Democratic political class is overwhelmingly wealthy. Overwhelmingly prep school kids overwhelmingly Ivy League educated.And so these are people who never experienced hardship. These are people who don’t have, raucous debates in their own families or communities. They don’t know how to do politics because their entire, in their world, where they came from. Politics is bad. Having arguments, having disputes is a bad thing.Like, let’s just sit down and be the adult in the room. Like that’s, and it works for that world. Like, if it, but this is not how the pol political world is, and especially in the age of Trump, you’ve got to, you have to change things up. But it’s, so difficult because they don’t, ever hire anybody who’s new.I mean, like, you, look at the list. I mean, hell, we got James Carville. They’re still taking advice from this guy who hasn’t won an electionLEHMANN: a, he ran one successful campaign. He then went global and he was advising like Israeli Prime Minister candidates who lost, he, advised people inside, he’s just, yeah. It’s, dumbfounding and it’s only the reason James CarVal has a platform right. Is he can coplay. As I’m in touch with the working people.I, I have a southern accent, even the, even though he lives in a mansion and he married a Republican political consultant, it’s all. Bullshit. But yeah, that he is like their spirit animal who can sort of,SHEFFIELD: it.LEHMANN: Say [00:32:00] that, oh, back in 1992, we, got all these, southern racist to, to fall in line behind Bill Clinton and I’m, I have this, mystic wisdom that no one else does.It is, yeah. And that’s another thing, again, in coming in Congress, you see, that you saw this long march. That the reason that literally at this point, I think the reason that Republicans still have the majority in the house is that so many Democrats have died in 109, a hundred 19th Congress to sustain their, margin.So, the, on the other side of the coin re the Republican caucus has a three term limit for anyone who’s chairman of a committee. Like three strikes you’re at, they’ll, there are some loopholes to potentially extend, but that’s the model that was Gingrich’s innovation and it was smart.Because, you have on the democratic side, all these people who are just again, like almost literal zombies like Diane Feinstein at the end of her, term. And the, all the,SHEFFIELD: Dick Durbin is,LEHMANN: Dick Durbin. Yeah. And Jerry Conway who got the, gavel O over a OC on, the oversight committee and then died, you, and again, that’s another feature of, it’s, I, had this, insight, I can’t remember the exact circumstances, but I was writing about the DNC and David Hogg’s fight, to sort of run younger candidates and, and that predictably ended badly for him.And I was, sort of reviewing all of this. And it’s suddenly dawn on me, like the Democratic National Committee is run like a university. And that’s so what it should not be. I think it all had to do like hog was forced out. ‘cause there, and [00:34:00] there, there was a legitimate question at the bottom of this, there was a procedural question that, a female candidate didn’t get properly didn’t get a proper hearing for hogs, vice chair position and all that, but it, just, it became this recursive like, and I know it well from having dropped out of grad school, this, is, the kind of all language and posturing brand of politics that drives me insane.And predictably, every, everything about David Hogg’s substantive platform has been memory hold now. Right? The D NNC is just running on, autopilot. And they,SHEFFIELD: Well, and it’s disastrous. I mean, they’veLEHMANN: no.SHEFFIELD: nothing in the.LEHMANN: They alienated two major union leaders, which again goes back to the whole PMC, distortion of the Democrats. If you’re serious about making this party an effective answer to right wing pseudo populism, you need left wing economic populism. It is that simple. But that is a big problem ‘cause you, you have the donors, you have the, sort of credentialed elites in political leadership and in this consultant class, the Democratic party does need to be remade from the ground up.And I’m not sure how it happens.Many ostensibly liberal institutions are filled with David Brooks conservatives who call themselves centristsSHEFFIELD: I think, yeah, absolutely. And, one of the other big problems also is that the, American left institutions, such as they are they have opened their doors to lots of conservatives like David Brooks, who you recently wrote about it, but Barry Weiss and, Sam Harris and like all these people, but they call themselves centrist and, and it’s, and, but, and here’s what’s even more tragic.Yeah. I mean, here’s what’s even more tragic though, is that there are people who are progressives who don’t like them. But instead of saying, no, these guys are conservatives, they’re calling them [00:36:00] Reactionary, centrist. And I’m like, please don’t do that. They’re not on your, they’re not on our side. They are like, I know becauseLEHMANN: Right.SHEFFIELD: was on the right and I found my consider myself like them.I said, I was a conservative, a liberal conservative. That’s what these people are. They’re not centrist. There’s no such thing as informed centrism. So please stop calling these people centrist.LEHMANN: Yeah, absolutely. No, I, it’s, it is funny, like I, remember way back when David Brooks was just starting to break. When the Bobo’s book was published, I was on some panel that he was also on, and I didn’t, obviously didn’t have any sense of the menace he would subsequently become. So, we all went collegially out for drinks after the, panel.And, he asked me about like, my background at the time I was working at Newsday, but I’d come before, weirdly I was hired away from, in these times a socialist magazine in Chicago. and, Brooks got this varied sort of sober look and he said, well, I don’t, I generally don’t credit the, right wing, media bias claim.But, I can’t imagine someone from say the National Review getting hired. Newsday and I was just like, dude, you came from the Washington Times. You, came from like a, literally a Mooney funded hard, right. Published Sam Francis, all these like, raging racists. And, you’re going to say like, I’m beyond the pale.So everSHEFFIELD: Wesley Pruden. Yeah, they’re yeah, it was out and out Confederate.LEHMANN: Yeah, absolutely. So like we, from that point on, we never got along. Let’s just saythe thing is like, I, again, like you, I, actually really relish robust political debate at Newsday. [00:38:00] I. These are things that I, probably, in retrospect, again, didn’t see any of this coming.But, I published Tucker Carlson, I published Ann Coulter. Like all of these people who are I now acknowledge are monsters. But this was the nineties and they were, Tucker was a quasi libertarian back then, and Coulter was insane. I grant you, I, didn’t have a good excuse at that moment.But the point is, like, I, was supposed to be this like OT automaton of the left, right? Who was going to like, I don’t know, published Edward Herman and Nome Chomsky over and over again. And, A, that’s boring. And B like, come on, whatever else you want to say about my beliefs, like I, I am a good editor, like, and that’s, what the job was. Anyway, I don’t mean to harp so much on how thoroughly I find David Brooks, butSHEFFIELD: Well, yeah. No, but I mean, they’re, the people like him though, they, are just suffused all over publications that, present themselves to the public as liberal.LEHMANN: No, that, I mean, that’s, the, what that reasonable conservative shtick, right.SHEFFIELD: What is And look, and, I think we need people like that, but they should be over in the right wing media, not in our media.LEHMANN: Yeah. Yeah, that’s fine. Or yeah, or, I, like, I get along with the, bul work, people just fine.SHEFFIELD: mm-hmm.LEHMANN: think they, I don’t know. I don’t know how they would characterize. I mean, they’re never Trumpers. But I don’tSHEFFIELD: I think some of them have moved further left than others, but,LEHMANN: No, it’s striking that Bill Crystal, I often observe that Bill Crystal, this makes me feel all kinds of uncomfortable, but is much better on strategy than the Democratic party’s leadership.he is [00:40:00] definitely for, going hammering tongs after ice, and he is, yeah. And again, because he knows politics, right?The radical right has been at war with modernity for decades, but rarely taken seriouslySHEFFIELD: Well, it’s, yeah, it’s, that, but it’s also that when, I think about it, that and, again, having been born and raised as a Mormon fundamentalist, so much of what drives pretty much every right-wing elite, even without religion, the non-religious ones, is they hate modernity.LEHMANN: Oh yeah.SHEFFIELD: it, and they, hate, they hate international institutions. They hate successful government. They hate any kind of order of, democratic system. They want everything to be done through the private sector in terms of like forcing social welfare to be done through religious organizations or, and then letting businesses have complete untrammeled, ability to destroy countries or, exploit citizens.So no minimum wage like this is, so, they all want this. And the order that was built up through centuries or let’s say a century of effort, the people, once it was made, the people who ran it had no idea why they, what it, why it was good. Or how it could be better. And so then you, but then at the same time, you had this movement that started roughly around, during FDRs time in the us that, had and was like, no, we’re, this is all evil.This is terrible. This is, satanic, this is socialist, this, and, we’re going to destroy everything. And, the, center left elite, they just, they’re the, ah, that’s not serious. They don’t really believe that it’s all nonsense. Like you, we don’t have to pay attention to Alex Jones.We don’t have to pay attention to Donald Trump. InLEHMANN: I dunno. Or yeah. No, that there was this [00:42:00] moment, these are, people have been, I feel like I’ve been tilted against my whole adult life, but like, when Richard Hofstetter and Daniel Bell, sort of came forward to declare, in this confident Cold War. Liberal moment, that ideology was a dead letter.That you know what, the real scent strain of nativism and bigotry in American politics was populism, which was embodied by, at the time Joe McCarthy. And once McCarthy had been defeated, all of these, cold War liberal intellectuals, tookSHEFFIELD: The fever will break. That’sLEHMANN: Right, Right, right, right, No, I mean, Arthur Schlesinger wrote a terrible book called The Vital Center, in which he endorses a lot of McCarthyism idea.Is he, is, came out in support of loyalty os which is, it’s kind of like the Cold War version of like, let’s not say anything about immigration. Right. Like, we’ll, we’ll. be able to posture, as, heroic anti commie patriots and push everyone to the left out of the picture. So that, yeah, that whole dispensation, the, kind of Hs host, I guess you would say idea that, liberalism is just, and and Louis Harts famously wrote a book that argued there is no conservative intellectual tradition in America.It, has always been liberal, it will always be liberal. And it’s, it is stunning to go back and read that, body of work now, because it is just so clearly delusional, and all of these things were, still happening. You had the virtue movement, which was getting a lot of momentum at the time.You had. This sort of nascent Sunbelt Repub conservative movement that would ripen into the Goldwater campaign. And after that, the, Reagan campaign. And yeah, confident, complacent liberals just kept [00:44:00] saying, oh, that’s, that’s a maladaptive strain. It’s not going to, overtake a, a America’s rational body politic.And that’s why we don’t, we still don’t have the weapons to fight it because, no one ever took it seriously.SHEFFIELD: No, they didn’t.The lost lessons of the World War II generationsSHEFFIELD: So one of the other things though is that, so liberalism, early liberalism did have to argue for itself and it developed the chops to do it and to make the case, and to have the interest and the passion to take talk to the public. But the only time that liberalism since then has, engaged directly with fascism and authoritarianism is militarily really in this country or in the anglophone world.and so they, have no muscles memory to fall back onto that this is what we did last time and then this is why it worked, or this is why it didn’t work. There’s nothing there. I think.LEHMANN: right. And you know it, FDR was very good at messaging around this issue. He depicted our entry into World War II as a battle between slavery and freedom, and it’s very stark. And, it’s, it is striking a while ago, I rewatched just passingly on cable, part of the best years of our lives, this 1948.Movie about the demobilization of World War II veterans into American post-war society. And there’s this scene where one of the soldiers who can’t find a a better job is working as a soda jerk in a, drugstore chain. And this guy comes in who’s a fascist, who, finds out he was, he fought in the war.And and he says something like, well, it’s too bad. You are on the wrong side. And Dana Andrews the actor who, plays this character just. Punches the living daylights outta the sky. It was, and it was just like, it, wasn’t that [00:46:00] shocking, I don’t think to viewers at the time. ‘cause that message had penetrated, like, fascists are, bad.They’re, anti-American. They’re, not patriots. And this guy happened to be defaming a veteran, so he, got what for? But it is striking that coming out of World War ii, that message was unambiguous. Right. And after, the sort of long URA of the post Cold War era, we’ve, as you say, we’ve, lost the language.We’ve lost the, ability to effectively conceptualize and, instead we’ve had this tedious, in my view, debate on among liberals and leftists about, when is it right to call Trumpism fascist? And, clearly that moment has come and gone. I don’t think anyone can look at the events in Minneapolis and say like, this is not the behavior of a fascist regime.To say nothing of arresting Don Lemon like that, that I am missed. I’m a career journalist. I’ve worked in this industry for so long, and the deafening silence around the arrest of three African American journalists in Minneapolis for the simple crime of doing their jobs, that scares me as much as anything else.Like we, our, media industry has long been corrupted by money and intellectual inertia and decline. But when you are unable to see that moment for what it is we are in, serious troubleSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and a lot of that I think also, so the left lost the ability to, argue, to make the case, but also conservatives. I think also they, through generational attrition, they, [00:48:00] because the, conservative Americans, during World War II and afterward, they had the personal knowledge that fascism is not conservatism also. and, that. And so that’s why when people like William F. Buckley and, his ilk came along, people were disgusted by it. It was appalling. And Barry Goldwater, had that massive blowout loss in 1964. And so people had, ‘cause they knew, as you were saying, they had the memory, well, this is what fascism gets you, it gets you, disaster, death and chaos.and, they knew it because they had seen it with their own eyes. They had lived that memory and, now their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, they have no knowledge of any of those things. And so conservatives now are, they’re, starting to think, oh, well, maybe we, should align with these fascists because gosh, if we don’t then, my belief that I shouldn’t have to pay any taxes or my belief that.My, the children should be forced to read my religious views like that. That won’t be the law of the land. And that would be awful if I couldn’t make people live that way. And, so they don’t have a commitment to democracy a per and, that’s, the unfortunate thing. When you look at, and the cognitive psychology on this is absolutely unanimous that people who are conservatively conservative politically ha they come to that way of belief through their psychological orientation and their cognitive style.It isn’t because of the issues. It’s not because of,LEHMANN: right.SHEFFIELD: It is simply, I like simple ideas. and, as Roger Scru called them the the unthinking people and he said that they were great. They weren’t necessary for society. And, and like that’s who elected Donald Trump. These were not [00:50:00] people. Overwhelmingly, the people that the demographics that flipped for Trump in 2024 to 2020 were younger people who had no memory of his first term and no idea what he was, what hadLEHMANN: Whereas what was laying in late. Right, right. No, and it’s yeah, it’s also just true that this, cohort of people, the people who don’t think if, they’re not giving, I mean, you can say the fascist, the anti-fascist impulse was also an unthinking reflex at, the time.So if you’re not given. A strong sense of what’s at stake. And this has, been my frustration with another frustration with the Democratic Party is you’ve had these successive presidential campaigns that have run on what is objectively the case that Donald Trump and the MAGA movement are a mortal threat to our democracy.But the sad truth is that most especially younger people have no meaningful experience of, living in a democracy. Right. They, certainly don’t have it. When it comes to organizing their working lives it’s, become an incredibly adverse environment for union organization, even though there are a lot of, there is a lot of really powerful organizing going on.And they don’t have any sense of, democracy as something that is, meaningful in a atmosphere of sort of total civic corruption. If democracy means anything, it means powerful people are held to the same legal, moral, ethical standards as the rest of us. And that has not been the case for a very long time.And the Epstein files are such an object demonstration of that. Right. And [00:52:00] it’s, very interesting. It’s. All, very close to a, confirmation of Q Anon. There is a global pedophilic conspiracy, but guess what a lot of your team is, part of it. And that’s why, there’s been the, there, there was this great righteous Q Anon slash MAGA push to get the Epstein files released.And even now with them heavily redacted and I’m, convinced, like the most damaging Trump stuff is still being held in reserve. But there’s still enough there that, yeah, you people are going quiet a about it who were like, this was so central to their identities, right?Epstein files reveal that the ultimate ‘globalists’ are right-wingSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it’s. Well, and these people, I mean, in the files, I mean, this, it, with the sole exception of Noam Chomsky, who has always been morally problematic in my view overwhelmingly this was people who were the conservative Democrats and Republicans. That’s it. Like there, there aren’t any other leftist people in these Epstein files as far as I’ve seen.AndLEHMANN: So, yeah, that’s the thing is like the, it’s, like the reverse photographic negative of Q Anon.SHEFFIELD: yeah, what’s, like Q Anon was invented and promulgated as the defense mechanism basicallyalmost and because, and I don’t know, but, it’s also that, when you’re reading these files, and I, one thing that struck me was this conversation, these conversations that Peter Thiel.Jeffrey Epstein were having, and and they were both, I mean, what it shows very clearly is that Epstein was very friendly to, toward Trump and, solicitous for him, and concerned that he would win. And so when he was talking with Teal, he, one of the things he said was that Epstein said, well, Rexi is just the beginning.[00:54:00]And, then, and Teal was like a beginning of what?LEHMANN: What? Right, right,SHEFFIELD: and Epstein then proceeded to quote back Peter Thiel to himself, essentially the beginning of tribalism, the destruction of the old institutions. So that, basically, I mean, this is you, this is super villain stuff, Chris. That’s reallyLEHMANN: No, that’s what I’m saying. Right,right.SHEFFIELD: people, won’t, wouldn’t believe that it was real. If you, wrote it as even as nonfiction, like, and that’s, that is the thing that as a reporter who’s reported on extremism for a long time, and I’m sure you’ve seen this as well, that when you tell people, this is what these guys are doing, this is their agenda.They don’t believe you. They don’t believe you.LEHMANN: I, when I, shortly after I started at the Nation, I wrote a cover story on Q Anon, circuit whatever, 2022 coming out of the pandemic. And I did a couple of radio interviews where, you know or podcasts where people flat out refused, when I would trot out, the, basic stats at that point, which is that more than 30% of Americans endorse some version of the, Q anon, fantasy.And, people just flat. I said to me like, that can’t be right. I’m just like, I’m not making this up, which is, yeah.SHEFFIELD: That’s, and that really is the, cardinal or the original sin of, American, broader left is they don’t take these, the far right. Seriously enough. And they, and you see it also, in terms of like when you turn on Ms now as it’s called, it’s always the same people on the shows.Like, you don’t, hear any new speakers. You don’t hear any new thoughts, new strategies. No. It’s like, let’s hear what these people already told you for the hundredthLEHMANN: right, right. And their version of sort of viewpoint diversity is like Joe Scarborough and Nicole Wallace, [00:56:00] you know who I, both, I sort of knew them both when they were actual Republicans and they weren’t interesting people then. that’s, a Yeah, it is this, I mean, and obviously Fox News does the same thing, but they’ve, got, this more, no one is under any illusion that they’re presenting a balanced picture of anything. I think they’ve even retired the, fair and balanced slogan at this point.Nihilism and Tucker CarlsonSHEFFIELD: Did. Yeah. Yeah. But, and then but then we have also on the other side that on the further left that I think that there’s just a lot of nihilism, and like I used to, do some work with the Young Turks, like that channel just nihilists, everyone on there is anihilist and they monetize nihilism and thinking, oh, what if we, teamed up with Tucker Carlson to go after the government?And it’s like, Tucker Carlson hates capitalism because he’s a feudalist.LEHMANN: Right.SHEFFIELD: that’s not,LEHMANN: Talk about your fault against modernity. Right.SHEFFIELD: That is not your ally under any circumstance now. And it is true, but it is true. On the other hand that the, people who are his audience, a lot of them, have potential to be converted or at least to stay home and, stop, listening to these assholes because they’re not listening to them because the, because they’re presenting ideas.like, right this week as we’re chatting Christopher Ruffo, the right wing activist, it was complaining about how all the most red Substack are left wing. And so therefore, Substack has a left wing bias. And it’s like, no, your side doesn’t read. You guys don’t like to read. You like to listen to a a, guy in a chair talk for three hours to tell you what to think about everything.That’s what your [00:58:00] model is. You don’t want to read a concise essay. You don’t want to read an academic paper. You don’t want to read a researched magazine cover story. You don’t want that. Your audience doesn’t want that, and they never have,LEHMANN: Yeah. Yeah. AndYeah, it’s funny, I just reviewed this new Tuck Tucker biography by Jason Ley. And again, it’s striking just like, and again, I, knew tr Tucker and the before times. And he’s just an uninteresting person. Like, and he, he figured out, the real pivot point in his career wasn’t an ideological conversion moment.It wasn’t like he suddenly decided Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis or whoever are my, new, idols it, he decided he wanted to be on tv. That was it. And, people forget all this, but you know, he tried, he, he was on Dancing With the Stars. He auditioned to be a host of A NBC game show and didn’t get it.And,SHEFFIELD: sNBC host also.LEHMANN: he was also an M-S-N-B-C host. Yeah. And that flatlined and, and when he came to Fox Roger Ailes openly professed hatred for him. Again, I think in sort of class terms, he’s just obnoxious, preppy asshole. And, Roger was a, son of a hardware store owner in Ohio. And and so Tucker would get these sort of gigs where he would, he was like a, stunt weekend anchor.He would like play cowbell for Blue Oyster Cult and, do stupid. It’s the same sort of idiocy that Pete Hex has used to do when he was a weekend host. So,SHEFFIELD: Before he was our de defense secretary.LEHMANN: Yeah. Right. And before Tucker Carlson was a kingmaker who’s, now being speculated about is Donald Trump’s successor. And it was on, it was only, because Trump got elected a and Bill O’Reilly succumbed to his massive sex pest scandal that Tucker got [01:00:00] the primetime spot on, Fox.So it’s less, sort of the origin story of, a right wing, super villain than what makes Sammy run, in my view. Like he just, he figured out, how do I stay famous? And, this is his ticket.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, well, and yeah, and that there’s gotta be something in between just letting any schlub have a job and only letting people who, worked for Bill Clinton 30 years ago have a job. Like there’s gotta be somewhere in between. I.LEHMANN: Yeah. I mean, I think for that to happen, again, it’s like with the Democratic Party, you need to, and it’s like the commercial model of mainstream media, especially television is flatlining right now. So there people do have to approach it from a fundamentally different standpoint. But you know, it’s the same problem.You have entrenched money, you have entrenched, sort of a professional cast above it all.Need for hope and transcendence in politicsSHEFFIELD: The other thing also, besides having a more oppositional left and that is really willing to go to the mat left, there also has to be a more open and hopeful left. and that actually was something that was different about the 2008 Barack Obama campaign and, people didn’t learn that lesson.And I would tie it back to, in this post-war consensus that existed Also, that when we look at authors like, ha Aand or where from, like they talked, a very well about the, and, had lengthened several, like a lot of books, about this real psychological origins of fascism.And, it is an ideology of despair. There’s an ideology of loss of death. And you can’t, you cannot defeat that unless you offer the opposite of that toLEHMANN: right, right. And which again, like I, I think FDR [01:02:00] was really a, great model for that. had, A kind of messaging that was sort of, formally encapsulated in like the fireside chats where, you know, he. This was like the most Patricia person on the planet, basically. I think his mother moved with him to Harvard for his freshman year.Like, but you know, he, was able to sort of tap into this sort of wellspring of, a shared national identity, a shared national purpose that was, expansive and, was targeted at, coming out of the depression, the, forgotten man, the the need,SHEFFIELD: Yeah.LEHMANN: And, the four freedoms, which was, sort of in my view, the unfulfilled legacy of modern American liberalism.So, and, and part of the hopeful element. It is some a subject that we, both have an abiding interest in, which is religion. And it’s been striking to me, the, showing of sort of, clergy and pastors in Minnesota that recalls very vividly to me, the civil rights era, which people don’t adequately understand.This is another problem of historical memory. The civil rights movement was basically a reli religious revival. That you don’t get the level of heroic commitment on the part of ordinary people to literally put your body on the line to tilt against this, century long, unjust system of racial oppression. That was not, it was not going to go away by virtue of conventional interest group politics. we knew all of that.SHEFFIELD: OrLEHMANN: D’s sins was striking, right? Right. You need moral imagination. You need a sense of a higher justice. You need all of that to galvanize people under the most adverse imaginable conditions who actually did overthrow Jim [01:04:00] Crow, who created a second reconstruction in this country.So yeah, I absolutely agree. And I do think, religion is one of the things that people on the left again, reflexively dismiss or don’t understand or think they don’t have to, it’s, regarded as a, an aism. And you know what’s happens over all this time is it has become. Almost, it’s the largest, as you well know, evangelicals are the largest voting block for Trump.And you have to ask yourself. Yeah, there, you’re right. This is fascism is an ideology of despair and nihilism and, lust and, ultimately self-destruction, I think. And but how does it get harnessed to the evangelical movement? Right? That is a huge question that I think needs serious unpacking.And no one on the left can be bothered. That’s again, to go back to the Q Anon thing, like, I think in the lead of that piece, I talked to this very good Matthew Sutton this great historian of American Evangelicalism, and he said, the first time I saw one of these Q anon, sort of fever charts of all the, kind of alleged, lines of transmission in this global pedophile conspiracy, I thought to myself, I’ve seen this before. And it was, the sort of dispensationalist flow chart of human history.And it was all this, it’s structurally identical. And he, was right. I looked it up after I interviewed him. That’s a very deep, and I would argue like a universal human longing, people need history to make sense. And they will, in the absence of anything else, they were glam into the most improbable, bizarre, paranoid, delusional, conspiratorial nonsense.But it makes sense to them, and it gives them a sense. I interviewed someone else, another [01:06:00] student of the movement who said like, Q anon it works like a religion in the sense that it give, it gives you a sense of purpose. It gives you a, like, you get up every day and you think, I’m going to go track the global pedophile conspiracy online.It gives you something to do. I,SHEFFIELD: And it gives you community tooLEHMANN: Right. A community of like-minded people, all that, Trump rallies,SHEFFIELD: and purpose andLEHMANN: right? Yeah.SHEFFIELD: andthat’s, yeah, go ahead.LEHMANN: I was just going to say, Trump rally rallies also function as religious revivals. That way, you’re, among the elects, everyone understands what the project is.You’re going to ritually denounce the enemy who is satanic all the rest of it. It’s, very powerful. And there’s nothing on the left that comes close to it in, my opinion.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, no, there isn’t. And it’s, it’s that so like the, early American reactionaries, like, they, they were big fans of this German philosopher named Eric Vogel.LEHMANN: I know, well I’ve read widelySHEFFIELD: and like, and he was obsessed, but notLEHMANN: kind of, I, kind, I like his gnosticism book.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Although that what, that, what do you call narcissism was not narcissism, but but, I will say, yeah, like the thing that, that was kind of his overarching idea was that people must have transcendence and that they have to see themselves, they have to see the bigger picture, and that this is a innate human longing.LEHMANN: right.SHEFFIELD: And I think he was right about that. Like his history was crap and he was an authoritarianLEHMANN: no.SHEFFIELD: scholar.LEHMANN: all true. Yes, all true.SHEFFIELD: but you know, the, larger idea that people, they want something outside of themselves. Because, the, this is the, this world is a, is an unforgiving and cruel place.LEHMANN: It’s harshSHEFFIELD: so if weLEHMANN: and it’s, also,SHEFFIELD: something else, toLEHMANN: alienating and [01:08:00] atomizing, so if you can come together like. And what Martin Luther King famously called the beloved community. Right. The, and the power of, that moment, I think was kind of the high watermark of certainly the moral imagination of American liberalism.And and I do think, yeah, you’re right. The, early, sort of flush times of the O Obama campaign were called that. But again, the problem there, I would argue, was a structural one with the Democratic party. Like Obama was not going to do what FDR did. He wasn’t going to found a pecora commission to go after the bad actors in the banking industry that brought about the 2008 meltdown.He famously told the bankers when he summoned them, that I am, I’m all that stands between you and the pitchforks like. Yeah, that was the thing. You had a, sort of civil rights, veneer over the same product. Which it was neoliberal, finance industry, centrismAnti-ICE protests as a sign of hope for the futureSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, I would say though that, I guess on a more hopeful note, it’s hard, Chris but, but you know, the, like the protests that we are seeing in, Minnesota and the various No Kings rallies, the, these are, this is a, recapturing of that. But ultimately, the people who will, solve these problems are not in, they’re the ones who are just the regular marchers right now.LEHMANN: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Ultimately and, when, and to put their bodies on the line. Like people can see the regular non-political public as you were saying earlier, when, they see just regular normal people like Alex pre or like Renee Goode, being mercilessly killed and abused and gassed.That, that has an effect in the same way that, the civil rights marchers of the [01:10:00] 1960s and the anti-war marchers of theLEHMANN: Bull O’Connor. I’ve thought of Bull Connor all throughout this. Yeah. And I think they are also, these are the people who are creating pressure on the Democratic party to, at long last, do something. And we’ll see how, far that goes. And if the Democratic Party doesn’t do something, we need a new Democratic party.SHEFFIELD: I think so. All right. Well, let’s see. So you got anything coming out in the next little bit for people to, keep an eye out for or that, you wantLEHMANN: oh God. Oh me. I I’ve been doing a bit more editing, so I’m, I haven’t been writing at my usual frequency. The, last thing I did was this David Brooks thing you mentioned, and I got I think I was surprised actually at the response that got, ‘cause I’ve, been attacking David Brooks literally for decades.But yeah, other, apart from that, I’m just, waiting for the next catastrophe. We’ll, seeSHEFFIELD: Well, so what social media do you want people to follow you on? How about that?LEHMANN: well, I deactivated my Twitter account finally, when I, speaking of editing, I edited a piece about, how gr has become the world’s most popular, I guess, source of pedophilic imagery. And I was just like, okay, I’m out. So yeah, I am. What is I, what is my blue sky? Monitor moniker. I can never remember.I guess it’s, yeah, it’s @chrislehmann.bsky.social.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Sounds good. All right. And then of course, people can always read you at the Nation as well,LEHMANN: Exactly, yes. Thank you.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that is the program for today. Appreciate you joining us for the conversation, and you can always get more, if you go to Theory of Change show where we have the video audio transcript of all the episodes. And if you are liking what we’re doing here, we have paid and free subscription options.You can subscribe on patreon.com/discoverflux, [01:12:00] or you can subscribe on flux.community on Substack. And if you can do a paid subscription, that would be great. I would really appreciate that. This is a hard time for media and for journalists who are not funded by oligarchs like Elon Musk or any of these other people like Jeff Bezos.So that would be great. But I’d still like to stay in touch anyway, if you can’t afford that right now. and if you can forward the show to your social media or something like that, and if you’re watching on YouTube, you please do click like and subscribe so you can get notified whenever there’s a new episode.Thanks a lot. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

In this episode of The Electorette, host Jen Taylor-Skinner speaks with Suzanne Jimenez, Chief of Staff at SEIU-UHW, about the looming healthcare crisis facing California — and the ballot measure designed to stop it. Their conversation begins with the fallout from the federal budget reconciliation bill (HR 1), which delivered historic tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans while triggering over $100 billion in healthcare cuts to California over the next several years. Jimenez explains how those cuts are already showing up across the state: rising insurance premiums, hospital layoffs, threats to Medi-Cal, nursing homes, community clinics, and serious risks to maternal care and children’s health. From there, Jimenez lays out California’s proposed solution: a one-time emergency 5% tax on billionaires, affecting just over 200 individuals. The measure would generate more than $100 billion to stabilize the healthcare system, protect Medi-Cal, support K–14 education, and fund emergency food assistance. She breaks down how the tax works, why claims of billionaire flight are largely a distraction, and how healthcare workers themselves are leading this effort after elected leaders failed to offer a viable alternative. The episode also explores why ballot initiatives have become one of the most effective tools for protecting public goods, how this proposal could serve as a model for other states facing similar cuts, and what Californians stand to lose if the measure does not pass. This is a clear, urgent conversation about who pays when government priorities shift — and how voters can intervene when the safety net is at risk. 🔗 Learn more about the California Billionaire Tax Act:https://www.cabillionairetax.org/ 🔗 See how healthcare workers are supporting the measure:https://www.seiu-uhw.org/ca-billionaire-tax-act/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode Summary There’s so much news going on nowadays that it’s impossible to keep up with everything—in Minnesota, DC, and elsewhere. But authoritarianism is on the march in many places, including possibly in your city or state, where extremists haven’t just continued their interest in censoring schools and public libraries, they have expanded them to include universities, museums, and scientific research.This is extremely un-American stuff, and yet sadly, it is being marketed in just the opposite way. Censorship advocates are weaponizing patriotism, concern for children, and political fairness to crack down on the free speech of people they don’t like.Back on the show to discuss how and why this is happening, and to provide some arguments for free expression that activists can utilize is Jonathan Friedman, he’s the Managing Director of the Free Expression program at PEN America, a wonderful organization that promotes free speech and literacy which just released a new report about government censorship of college professors and students.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content--America’s libraries and schools are facing an epidemic of censorship (Friedman’s previous TOC appearance)--Censorship was always a core demand of early reactionary activists like William F. Buckley--The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ and the false equivalence of criticism and censorship--How misinformation against ‘cancel culture’ was used to build an opposing politics of censorshipAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction11:22 — Censorship laws are deliberately vague to maximize fear and compliance13:22 — Living in fear of non-compliance17:48 — Supposed advocates for ‘Western values’ are now censoring classic authors23:42 — Does censorship actually work though?27:11 — Fake free speech absolutism33:44 — Responding to the ‘parents rights’ canard40:32 — America’s declining global reputation under Trump43:38 — Responding to false ‘patriotism’ arguments48:51 — The value of literacy and readingAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So lot has happened since you were on the program in 2022. And not a lot of good things in terms of free speech and free expression. Let’s, and I, think, and there’s been challenges both last time it was challenges at the state level primarily.But now we have federal issues as well. What are some of the biggest things ongoing right now that maybe that have been passed in the past several years in your view? And then we’ll go from there.JONATHAN FRIEDMAN: Sure. Well, I think starting in 2021 we saw, something new. Which were what we called at the time, educational gag orders. There were these proposals being passed into law in a few states that sub to constrain how it is that teachers could talk about certain issues.And a lot of the language that was originally in these laws a few years ago was very vague, but. was also vague in its implications. So they would say, here’s a list of concepts that teachers can’t talk about. And, in a lot of states it was unclear to what extent it would apply, for example, to professors at colleges and universities as compared to K to 12 teachers, which is more clear.And from that, moment in time, what we’ve seen is, a lot of activity. Kinda build on that idea. The idea being that the government should extend new control in one way or another over public education. Some of that has taken new shape in higher education proposals to [00:04:00] not just exert control over what academics might teach college age students, but for example, to kind of undermine the entire operation of colleges and universities, for example, weakening the power of faculty to set curriculum or setting new rules like we’ve seen in Texas about certain topics that can’t be taught in an college level class at all.And then in K to 12, what we’ve seen is an ongoing effort to apply these restrictions, not just to classrooms, but to school libraries and to also come up with new mechanisms that essentially may not be forms of direct. Prohibitions telling people what they can’t teach, but they function as such.For example, empowering parents to have rights over what their own students might be able to access in a school, but thereby. And this is key, thereby censoring that material for everyone. And this is a very, I mean, it’s, it reflects a really challenging aspect of public education in this country that, that doesn’t necessarily have easy answers.what is the role of public education vis-a-vis parents and students. But I think when you step back and you see, The whole picture, the effort to control higher education, the effort to, restrict K to 12 education.It’s inevitable to come to the conclusion that at a very baseline, we are at an unprecedented moment for what we might think of as. The freedom to learn in public schooling, public universities, the freedom to ask questions, the freedom to talk about current events, the freedom to recommend books, the freedom to relate to students about things that are current topics in their lives. All of this is being narrowed. All of it is being undermined.All of it is being chilled so that now, if a teacher is thinking [00:06:00] about going to see a, theater play, a performance, they’re gonna be much more nervous about. any possible content that might upset anybody, and what that means is it’s all driving toward this kind of lowest common denominator, meaning, the thing that everybody can agree on, and if nobody can agree on much, then suddenly you can’t teach anything anymore.And so if to start to recognize that as uncomfortable as freedom can be, at times, it is a better alternative than sort of continuing to narrow and restrict. What it is that we can talk and think about all the time.SHEFFIELD: Absolutely. And we’re also seeing a lot of restrictions and censorship on museums and government employees, particularly scientists as well, like a list of, words that are going to get you flagged if you have them in your grant proposal for scientific research. And extensive.Censorship of museum exhibits, including one just recently where they ordered the removal of information about the fact that it was George Washington, I think, wasn’t it, that hehadFRIEDMAN: in Philadelphia? Yeah. I mean, it’s interesting, like there are these efforts over many years too. Improve, improve the story of. History in this country and prove the narrative of what people think they, what people, can grasp about the past to make that information more accessible. And what we are seeing is an effort to roll that back, to say that, that those narratives ought to be essentially erased even if they are true. if, they don’t make us feel good, let’s say whoever that us is, us being people in power, and that’s a very, that’s a very particular idea and approach to history and to the nation and its role in history, right?To say that the purpose is the purpose, truth is the purpose is deeper understanding. Is the purpose to [00:08:00] ask questions or is the purpose. Well indoctrination or to have to propagandize to narrow what it is that people have access to. So yeah, we’re seeing this go way beyond schools and universities where I think it began, and it’s been happening also in all kinds of institutions, cultural, artistic institutions for years, museums will tell you they’ve been more and more nervous actually about. School visits because of, what parents might complain about in a museum. And if you think about like, art in a museum and you have a parent who wants to ban books that have anything to do with nudity, well they’re probably gonna find something to complain about in a museum.So this kind of sense of, that every cultural or artistic institution should operate on eggshells, that every educator should operate with that mindset, it’s really gonna be damaging long term.SHEFFIELD: It really is. And I mean, effectively this. Is kind of the, they’re, trying to institutionalize the heckler’s veto. Can you talk us about that for people who haven’t heard that term, tell, us what that is.FRIEDMAN: Yeah, that’s a, it’s a really useful way of thinking about this. The heckler’s veto is the idea that. If you have maybe someone who’s giving a speech to an audience and one person in the audience heckles, they will interrupt, take down the event, heckle it to such an extent that they veto the experience of everybody else who came and who wanted to participate in.And we’re seeing that kind of veto exercised in a lot of different ways. On the one hand, we’ve seen that. On campuses for many years with speakers, across the political spectrum. This idea that someone’s speech or what they’ve said in the past or what they might say now is so offensive that, we should make the decision for everybody that no one should be able to hear it.We should stop and shut down the event from happening. And, turns out nobody across the political spectrum, has an exclusive right to that tactic. ‘cause we’re seeing it all over the place. But the [00:10:00] other thing is that we are seeing government, adopt that kind of heckler’s, veto, government enabling it, government encouraging it in a lot of places.And so, that’s what I was referring to before with the school library. and what we’ve seen with book bans all over the country is that sometimes you just have one individual who may have challenged. A thousand books or a hundred books or whatever it is. And especially when school districts adopt rules that they will remove books from circulation when and if they are challenged, what it means is it’s very easy to get a whole lot of books removed just by challenging them. And the more you dig into that phenomenon, you discover that the challenge forms are sometimes half filled out. They’re filled out with falsehoods, they’re filled out with things that don’t make sense. I, one of my favorite examples was a. A book which contained the poem by Amanda Gorman, which she read at President Biden’s inauguration.And like, I don’t know at what age someone should be able necessarily to read that poem, but the point is it was in a school library, but the person who challenged it said the book was by Oprah Winfrey. I mean, it just like, not, you’re not even really accurately filling out this form in a very sensible, straightforward manner.So. The more the more the phenomenon has been excavated, the more clear it’s been that it has been replicated across state lines and that often you see those kinds of mistakes repeated.Censorship laws are deliberately vague to maximize fear and complianceSHEFFIELD: Yeah. And another key, component to this, which these people who are challenging books are, some of the many people who were doing this. Is that these laws, in many cases are deliberately vague in a way that is designed to chill speech that is that they get more of an effect than, they could legally get.Because they know that if they’re too detailed, then it would get struck down as an explicit violation of the First Amendment. But if they make it vague, then it will stand a [00:12:00] chance.FRIEDMAN: Yeah, in some ways there’s been this embrace of the vagueness, and we see that time and again that state legislators for example, when given the opportunities to make laws more clear prefer not to. So, one that I’m reading today in Florida is a new bill that would ban the phrase the West Bank from all official government materials.I think that’s the phrasing and. You have to replace that with other, words to refer to the land in the Middle East that is so contested and, it’s, really astonishing because not only is the rationale for this change, sort of unclear, but what are official government materials also becomes. really vague. So would that include like something being created for a classroom, a college classroom, a school library, et cetera? It’s not clear. But also there’s a desire not to clarify it when it could be clear so that it will have the necessary chilling and censoring effect.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. and teachers are seeing this over and over as you were saying, like. They’re like, well, I don’t know if I can say this. And that’s the idea, is to get everyone to live in fear of non-compliance. Ultimately. I think that’s what we’re talking about here.Living in fear of non-complianceFRIEDMAN: Yeah, I mean, and this, is like, it’s exactly the same phenomenon that’s now afflicting universities and college teaching that I saw years ago with school libraries. I remember, a vague rule in Missouri, it was a few years ago, that led some school librarians to sweep through their districts and pull any book off the shelf. That might that might run afoul of one of those rules. And I’m actually remembering I have some of these books behind me still from the, I’m just gonna grab ‘em for a sec here. Just coincidentally, I know these are on that shelf. Like they, they pulled, this is a this is a graphic adaptation of the [00:14:00] Gettysburg Address, and you can flip through this book.I have you tell me what it was in this book that somebody objected to. I’m not sure. The closest that I’ve seen is that the law. Band nudity and there’s like pictures of, slaves here who are, dressed for African weather rather than whatever it is, the middle passage, et cetera.So, I guess those are people who are not wearing shirts. Okay. If you are told though, that as a librarian you might go to jail and get a criminal record. If you give a certain kind of material to a student and that material might be designated as any kind of nudity and this Gettysburg Address graphic novel, like a book literally written to make this accessible to young people, and you’re saying you might go to jail for it, you’re gonna take that risk. And so Well, apparently not. And so what happens is, people are made to feel like the stakes of this are so high that they ought to air on the side of. Removing materials. And in fact, that phrase err on the side of caution in quotes there, that’s actually a phrase that was popularized in Florida as a way to ban books that school districts should err on the side of caution.And if you, if we all err on the side of caution when we’re talking about intellectual access to books, I mean, do you know how many books are not cautious when you think about like, books that you actually wanna read? They, you have exciting things that happen in them, unexpected things, topics that you may not encounter in your life, and that you can only come to understand through the, through an impactful story that, that, makes that kind of information or experience accessible to you.So inevitably. That leads to limiting, the bounds of what people might learn about in a library. And the other book I had here, I pulled off the shelf was, this is a graphic novel adaptation of The Odyssey. That was another one in MIS in Missouri too. And there was a whole bunch of others as well.[00:16:00] Something like 50 50 or so. Art history books, books like, the works of Picasso. Again. It gets pretty limitless if you are taking that kind of cautious approach. And so now we’re also seeing that in higher education with Texas University professors being told they can’t put things on their syllabus.one of them most, in the news recently was told that he couldn’t teach. Plato works by Plato and you think, oh, how could you be tellinga university? How could you tell a Philosophy professor not to teach Plato? I still, it’s a philosophical question I don’t have the answer to yet, except to say that’s what it’s like to live under these laws.that’s the that’s the fundamental contradictions of ‘em actually to what we think of when we think of public education and what it’s supposed to do for people. Critical thinking, open minds.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. and, that is another kind of weapon, weaponization of the vagueness is, trying to classify everything as pornography and pornographic. And so that’s obviously what the Gettysburg address challenge presumably was. But they also even did it with Anne Frank. And illustrated, Anne Frank diaryFRIEDMAN: Yeah, that that’s another one that’s been attacked. And one of the supposedly controversial parts of that book involves Anne imagining herself among a field of Greek nude statues of sort of Greek goddesses. And, the artists and the illustrator who talk about that, say, they were trying to honor actually. What Anne was interested in and what she was talking about in that passage from her diary, and the idea that would be somehow pornographic or driven by an illicit intention. I mean, that’s offensive, so unfortunately that’s just what we’ve seen all over.Supposed advocates for ‘Western values’ are now censoring classic authorsSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and, there’s a huge. Terrible irony also in that while these censorship advocates are, trying to censor [00:18:00] these major historical figures and, books, they’re also at the same time claiming to be, we’re the defenders of western culture from these, evil. woke pornographers or whatever they’re, fill in the blank insult.But they’re, literally attacking the foundations of the very things that they claim to believe it.FRIEDMAN: I mean, ironically the irony of ironies here, right? and we’ve seen also many universities now start to set up these civic centers on campuses, but they aren’t what they seem, And there are all these norms around. How universities are supposed to work. Like, sometimes we can blur the distinction.We talk about public education at large in K to 12 versus in higher education, but certainly we understand that like college level education is supposed to be about, the unfettered exploration of ideasin its truest sense. They’re adults. And so, what’s, been. But there’s also a tradition surrounding how faculty as experts play a role in setting curriculum in determining syllabi and the like.And what’s happening on a lot of campuses is now this new tactic of. Mandating through public funding, the creation of a civic center for maybe the study of like Western traditional culture or something like that. But then not actually trusting experts in these fields to run these centers. Instead mandating, in some cases through law what students would have to read and how they would have to encounter the topics. And again, like it’s not to say that this is all necessarily. Bad or would not achieve some positive outcomes. But fundamentally, the principle of political control in that direct manner of, excuse me, of college education, the, it’s fundamentally college education was meant to be insulated from that kind of direct political control.And that’s something that university [00:20:00] leaders certainly in the United States have embraced as part of what has made the American academic system. So strong in the envy of the world is the academic freedom that has led to discoveries, to provocative teaching, to taking up difficult issues. Now, I’m not saying this already wasn’t challenged by other cultural forces.For a decade it was, but now what we’re seeing is something different. We’re seeing the weaponization of that through direct government censorship, which, unfortunately is just gonna make it even harder to ever right the ship when it comes to these issues.SHEFFIELD: It does, and, they really are not considering how they would feel if they’re if they’re, the, opposing political party was in charge of these civic centers, because guess what, then according to their, definition of what’s true and what’s right, then. They would say, well, we’re gonna tear out all this curriculum that you guys put in and we’re gonna put in curriculum that supports our party.AndThey wouldn’t like that.FRIEDMAN: You can imagine the sort of perpetual cycle we might get into where every four years we just, swap everything that’s taught in public schools, one curriculum for the other. And so, yeah, I don’t think, like, I don’t think the answer is either political party or either partisan ideologues dictating the bounds of what we’re able to know, and we’ve seen. We look, we’ve seen efforts to do that in of all kinds across the political spectrum. The issue we’re seeing right now in particular is a kind of weaponization of that government control at a level and sort of scale we’ve really never seen in the United States before. And like people will make comparisons when I talk to ‘em about, the censorship of schools today and universities and how it compares to oh, book bands in the 1970s and eighties, or McCarthyism or, the Comstock era, which is, even earlier or bans on teaching evolution in the 1920s, which led to the famous Scopes Monkey trial.And the reality is that [00:22:00] actually the combined efforts today in 2026 that include individual universities, individual school districts, municipal bodies, governing boards, state legislators, and now the federal government all working more or less in one way or another to exert this kind of political and ideological control over our public educational institutions.That is actually all of those other moments in one way or another, combined. It is actually unprecedented and it is at a scale. That this country has never reckoned with. I mean, this is different, And I don’t think, I don’t think people appreciate enough, for example, that some of the federal governments, and directives in the past year, particularly concerning things like patriotic education, quote unquote, or remaking the Smithsonian or insisting that any public funding for libraries or monuments or other public cultural and arts installations needs to support a patriotic notion of the United States.And it has a set of, very particular definition. I don’t think people understand that actually has its closest parallel in laws that have been passed in Russia and in China. That’s where that comes from. That’s the language. It’s almost verbatim. So that’s the kind of thing that United States has actually historically been against.Now, that isn’t to say that there couldn’t be different priorities, when we think about federal investment in, in the arts and the culture and the history and, memorials and things like that. But there has been a kind of understanding that there should be. Openness to diversity of views rather than rigid restrictions on how people are allowed to think about this and how they’re supposed to allowed to represent it.Does censorship actually work though?SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And, and, there’s this, i, this extreme naivete also, I think in that, especially in regard to school libraries or public libraries that, they, have this idea of what if we remove [00:24:00] these books from the libraries? Then the students will not know about these things.And it’s like, well, guess what? teenagers are going to be looking up stuff about sex. Guess what? Teenagers are going to be looking up about, gender identity. Teenagers are going to, want to read about atheism or, whatever. We know, whatever topic you can imagine as an adult.Teenagers are going to be interested in it because they’re a lot smarter than a lot of adults realize. I think.FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I, I think there, there is this question, I’m often asked, well, doesn’t the book banning just. Drive people towards it or make it more attractive in a way. And I do think on some level, the bands are not totally effective for a time. When we think about the scale of this, we’re not just talking about like one taboo book.We’re talking about like whole libraries being utterly censored. So now that’s a lot of material that some teenagers may not have any. Means to access whatsoever. if you are talking about, people who still have access to Amazon and other opportunities to access books, sure there they have other means, but that’s by no means universal.In fact, the very purpose of the public library is to ensure that there is a kind of universal access to those materials.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, there is, that’s ultimately who these laws really do end up hurting the most is people who can’t afford to buy a book on Amazon or tea or, kids who don’t have access to somebody who they can talk to and trust about their sexuality or whatever. Like that’s who is being is being harmed by these, repressions ultimately.And and I would say that. I mean, if they feel their ideas are true, then argue for them. Put them, show why they’re right, [00:26:00] instead of trying to censor the other ideas you don’t like. I mean, ultimately that’s, and that works for anybody, I would say.FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I often say, when people want to shut something down, that it would be much more powerful to speak out against it. It’d be much more powerful to debate it, to debunk its ideas, to make a persuasive argument about why those ideas are wrong. snuffing out, an opponent or a different ideology when you use, the power of the state or other sort of, mechanisms. in the long run you’re not testing your arguments, you’re not gonna build up the ability to. I think make a compelling case. And so, yeah, I think it’s always just much more important to encourage people to lean in and engage. And maybe that’s uncomfortable. Maybe disagreement is uncomfortable, but we have to remember that censorship is always gonna be worse and it always spreads.one said, one group censoring another, it’s gonna red down, and it’s just sort of a ping pong of censorship. And then, what are you left with? Nothing.Fake free speech absolutismSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, and we even saw this during the COVID Pandemic where people were calling for, harmful ideas to be removed from the internet. And look, those ideas were bad and they were incorrect, but. And they shouldn’t have, and, the companies shouldn’t have promoted them which is really what they were ended were doing ultimately.But, trying to get them blocked and banned, like that’s, unless people are committing fraud or, committing a, some sort of illegal act. The government really can’t be involved in the, in things like that. Whereas, of course, if private actors want to do something, say, well, that’s not allowed on my platform.That’s up to them. But like, the government has no place in this regard.FRIEDMAN: one of the, [00:28:00] surprising ironies, I would say of the past year under the Trump administration in particular touches on that very question of public and private with regard to private universities where, certainly the First Amendment is something that protects speech at public universities, but it’s been all these private universities who have been put under tremendous pressure concerning their federal research funding and other sort of threats of, department of Justice investigations and, threats of losing that funding, et cetera. And, it’s been, again, time and again the private universities who are being brought to heal in one way or another, and targeted. And so interestingly, they have actually greater freedom to resist in some sense. Government dictates because they’re not public institutions, they don’t have to be neutral to, with regard to speech.But nonetheless, we’re seeing that, they’re the ones that the administration has been targeting. Less so with private schools. Only occasionally have I seen. Proposals for state laws that would seek to restrict teaching in public schools compared to, sorry, excuse me. In, private schools at the K to 12 level.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, to be fair, I mean, some of the private universities have definitely stood up for their rights at Harvard University being, one of the biggest ones. And, but yeah, Columbia University definitely has not. And you, the thing that they haven’t realized, the ones who have knuckled under is that.Giving these concessions against your, free speech. That isn’t, it just invites more attacks on your freedom. It doesn’t protect you in any way.FRIEDMAN: Well, no, and you’re, I mean, it goes around, comes around karma. We can think about it different ways, but also, today’s book Bans are going to create and teach a generation that what they should do with ideas they don’t like is censor them. They were already getting [00:30:00] that idea. That idea was already spreading. Now it’s getting worse. Maybe you could even say that elements on the right took that from elements on the left, you know that ideas can be harmful and therefore speakers can be harmful, and therefore books can be harmful, et cetera. I mean, to a certain extent, sure, you can read a book and it can affect you, but I always hesitate to suggest that these things are so harmful that the answer ought to be, erasure, banning, prohibitions, et cetera.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and the, and, it’s gotten worse in the sense that so after, trying to say, well, the social media companies were mean to us with regard to our misinformation on vaccines or whatever. Now the administration is also trying to say, well, and and they had some lawsuits about it, which they, lost thankfully.Trying to say that. Well, the social media companies are public utilities, and so therefore they should not be allowed to have any free speech rights.They’re of their own to prohibit content which is, that’s ultimately. that’s, another way of doing censorship by saying, it’s like saying if you have a a club, you know that you’ve set up with your friends.And you have no right to, disinvite people if it’s open to the public and, that’s just not, that’s not right. And, it’s, just a perversion of this. It’s like they’ve created a fake free speech absolutism, I think. And you see that a lot.FRIEDMAN: You, you do. And maybe it’s not fake, but it’s also very inconsistent. So in the wake of, Charlie Kirk, being murdered. A university campus, that’s an opportunity for a real conversation about violence and ideological disagreement in this country getting out of control. And, to a certain extent, you saw a lot of praise for Kirk from across the political spectrum for his willingness to at least try and debate people.Now, people would say he was never really, I don’t know whether he was authentic, whether he was really debating, I’m, not even [00:32:00] gonna get into that. I’m just gonna say that in the wake of it, you saw all these politicians who started to try to crack down on. Things that professors, teachers and other people in all kinds of professions were saying, in tweets on Facebook, sometimes I was putting, maybe their Facebook settings were private, but somebody screenshotted it.And there were groups who were collating this information and trying to get basically as many people fired for speaking their minds as possible. Now, in another moment, that would’ve been the precise kind of thing that many of the politicians who were involved in amplifying this. Their party was known and basically making a name of themselves as being the ones who, believe in free speech and don’t wanna be snowflakes and, wanna make sure that, freedom of speech is our most, most cherished liberty. And yet, here was this effort to punish people for things that they thought and said as opposed to saying, look, this was a heightened emotional moment in the country. And look, I think it’s hard. It’s just hard for someone to remember that actually if people are engaging and leaning in and disagreeing fiercely, that’s actually a robust democratic public square. It’s hard to get excited about that anymore. I know. But yet that’s actually, it’s meant to be raucous. That’s how change happens. Jostling forces speaking passionately, who would want, like. Inevitably, the more we, wiggle away those freedoms and kind of soften everyone’s speech, we’re losing something really important. And I, I, think about those impacts not just about on like democracy or political argument, but like those impacts on art, on culture, on feeling, on emotion, on storytelling. And I don’t wanna lose that.Responding to the ‘parents rights’ canardSHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. Well, so let’s, so I, think a lot of people who were watching or listening are, they have a, to this show, they have a, commitment to free speech and, sending up for. People’s ability to, write [00:34:00] and to say what they think. So, but I, wanna if just kind of go through some of the arguments that they might hear if they are trying to stand up in, for their local library or stand up in the school district.So, let’s just maybe go through a couple of these arguments. So I guess one of the, probably the biggest one that, that we often hear is, well, you’re saying parents don’t have any rights. About how their children are educated. Is that what you’re saying?FRIEDMAN: Well, no.I think that’s, absolutely a caricature. There is a notion that has been pedaled that like. Parents must, I don’t know, have full and total control over their children and what they can learn in schools. Or any, anything less, like parents are losing their quote unquote rights. I, resist any notion that says that one person has rights that, include control of somebody else.like there’s autonomy of the individual. And it’s not to say that parents don’t have an important role in like steering the upbringing of their children being involved in schools of contributing to how a group of young people in a community learn. But this notion around parents’ rights, it just takes us down this. very difficult road where like more and more, I guess the idea is that the students and the young person has like less and less rights and no rights at all. what about the rights of the individual to learn and to explore and to, figure out who they wanna be in the world.All of those things are also important in any notion of a liberal democracy, and at the same time. We do have to recognize that there is something valuable about what we call like a public education, a shared public education. when people come to a common understanding and have a common foundation of, information about something in the world, that’s what we think about when we think about like, history is something that, people may not have learned together yet.They, [00:36:00] share. Similarly when you think about it with like regard to different identities, there has to be some baseline understanding of, that people of different identities. Ought to be free to express them and ought to be free to, be represented in schools and other venues. And so, I, just fear that sometimes this notion of parents’ rights is being taken to such an extreme where there’s almost like nothing left of the notion of. The public rights, the civic rights of everyone to learn together, to, meet people who are different and look like. I don’t think things in K 12 or higher education are perfect with regard to like the freedom to learn by any means. But at the same time, there is something valuable in having curriculum set by experts that everybody gets to learn. And I’ll say just, I’ve seen this parent’s rights rhetoric. Also be extended to meaning that a parent should essentially get like a list of, every topic that ever might come up in schools and almost be able to tick off, that which they, don’t want their kid learning like, Timmy and CA doesn’t wanna learn about slavery, but Billy and CB doesn’t wanna learn about the Holocaust or in CC, they don’t wanna learn about L-G-B-T-Q people and in cd Well, they don’t wanna learn anything about, I don’t know communism. Well, how is the teacher possibly supposed to like, answer a kid’s question that touches on a, f kid asks a question of a general nature and the teacher’s not allowed to answer it. Not allowed to provide a book direct someone to the dictionary or an encyclopedia. I mean, it just becomes completely unworkable.And so it sows the seeds for the unworkability of public education as a concept when we open the door this wide. And again, for a long time. Individual parents have had ways to engage where, let’s say there’s like a common read in a classroom of a group of students and a parent really doesn’t want their [00:38:00] kid, they meet with the teacher, they come up with an alternative.Maybe it’s not the best solution from a freedom to learn perspective, but it protects the, freedom and the opportunity for everyone else in the class to learn. Without that being interrupted. But right now all the solutions that are being put out are essentially since Censorious ones for everybody.It’s like, well, some parents don’t like that book, so now that book can’t be in the classroom. some parents didn’t like that lesson, so now that lesson can’t be in the curriculum. That kind of thing.SHEFFIELD: Well, and it’s, I mean, yeah, taken to the extreme, this is basically saying some parents have more rights than others, is essentially what they’re trying to do. That this, because it is always a tiny handful of people. And, in many cases these are not even parents of students in the district who are challenging materials.And they’re basically saying, well, if I don’t like a book, then, if one person out of a hundred doesn’t like a book. Then the 99 can never be exposed to it and that’s a violation of those parents’ rights.FRIEDMAN: Yeah, and, apparently. I mean, apparently everybody else’s parents’ rights, so to speak, don’t matter anymore. And my colleagues a group I work with in Florida, the Florida Freedom to Read project has make been making this point. In that state we’ve seen all sorts of books removed from schools, and they have made the case that the removal of the books might, serve some parents’ interests, but it’s against theirs.Well, how do you resolve that? I mean, if you have a community where 49% want a book and 51% don’t. Does that mean those 49% shouldn’t get it? Now let’s flip it. Let’s say 1% don’t and 99% do, or something like that. Well, does that mean that 99% should, get it? What about that one? How do you honor that?I mean, there’s always a balance to these. It’s, not easy to come up with solutions that are going to appease everyone, but I just want to sort of urge everyone to step back from the intense edge of this and recognize that. In the United [00:40:00] States today, most of us are gonna learn about things. Most young people are going to have moments where they, see a television show or read a book or read a newspaper, and this is a good thing to be sort of curious about the world and have opportunities to pursue that curiosity and all these efforts to try and control that and cabinet it in.Not only do I think that in the long term they’re going to backfire, but I think they’re really damaging. For what we might think of as like the study habits, the culture of freedom that we want to instill in young people, that’s what’s at jeopardy here.America’s declining global reputation under TrumpSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, we’re seeing that with regard to the United States’, standing in the world in surveys now, that there was one that I just saw recently that showed thatthe US had kind of moved from the middle of the pack in terms of, reputation from 30 down to the very lowest tier in just one year.and this, chilling effect, it, really does make people who are going to be the future, bestselling novelists, bestselling, children’s book authors or scientists or, whatever the future leaders of the world who might have wanted to come here. Now are not going to want to come here.And, ones who were born here, a lot of them might feel like, well, I don’t feel welcome here anymore because I’m trans or, and so, I’m gonna go move to this other country and invent a way to, cure cancer or whatever. Like that’s really what we’re talking about. when we are cutting off the, marketplace of ideas.FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I mean, and, we see that kind of anti the anti internationalist. Trend is also, something that’s been impacting higher education and is bound to trickle down to K to 12 as well, which is this idea that the country should in fact, make it much harder for foreign scholars to come to the United States for students to study at universities.And there’s been all sorts of ways in which, the federal administration [00:42:00] in the past year has tried to do this. Complicating visa processes undermining research by, many international scholars. Even things like the destruction of U-S-A-I-D. They used to fund research in this sort of partnership manner where the federal money went to American universities to do projects with partners in other countries doing research into things like agricultural and, global, global health. And all of that has been decimated in the past year. All of the good standing of the United States and the world and all frankly, like the progress on a lot of research projects a lot of which, run on a timeline. So let’s say you had a, cancer trial or something like that, or something else that you were planning over multiple years.Well, what happens if you’re in year three of five of expected funding and all of a sudden the government changes the rules and violates the contracts? Where they were gonna give you more funding. I mean, it is just disrupted a tremendous amount of activity, intellectual activity, teaching, training research, just that search for knowledge.And so it’s had this massive effect and there is this kind of, America first, let’s call it mentality that, just seems totally it seems interested and totally disregarding the fact that like a lot of American culture. Thrives on its exchange around the world. When a, German, symphony comes to the United States, or a play produced in Namibia, and you can see it in New York City, whatever it is, this is what makes the United States enriched and ha, it’s the diversity of that culture enriches the country. And it’s being, yeah, it’s being just significantly decimated this year.Responding to false ‘patriotism’ argumentsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. I wanna circle back to one of the other arguments that we hear also sometimes from censorship proponents, which is in, the educational realm that, they say they want to, that they’re trying to have patriotic education and that, having, and so removing authors that criticize historic figures, particularly some [00:44:00] of the founders of America or whatever, that, they’re saying that authors that tr cite true facts about.Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or whatever, that they are anti-American by, and that they want students to hate America and hate themselves. Like that’s a thing I often hear. What do you what would you respond to that?FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I mean, I think it sort of gets back to that question from earlier about how we reckon with truth. and if a truth is uncomfortable, does that mean we shouldn’t teach it? Or it’s important to teach, to move forward? I think there is an entire history of this country, which has been suppressed for a long time, and efforts like, whether you agree with every aspect of it or not, there have been these efforts to. Confront that things like the efforts in Tulsa related to the race massacre from the 1920s, are an effort to tell that story. And again, it may make people feel differently about the country, but it doesn’t have to. You could, you can be just as, you can be just as upset about the censorship of these stories or just as proud of. The reckoning with them and learning about them, it’s not a given that, stories about the past are gonna make you feel a certain kind of way. And I certainly, don’t think that’s a reason to well lie to kids or hide, the complexities of, information that they might encounter.So, I think a lot of that also just seems to tread on. I don’t know assumptions about how people are going to feel when they learn things that are not actually reflective of how young people may actually feel, but how, I don’t know, adults feel about it. And again, like how I feel about history doesn’t mean. Something did or didn’t happen, it, the idea that would be the metric for how we conduct research or how we teach people about the world and how it came to be, what it is, it just doesn’t seem, it doesn’t make sense to me.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it doesn’t and, there’s no right. [00:46:00] Not to be offended. I mean, like that’s the other kind of terrible ironies of this current moment is that, as you were saying earlier, that they had spent decades railing against snowflakes and political correctness and, all these things that they said were bad.and, there were, in fact some over reaches in that regard. And some people that were that their speech was wrongfully terminated. But. This idea that you don’t, you have the right to not be offended at hearing somebody saying their own personal experience. Like you don’t have that right?They have the, right to say what they want, and if you don’t like it, then you know, don’t watch it.FRIEDMAN: I mean, it is always like this, notion that if you don’t like a book, you should never have been, I don’t know, started reading it at all. Like how do you learn, I mean, puzzle this one for me. How do you learn to I. How do you learn to dislike something? How do you learn like your own taste in a book or a movie or a TV show? It’s ‘cause you start, engaging with it and then you don’t like it and you turn it off. So like, that’s not a reason to suppress, your opportunity to have encountered a thing that you didn’t like. And in fact, many popular things. There’s someone who doesn’t like, for everyone who like loves, I don’t know, show popular right now, heated rivalry, there’s someone who will tell you, yeah, well, it’s not really that great a show. And I didn’t like it. I didn’t wanna finish it, whatever it is. So, I always say like, okay, you don’t like the books, close the books. You don’t like the books. Don’t take the books outta the library. But don’t stop the library from stalking the books for other people who might wanna read them. A lot of books aren’t so great. That’s okay. A lot of books, people differ in, their own taste in what they think is excellent, in what they think is a great book. What they, are moved by when they read. We should be embracing that diversity of experience with regard to reading materials.[00:48:00] CertainlySHEFFIELD: Yeah, it’s if you don’t like Indian food, you’re, you’re not gonna call for it to be banned, the Indian restaurants to be banned. Nobody does that. and, the, thisFRIEDMAN: not yet.SHEFFIELD: for your mind?FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I mean, Not yet.Well, and I think like that’s important to recognize too, is that, similarly, literally in the way that we might embrace like the marketplace of ideas, the marketplace of food, the marketplace of books. The, point of a library is to serve a diverse community, in particular the point of a even a university, with its wide range of courses, yes, certainly there’s, required courses and electives and all that. But on the whole, it has evolved to serve a wide range of professions, a wide range of fields, and just the way in which that’s being constrained and narrowed by political agendas is very concert.The value of literacy and readingSHEFFIELD: It is. Well, and now aside from some of the censorship though, issues that, which you guys do a great job at one of the other things that. Penn America also is very good on, is trying to teach people about just the general value of literacy and of reading. Because I think that’s, under, its own threat in and of its, independently of people trying to censor it.Is that, just this idea that, well I should, I should only watch little YouTube shorts or Instagram stories or, whatever. And like, that’s. That’s a serious issue. the decline of literacy. And I’ve heard a lot of teachers and professors who have been in that business for a long time, and they, say that the students are, not reading as much and they’re, not able to pay attention as much.And that’s a, that’s really bad thing.FRIEDMAN: Yeah, you would think, that’s a thing that people could, agree on and get behind and say, yeah, literacy and the freedom to read is a good thing. And, it’s known that if students are, motivated to be interested. In [00:50:00] their own reading material, then they’re gonna be more likely to read it.If you have this is one of the key things with like graphic novels is understanding that for librarians, why do they have graphic novels in a high school library? It’s ‘cause a lot of ninth graders are actually still reluctant readers. a lot of them haven’t developed the skills to read a long book, and they are interested in reading graphic novels that speak to them. And there’s also this idea that comes from like a stereotype about comics, which has been carried over, which is the idea that reading a book, you know. A paragraph of text page after page is better than something with pictures. The pictures are juvenile in some way, but I can tell you reading contemporary graphic novels. A lot of times what you are decoding on a page is actually much more complicated. There, there are ways in which information storytelling can happen in a graphic novel that can’t happen when all you have is sentences on a page. It’s just, it’s a very different experience. I’m not trying to say that one is absolutely better than the other, but there’re different.And why should we be trying to ban something that a group of artists and writers have gotten really skilled at. A group of publishers are putting their, creative energy out in the world with, and a group of writers and audiences are interested, sorry, a group of readers and audiences are interested in accessing that.Like, why would we interrupt in that, circuit, so sort of some moral standards about how we ought to control the circulation of a thing that through that sort of free market Okay. Of creativity and what people are interested in. It is working fine. And so again, you see that kind of effort to clog it up, to intervene, to exert control of a political and ideological nature.And we could see the same thing about, education, the freedoms learned, access to graphic novels, what the Smithsonian got out there on a, in plaques and other things. And, in each case, it’s an opportunity for us as citizens to [00:52:00] recognize. What we’re at risk of losing and what we can stand, against in, in, in standing against censorship.SHEFFIELD: And ultimately, standing against government censorship and control. I think that is the ultimate pro-American act. I mean, and let’s be clear about that.FRIEDMAN: Certainly that is one of the things that animated, motivated, the original revolutionaries who were rebelling against that. Absolutely. And and that notion, that spirit, let’s call it, of critical thinking, that has been a key part of what people around the world think makes American education. We’re talking about public schools or universities, good and unique and what we’re known for. Why do we sacrifice that and, try and ruin it?SHEFFIELD: Exactly. All right. Yeah, so this has been a great conversation, John. So for people that want to keep up with your stuff and you guys have any recent reports you wanna plug or something like that?FRIEDMAN: Sure, yeah. This month in January, we released a few weeks ago a new report called America’s Censored Campuses 2025. It the subtitle is Expanding the Web of Control, and it’s a comprehensive report on the 2025. Censorship of universities. We look at the growth of state laws and where that’s at in terms of controlling academic curriculum and other measures in universities.And we look at the rise of efforts to control universities from the federal government, which have, reached, as I said earlier, unprecedented levels. And you can find that at pen.org.SHEFFIELD: Alright. Sounds good. Good to have you back.FRIEDMAN: Great. Thanks for the conversation. Take care.SHEFFIELD: Alright, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation and you can always get more if you go to Theory of Change show where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes. And if you are a paid subscribing member, you have unlimited access to the archives and I thank you very much for your [00:54:00] support.And if you’re watching on YouTube, please click the like and subscribe button where so you can get notified whenever there’s a new episode. Thanks for joining me. I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

The American middle class didn’t disappear by accident—it was dismantled by design. In this episode of The Electorette, host Jen Taylor-Skinner is joined by Professor A. Mechele Dickerson, author of Middle-Class New Deal: Restoring Upward Mobility and the American Dream, for a clear-eyed conversation about how deliberate public policy once built a strong middle class—and how decades of political neglect slowly unraveled it. Dickerson explains why the middle class exists at all, how housing policy, labor protections, education, and debt once worked together to create upward mobility, and what changed beginning in the 1980s. We also discuss why conversations about the middle class so often erase race—and how ignoring systemic inequality ultimately weakens the entire economy. There’s a personal thread woven throughout this conversation as well: both Dickerson and Taylor-Skinner grew up in Memphis and even attended the same middle school, a shared history that mirrors many of the book’s core themes around affordable housing, public education, and economic opportunity. This is a grounded, urgent conversation about what Americans have lost—and the open question of whether a new middle-class deal is still possible if the collective political will can be summoned. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Minds are not things, they are processes. Who we are is what we’re doing. That is especially true of minds in societies. The news we see daily during the second Trump administration is proof of this, not just in the monstrous and inhumane policies but also in how these ideas are being opposed.What America is and will be is undetermined right now. We are in a liminal state, a time of transition.Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in 1984 broke the Democratic Party’s leadership class. Ever since then, most of the party’s elites have operated on the principle that the American public is far more conservative than it actually is. Instead of forcefully stating what they stand for and why, most national Democrats are deathly afraid of becoming the next Michael Dukakis or Howard Dean. This is a global problem: left party leaders consistently overstate the conservatism of their constituents, as multiple political science studies have shown.The mainstream media has been similarly feckless; the executives, editors, and anchors have been unwilling to consistently tell the public the larger vision of what the Trump regime is trying to do: completely repeal modernity and replace it with a techno-feudalism in which the American Colossus is torn down and replaced by regional “patchwork states” that are ruled by authoritarian corporations and religious cults.As Trump, Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, Kristi Noem and the rest of the regime have been illegally impounding allocated funds, arresting anyone looking suspiciously foreign, and posting on social media about their goal of deporting 100 million residents (roughly the same number of Americans who are non-white), the Americans who elected the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have had to come to realization that most of our purported “leaders” were not going to do much of anything to stop Trump from destroying the country. No one is coming to save us but ourselves.(Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have been welcome exceptions, forcefully speaking out and utilizing legal maneuvers to block Trump’s deployment of military troops in their states.)After a full year of Trump’s disastrous leadership, the economy is hobbling into a tariff-driven recession, America’s international standing is in tatters, and the president’s popularity is at record lows. To district from all the failure, de facto president Miller decided to jump on a misleading viral video about daycare centers run by Somali immigrants living in Minnesota. Trump almost immediately was on the case, lashed out at them with a racist attack that included Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar:“We could go one way or the other, and we’re going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country,” he said in December. “She’s garbage. Her friends are garbage. These aren’t people who work. These aren’t people who say, ‘Let’s go, come on, let’s make this place great.’”Shortly thereafter, the regime launched what it called Operation Metro Surge, a massive influx of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol agents that began in Minneapolis, Minnesota and later expanded to the entire state. Thousands of heavily armed paramilitary thugs began swarming into neighborhoods, shopping centers, and even places of worship as they arrested thousands of people, including many who were American citizens, legal immigrants, and even babies and small children like 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos.Faced with a paramilitary invasion that the judiciary was unwilling or unable to stop, Minnesotans took to the wintry streets, braving sub-freezing temperatures to attend massive protests and to track and report the activities of ICE and CBP thugs in neighborhoods everywhere. And unlike in other states targeted by the Trump regime, thousands of Minnesotans have extensive experience coordinating protests against his first administration after the murder of George Floyd, a black Minneapolis resident killed by police in 2020.“Our community groups, our unions have never ceased to continue to try to work together and create inflection points,” union organizer Chelsie Glaubitz Gabiou told France 24. “So we have a high level of trust. We don’t all agree on everything that we’re working on together here, but we know we cannot be fractured – and that we have to do this together.”That is exactly what Renee Good and Alex Pretti did. They were two regular people who stepped forward to help their community and nation while the Republican-controlled Congress and judiciary are refusing to do anything to stand up for their supposed beliefs. Working tirelessly for days on end, they were mercilessly killed at point-blank by Trump’s thugs.Despite the Trump regime’s efforts to smear Good and Pretti as “terrorists” and “assassins,” the public is increasingly able to see through the lies, and it’s sent the president’s approval rating on his top issue of immigration to an all-time low of just 39 percent. The backlash has been so pronounced that the administration announced that it had demoted Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol “commander at large” who had helmed the operation that led to the Pretti shooting.Trump also announced that the government would be investigating the incident, and there have been multiple reports that Miller and/or Noem may lose their jobs. And there’s more good news: A judge has temporarily blocked Liam Ramos and his father, a legal asylum applicant, from being deported. Even the tech industry, which has been so eager to lick the Trumpian boot, finally has some prominent leaders speaking out against his totalitarianism.And, at last, the majority of congressional Democrats have stepped forward to demand the impeachment of Noem and the de-funding of ICE.These are wonderful victories worth savoring. They are proof that standing up to tyranny works. The peoples of Greenland and Europe also demonstrated this as well, as they pushed back aggressively against Trump’s totalitarian threats to invade and colonize the frozen northern island, discovering what investors had figured out long ago: Trump Always Chickens Out. Because he’s a bully.We can do this. But it will not be easy. Even if all goes well, we still have three more years of Trump in the White House. And there’s no guarantee that it will. But whether American fascism triumphs is not a foregone conclusion either.That’s because dictatorship is a state of mind, not just for the demented criminal who is currently the president of the United States, but also in the minds of the citizens.Some of us, like the beanie-bearing Russian asset Tim Pool, yearn desperately to submit to tyranny. The rest of us are learning that freedom only exists if you believe in it—and fight for it together.This is the Liminal States of America.Membership BenefitsThis is a free episode of Theory of Change. But in order to keep the show sustainable, the full audio, video, and transcript for some episodes are available to subscribers only. The deep conversations we bring you about politics, religion, technology, and media take great time and care to produce. Your subscriptions make Theory of Change possible and we’re very grateful for your help.Please join today to get full access with Patreon or Substack.If you would like to support the show but don’t want to subscribe, you can also send one-time donations via PayPal.If you're not able to support financially, please help us by subscribing and/or leaving a nice review on Apple Podcasts. Doing this helps other people find Theory of Change and our great guests. You can also subscribe to the show on YouTube.About the ShowTheory of Change is hosted by Matthew Sheffield about larger trends and intersections of politics, religion, media, and technology. It's part of the Flux network, a new content community of podcasters and writers. Please visit us at flux.community to learn more and to tell us about what you're doing. We're constantly growing and learning from the great people we meet.Theory of Change on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheoryChangeMatthew Sheffield on Social MediaMastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffieldTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattsheffieldBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/matthew.flux.communityThreads: https://www.threads.net/@realmattsheffield This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.communityEpisode Summary It’s now one year into Donald Trump’s second presidential administration, and while it’s been just as chaotic as the first, this term’s chaos has been so much worse.But invading Greenland, burning down NATO, partially taking over Venezuela, and slashing science budgets for no stated reason might seem random in many ways.But in fact, it isn’t. If you’ve read a lot of right-wing political theory and religious theology, you can actually see what his top aides like Stephen Miller or Russell Vought are up to. The larger goal is to literally destroy modernity and replace it with an undefined form of Christian techno-feudalism.Luckily, our guest on today’s program, Matt McManus, has done the reading. A longtime friend of the show, he’s the author of the book The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism. He’s also an assistant professor at Spelman College. In this discussion we talk about how Trump and Trumpism fit into the bigger picture of fascism, authoritarianism, and right wing epistemology.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content--Trump, Nietzsche, and Antichrist America--Inside the bizarre and hateful ideology of JD Vance--Why atheist libertarians and Christian fundamentalists actually have a lot in common--Trump is trying to destroy America’s world-class scientific leadership--Why far-right Republicans are going after universities--The social science revealing why Trump loves the poorly educated so much--Why ancient Greek Skepticism has become surprisingly relevant--Renee Good and the problem of other mindsAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction05:45 — Non-religious anti-intellectualism in right-wing thought09:07 — Nietzsche as the canonical far-right thinker13:19 — Trump’s domestic policies are basically the re-institution of serfdom15:43 — The importance of sci-fi authors in anti-democratic political thought21:33 — Utopias as political lodestars25:20 — Horseshoe theory and its limitations29:44 — The historic relationships between 20th century fascism, conservatism, and left-wing ideologies34:47 — The folly of leftists who team up with reactionaries38:38 — ConclusionAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: One of the things about the second Trump term that I think that a lot of people are observing is just how much more insane he is—or at least this presidency is, I’m sorry, I should say. People are seeing all these policies like tearing down various scientific funding, or education, or foreign policy organizations, et cetera, et cetera. And people are like, why the hell is this? Why is he doing this? This makes absolutely no sense.But it actually does make sense, if you have done your reading, I think you would agree, right?MATT MCMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. So one of the things that I’ve recurringly pointed out is there’s a long anti-intellectual bias in the history of conservative thought including intellectualized bias that’s been articulated by conservative intellectuals. Right? And you don’t have to take my word for it. you can just go back and read Joseph de Maistre, for example, who’s been a major influence on a lot of MAGA intellectualism, movers and shakers, people like, Curtis Yarvin, who everyone seems to know right now, or Oran McIntyre, who’s his disciple.De Maistre says, flat out, that look, what people ignorantly call philosophy is fundamentally a destructive force. Why? Because it encourages people to think critically for themselves. It gets a society that’s filled with all kinds of intellectuals are coming up with new ideas about how government and society to be organized.We don’t want that, right? That says we’re way better off having everyone instilled with their belief system from the cradle to the grave, what he calls, dogmas, right? People should approach [00:04:00] their beliefs and especially approach existing systems of authority, dogmatically and by and large he says, society will run better that way.And if that seems a little anachronistic, you can flash forward to Roger Scruton, who I would argue is, the greatest English speaking conservative philosopher of the latter half of the 20th century. In his book, the Meaning of Conservatism Scruton used to say that there’s something deeply commendable about what he called, and I quote, “unthinking people who accept the burdens that life imposes upon them without trying to politicize them or without looking for recourse from existing systems of authority.”And the reason that Scruton thought unthinking people were better than thinking people, is unthinking people are far likely, more likely, again, to show allegiance to their betters, and to pay deference to existing authorities, right. I would frame it as they’re more likely to be willing to accept their subordination to those that conservatives think they should subordinate themselves too, right?So all that you see with this Trump administration is in many ways a very virulent form of this anti-intellectualism. Casting a very, wide net where for decades, American conservatives has seen as JD Vance was put it, professors as being the enemies, the media being the enemies, because professors in the media have a bad habit of saying, ‘Is that exactly true? Probably isn’t.’And now they just have the power to act upon that, by, at the very least, stripping the resources from the media and academics that they need to do their job and actually try to ascertain the real world. And in the worst case scenario, as we’ve seen in the Trump administration, is actively trying to censor and chill the speech, those who tried to decide against it.SHEFFIELD: They are. And, they’re also in, in particular, going after science quite a bit.MCMANUS: Oh yeah.SHEFFIELD: I mean there’s just so much chaos and whatnot.Non-religious anti-intellectualism in right-wing thoughtSHEFFIELD: And there’s a particular animus that these people have, and it isn’t only just the religious either, I think. And we’ve talked a lot on this show about the religious animus towards science. But it’s not just religion that is motivating [00:06:00] this.MCMANUS: No, absolutely not. Right. I mean, look Joseph de Maistre was an arch reactionary Catholic. And a lot of the anti-intellectual in the Trump administration right now are clearly come from a religious evangelist perspective. but you know, Roger Scruton was by and large a secular philosopher, even if he had certain things that he wanted to intimate about the sacred, again, the anti-intellectual—SHEFFIELD: And Stephen Miller is not religious either, so we should say that too.MCMANUS: Yeah, exactly right. And Curtis Yarvin, describes himself as a militant atheist as well. And so does Bronze Age pervert and many of the other intellectuals and movers and shakers that are kind of ideologically inspiring Trump administration. Again, what animates them about intellectuals isn’t that intellectuals are espousing this or that idea that’s contrary to what they want people to hear, that’s part of it. The big thing is that intellectuals are doing their job at all in whatever field, right? Because the problem with having too much discourse, too much discussion too many controversies is it leaves open to question who’s supposed to be in charge and who gets to call the shots in society?And fundamentally, conservatives just don’t really want that. Right? They prefer, again, a society where people know and understand their place. Right? As a conservative author, James, Steven once put it they want people to think that to acknowledge and affirm a real superior is a great social virtue.And sometimes this can take pretty fear form. One of the more. Under examined intellectuals of the pre-Trump era as a figure called Wilmore Kendall who I wish everyone would read. So Wilmore Kendall was a major conservative intellectual in the 20th century. Very smart guy. Don’t want to deny that, right?Very learned, very thoughtful. But he wrote a quite a thoughtful essay called, was Athens Right? To Kill Socrates? For those who don’t know Athens put Socrates on trial for the crime of philosophizing and asking probing questions and most thinking people. Since, the BC has said Athens was wrong to execute Socrates, right?Socrates, as he articulates, was doing something valuable by raising these kinds of probing questions, getting people to think more deeply about what is [00:08:00] justice, what we should do, et cetera. Kendall disagrees, right? Kendall says, actually the conservative elite who are running Athens were absolutely right to execute Socrates.Because even if they weren’t always able to answer his questions, and even if Socrates was right that Athens wasn’t a perfectly just society. His form of questioning posed a serious threat to the established social order. So of course, elites were entitled to get rid of him. They did not want the social order change and it was not in their interest to see the social order change.So Socrates should have drank the hemlock for the sake at least, of the conservative elites that were running at the country or accordion to the conservative elites that were running Athens at the time. And Kendall’s idea is not, or Kendall’s are the. The insight of Kendall’s piece is not hard to extrapolate, right?He’s directly targeting what he calls the John Stewart Mill School of Thought that sees society as better organized if there’s open discussion, open debate, free rights to liberal expression, et cetera, et cetera where everyone can weigh in. And everyone should feel free to criticize society.Kendall didn’t want that because he thought it was disruptive of respect for authority and conservatives today, really, again, ibi very deeply of that spirit.Nietzsche as the canonical far-right thinkerSHEFFIELD: They do. And. It’s notable with that Kendall piece that it’s actually a direct echo of Friedrich Nietzsche’s, where he has an entire section in there called the Problem of Socrates. and, I think that is one of the, I mean, there, there’s so many leftist French misreadings of Nietzsche that are just so moronic, frankly, in my view. And they only read the early part of Nietzsche where he was a bit more libertarian, don’t read any of his middle or later output. And he says, I mean, in his essays that yes, I don’t like Christianity, but actually, the real problem with Christianity is Socrates.And that Socrates is the one who got this whole slave morality thing started, in the Greco-Roman world, and then that [00:10:00] infected Judaism. And so he’s the real villain here. Jesus was just, kind of a a Buddhist guy out there, saying, do your own thing and leave everyone else alone.That reading of Nietzche, which is the correct reading if you read his later books, it seemed a lot of people on the left don’t seem to have done that reading, I would say.MCMANUS: No, absolutely. Although I’d like to point out in defense to the left that there’s been a serious effort to reevaluate our addiction to vulgar Nietzscheanism, which I think has undermined our effectiveness for a very long time right now. And you don’t have to take my word for it.SHEFFIELD: Oh yeah. Well, Domenico Losurdo, yeah. Great book.MCMANUS: Domenico Losurdo are more recent and Daniel Touch, right? No, I don’t agree with tu and Losurdo about everything they say about Nietzche, but they’re pretty clear, right? That he is a reactionary aristocrat, at his very core. So, whether or not there’s, some insights that you can glean from him that are important, Nietzche is a brilliant thinker. I don’t want to vulgarize him in that way. Right. And there are insights you can glean from him. But you should be very clear about what he himself was committed to.And just to kind of connect this to Trumpism a little bit, I think that’s not only leftists who’ve made the mistake of reading Nietzsche as a kind of proto-libertarian many on the American right did for a long time also. Think about people like Ayn Rand and a lot of her disciples. They saw him as a, fundamentally an individualist at heart. Somebody who was pushing against bourgeois, petite bourgeois moralism with its evangelical tendencies and creating more space for free inquiry.The expression of various forms of individual identity. Well, Nietzche himself actually repudiates that reading of his work pretty emphatically in an unpublished work called The Will to Power, right, which was organized by his sister and is somewhat problematic, but does consist of stuff that he himself wrote in the world of power, Niet says, I am not an individualist, right? My philosophy is not about individualism. It’s about what you call orders of rank, right? So some people are indeed entitled to expressions of their individuality to be free of the shackles of good and evil.But those are the people that Nietzsche thinks are worthy [00:12:00] of that kind of liberty. Namely the kind of superior persons the new aristocrats of the future that he thinks society should be organized around breeding. But he is very clear and beyond good and evil, for example that for most of the rest of us what we deserve is, as he puts it, slavery, right?Because he says the only kind of society that has ever been able to culturally produce anything of value that has been able to resist the kind of sirens call of nihilism is a aristocratic society. And no, a Socratic society can function. As he puts it without a slave class. Right. There’s a very good researcher who pointed out that Nietzche talks about slavery hundreds of times over the course of his ure.And there’s almost not a single instance where he’s not describing it in. Positive even rap sodic terms, he thinks it’s absolutely necessary for any good society. And given that you shouldn’t be surprised again when you see people like Braun’s age pervert or God help me, raw ag nationalists, all these MAGA influencers coming out of the woodwork, espousing a kind of vulgar tism and saying horrible things about how most people in the world are bug men.Or how women are just roasty who are only fit to, be sexually assaulted by these powerful individuals. Nietzche himself would never be so crass or so stupid. But you know, there’s an instinct there towards suggesting that there are better kinds of people or higher kinds of people and lower kinds of people.The better kinds of people are entitled to do whatever they want to the lower kinds of people in the pursuit of their allegedly grand projects.Trump’s domestic policies are basically the reinstitution of serfdomSHEFFIELD: Yeah, and you see it also with their, domestic policy as well, because, the, domestic policy of the Trump administration is to eliminate. All social welfare, payments or organizations. And then at the same time to bring back menial labor jobs and make those proliferate.But you will, they will be private sector jobs and they will not be unionized. And so, this is basically. They are trying to bring back a serf class. I mean, that is essentially what they’re doing. and you see that also in particular in the, writing and, speeches of Peter thi, like he’s pretty almost [00:14:00] explicit in saying this.MCMANUS: Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean, look, changes his orientation. Anytime, he’s on camera, right? He’s a pretty well read guy. But, one day he identifies with a kind of vulgar Nietzscheanism. The other day he has nice things to say about post liberalism. The next day, he re identifies as a libertarian.And then all of a sudden, he’s financing Curtis Yarvin, who’s, secular atheist monarchist. Right. What I think the common thread though is, that Thiel has always been attracted to anti-democratic forms of politics. And this goes all the way back to his essay from 2009, I believe, the Education of a Libertarian where he says, look, Barack Obama has now become president.This is disaster, right. For those of us in, let’s call it the yacht class, right? The reason it’s a disaster for those of us in the yacht class is Barack Obama, mainly supported by women, minorities and welfare recipients is promising to tax the productive creative class in order to redistribute to the unworthy.We can’t have this and the education of a libertarian is fundamentally about how he’s realized that. If there’s a cont that there’s a fundamental contest as he understands it between democracy and liberty and, These circumstances, he chooses liberty over democracy. Now, of course, the liberty that Thiel is talking about is the right of people like him to exploit all the rest of us with the rest of us having no political agency to actually do anything meaningful about it.Right? And I don’t see that as being meaningful liberty at all. But you know, even though he shifted the tone and the tune a little bit the fundamental messages remain the same. Right? Democracy is dangerous to people like Thiel, who want to have all the money in the world to spend on rocket ships, to send them themselves to space and those that consider worthy.And consequently, we need to undo democracy by any means necessary.The importance of sci-fi authors in anti-democratic political thoughtSHEFFIELD: And one of the interesting things also about Thiel in this context is that he was asked one time, by somebody, a young person that was seeking advice from him. They said, well, where should I be looking at to get ideas about startups, to have a [00:16:00] new company? And, he said, you should read mid 20th century science fiction. And that’s, I thought that was extremely notable because there was a tradition, like a real tradition of reactionary intellectualism, beginning with de Maistre and Nietzsche, but Scruton was basically the last of that line. And he was a lonely fellow for most of his life. Didn’t have any peers I would say in his milieu.And, which is, and it’s notable that this sort of post-libertarian, post-democratic framework that we did see that came out later, it began with Ayn Rand. So there’s a reason why Thiel recommended these 20th century sci-fi authors like Robert Heinlein and for instance, like his The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is, Elon Musk said that’s one of his favorite books. And for those not familiar with it, that book is a story of people who are living on the moon and they are never contacted basically by the Earth government, but they have to send them all their money and so they, have a revolt and kill all the Earth people and declare their independence and have rugged individualism in space. And that’s basically the plot line of pretty much all of these authors like they, they genuinely have no concept—there’s a famous meme that argues that libertarians are like cats, that they are sustained by a system which they have no understanding of, and also disdain.And I think that’s notable that they really, their intellectual tradition did in fact shift to fiction. And so, that’s why instead of having long explications of arguments and responses to critics, instead of that, we just have these endless monologues of Ayn Rand characters and Robert Heinlein characters, in particular, and they’re not responding to critics.Like one could say that [00:18:00] Robert Nozik for instance, was somebody who was right-leaning, but this guy was not a reactionary like these people. And so he was capable of reading others and responding to them. And like you see that with the second Trump administration. Like they are literally, as we’re recording this today, the FCC Chairman announced that he’s going to enforce equal time rules against late night comedians. Like they literally cannot respond to the arguments of the opposition because they don’t understand them. I would say.MCMANUS: No, absolutely. I mean, look, you don’t have to take my word for it. Just read the take downs of the left by authors like Jordan Peterson or Gabby Sad. And, these aren’t random YouTube influencers. These are academics who should know better. Most of ‘em are of no value whatsoever, right?I’m not even convinced that they’ve actually read Fuco, let alone Marx, let alone, have an understanding of the kind of nuanced arguments that appear in those traditions. But we’re talking about Thiel in this, at this Thiel and this attraction to science fiction. There’s a really good book by a Marxist author called Frederick Jameson who some of your listeners might be familiar with. Dense author, so take him a piece at a time. But it’s called Archeology of the Future which is his analysis of the role, a political role that science fiction has played in different social imaginaries. And one of the things that he points out that’s very sharp, and I don’t agree with Jameson about everything is that science fiction has often been a source of utopian speculation for different political actors about the futures that they want to see brought into being.And I think this choice of the word utopian is. Done thoughtfully by Jameson. Because when it comes to things like the Libertarians who talks about quite a bit libertarian sci-fi authors he points out that they did have a utopian vision for what the future was going to look at. And this should make us extremely wary of the insistence of some conservatives or some on the right.That fundamentally it’s the leftist who only have a monopoly on utopian ideas or speculative ideas about how the future should be organized. And that conservatives standeth, wart history, young stop are at the very least, slowed down. To these [00:20:00] utopian reformers, right? Jameson pointed out, if you read Ayn Rand or Heinlein, who you mentioned, they very clearly want a radical change to the status quo.Even if they frame this in nostalgic terms, right? We need to go back to these older kind of warrior or individualistic ethics. The idea is that fundamentally the future needs to look very different from the president. And that’s going to mean undoing a lot of what liberals and progressives have achieved, right?And Thiel is very imbibed an awful lot of that, right? He really does seem to think that he is a John Gault type figure that the present is so decayed because of woke leftism, democracy, et cetera. That the only thing to be done is for the truly productive class to take over and rebuild society the way that it should be organized or should have been organized from the very beginning.And in these kinds of circumstances, the kind of irony is that a lot of the old, truly conservative critiques of the left actually pertain to the speculations that they’re making. And particularly, the kind of policies that figures like the maga movement are trying to put forward.They’re really trying to break systems that they don’t fully understand in order to bring about a new world that exists only in their head. And that is going to be an absolute disaster, if they try to realize it in practice.The difference I think between left wing utopias and right wing utopias is that I think that sometimes left wing utopias are actually attractive at the level of theory, even if they break down in practice.For the utopias speculated upon by people like Thiel or Heinlein, or Rand, I think are just unattractive right from the get go. And they look even worse when you try to put them into practice.Utopias as political lodestarsSHEFFIELD: They do. And one of the sad ironies of our current politics though, is that this utopianism that absolutely does drive this reactionary-- and, I do distinguish it from conservative that this reactionary activism they, work tirelessly for it. And they see it as, and we are going to destroy modernity and replace it with our utopian vision.And [00:22:00] by contrast, when you look at the institutional leaders that are in the center left, or we’ll say conservative to the left they seem to, have no utopian impulse whatsoever, generally speaking. And, they think that this is the best of all possible worlds. And the, and it’s why I would say that, the, that you do see, I mean, you did see for instance, in the 2024 election, the, a massive shift in support among young people toward Donald Trump.A guy who is, you couldn’t depict, you couldn’t imagine a, more stereotypical boomer person, bloated. Rich, selfish lazy, stupid. I mean, he’s literally every caricature of a boomer. And yet he has had the highest support (among Republicans) of young people in the United States in, since 1984, Ronald Reagan.So like there, there’s a serious, serious problem among people who are against reactionary ideas that they have no interest in inspiring people or realizing that there are a lot of things wrong with the current system.MCMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, just to your point about Trump being like the Ultimate Boomer I went to one rallies in 2022 with a buddy of mine who’s a documentary. And I don’t think I heard a single song that was, anywhere newer than from 1986. You know what I mean? I remember, yeah, there was something from born in the USA.It was the most modern song at the Trump rally. So that’ll really give you an indication of his. So we say somewhat dated taste right. But you know, on the kind of point about utopianism and the left I, think that Juda Slar has a really very sharp point to make. Right. Juda Slar, for those who don’t know is the author of a seminal essay called The Liberalism of Fear.And it’s famous for being a liberal critic of utopianism. Well, even sclera said, look. It’s very, there’s a longstanding tendency for center right liberals to say utopianism has only led to bad effects over the course of the 20th century. We’re better off without it. And she said, look, any movement that is entirely [00:24:00] devoid of any utopian aspirations isn’t long for this world.Because then you don’t really have any energy, you don’t have any creativity, you don’t have any drive. All you’re there to do is to sit there and offer intellectual apology for the status quo. And inevitably when somebody, people become dissatisfied with the status quo, they’re going to turn to your enemies who do have ideas about how things should change.Right? So this is where I think that. Liberals need to recognize that this defensive attitude that we sometimes take, even if understandable is not enough in the contemporary era, right? People are clearly dissatisfied, they’re turning to alternatives. And I think that what we need to do is have ‘em turn to liberal alternatives to a neoliberal status quo that is clearly run as course and is no longer sustainable.Now, I put forward. Liberal socialism as, one possible alternative that we could move towards inspired by people like Thomas Payne and Rawls and John Stewart Mill, et cetera. But there are others out there as well. But you know, you don’t need to kind of side with me on this. What I just encourage my fellow liberals to do is to be open-minded.About the fact that a little utopian energy and a little creativity about how the future can be better from the past is not only intellectually a sustainable project to engage in. I think it’s very much politically needed right now. because you’ve seen across the world, right? Politicians with a couple of exceptions that just come forward and say, I stand for what we’ve been doing for the last 20, 20, 30 years.Have, by and large not done particularly well.Horseshoe theory and its limitationsSHEFFIELD: No they haven’t. And one of the more unfortunate things I would say though with people who maybe want to have an alternative to. Neoliberalism is something that you you have written about recently, which is this idea that that some people have that well, maybe we can make co common cause with these far right people.And there’s something, a, there’s something that, there, there dissatisfaction with the status quo is something that perhaps we could leverage. And that’s has been a very common and dangerous mistake of further left movements. And you talked about some of that history, so if you could maybe just briefly recite about that.Obviously we’ll have a link to your, [00:26:00] piece as well.MCMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. Right. So, during the Cold War, there was a very common theory, that sometimes called horseshoe theory, that became popular, particularly amongst, center right, liberal commentators. Right. And, the idea is that. Fundamentally, fascism and communism, are just two sides of the same coin, right?they’re cosmetically different, but fundamentally they’re both species of a closed society or a collectivist society, whereas liberal stand for an open individualistic society, right? and I think that by and large horseshoe theory, is a very lazy way of looking at the world because it kind of divests you from any responsibility to understand.The opposition in any kind of brand, any other way. And to recognize that even on the far right there are very substantial differences in terms of regimes, ideologies, et cetera. and Lord knows there are bajillion different flavors of Marxism out there, right? Everything from statism to anarchism to, a narco cynicism, right?And they all look at and aspire to very different things, right? Now saying that I do think there is a kind of intellectual out there, that fundamentally understand themselves or, has become politically agitated or animated, by opposition to liberalism and liberal centrism. And in these kinds of circumstances, if your fundamental opposition is to liberalism, sometimes you do see figures switch from the far left to the far right or vice versa, right?a very good example of this, in MAGA world right now would be somebody like, say Nick Land, for example, right? Nick Land began his career as a, critical theorist, very influenced by deli beard, all those postmodern types that you mentioned before. And gradually he moved away from the left end of the spectrum towards, a dark enlightenment perspective.That’s very proven, very amenable. Two people like the Elon Musk and Peter Thiels of the world, right? since long story short, he essentially says that the world will be better off if we have these kind of tech bros in charge of everything. and if we militate against democracy. but these figures are by and large, fairly rare, right?And again they only really emerge if the primary [00:28:00] motivating force behind the projects is anti-liberal. in which case they kind of shift from one end of the spectrum to the other, depending on what they think is the other geology that. Most equipped, are more likely to get rid of the liberal order.Right. Overall though, I’d say look liberalism, socialism, and progressivism have a lot more in common with each other, than either do with, political, right, right. Liberalism, socialism, progressivism all of us believe fundamentally that all people are at least morally equal. Even if we different our capacities, interests, et cetera, and that we’re entitled on the basis of our moral quality.Quite a lot of leeway in terms of how we want to live our life because we should be allowed to make choices about how we’re going to live our life without interference from the states, other people, et cetera. Even if those choices might end up taking us to some pretty bad places, right. as they so often do.Right. the political right has a very different kind of philosophy about how. Society should be organized. I think actually no one captured this better than Fa Hayek where he said the unifying feature behind conservatism, and I’d say this is true of the right generally, is this conviction that there are recognizably superior people in society.And these recognizably superior people are entitled to more respect for their agency, their wealth, their political power, you name it, right? They’re the superiors in society. They get to call the shots and all people on the right. Whether, the more moderates or the more extreme, are committed to this idea in some way, shape or form.And I think once you recognize that ideolog ideologically, you can realize that if there’s going to be a dialogue and if there’s going to be conciliation, it’s far more likely if you’re liberal to happen with your left wing peers. And if you’re on the left, is far more likely to happen with your liberal peers, than with those on the right who just hold a fundamentally different worldview to either of us.The historic relationships between 20th century fascism, conservatism, and left-wing ideologiesSHEFFIELD: yeah. And then also the actual history as you were talking about in your Current Affairs piece, shows that the very first people that Adolf Hitler and Mussolini went after were the leftists, like the people who thought that they were doing something [00:30:00] tricky and conniving to collaborate with them.MCMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. So, this is, there’s a famous poem by Martin Nie Moler, that actually had the first section of bridge very often when it was translated into the United States. And it goes, first they came for the communist and then I did nothing because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the socialist and I did nothing because I wasn’t a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionist and I did nothing because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did nothing because I’m not a Jew and You get the picture right. And there’s a reason for this, right? so, the fa fascism in Italy without a doubt, was influenced in its very early stages by some species of, socialism.Particularly things like, so surrealism, right? this idea that there was going to be a general strike and that we were going to go break the shackles, of the status quo. But, that was very, quickly abandoned after the fascist came to power. Often with the support of center right liberals.Big business, the church eventually, of course, the monarchy, all the kind of conservative factions within Italy. And the reason why all these conservative factions liked fascism, is because they thought the fascists were extremely effective, at breaking communist skulls and attracting large segments of world population through populist rhetoric away from the appeals, of working class agitation, a Mussolini in power.Often awe implanted various austerity programs that were intended to discipline, the workforce in addition to smashing trade unions independent, workers, movements, you name it. Right? and this one, an awful lot of applause from people like, Winston Churchill, for example, in the 1920s.or the famous right wing economist, Ludwig von Misa, right? in his book, liberalism describe fascism as fundamentally having saved Western civilization for at least the moment, right? In Germany, the circumstances are actually even more brutal, right? in Mont Comp. Hitler makes no doubt or no, hey, about the fact that he considers Marxism to be, as he put it, a Jewish doctrine, that rejects what he calls the aristocratic principle of nature.because he says fundamentally, socialist and Marxist and communist [00:32:00] believe in a world where all men and women will be brothers and sisters and will cooperate for the social. Even if they think that you need a class revolution in order to achieve this. and Hitler says, the Ariss Socratic principle of nature holds that there will always be conflict between races, and one race.Of course, the Aryan race is destined to rule overall after it’s defeated. Its, Jewish and other enemies, right? Ly racist kind of philosophy and beyond just, the kind of ideological anti Marxism, anti socialism, anti-communism hither, much like Mussolini. Found that on his route to power, it was very easy, and necessary indeed to cooperate with conservatives, big business, the military, especially, who had the same interest in Germany, as conservative forces did in Italy, namely quashing the communists and socialists, who were very popular in Germany at the time.So Robert Paxton, the author of The Anatomy of Fascism, points out that. It’s quite like that, that Hitler would’ve been a footnote in history if it wasn’t for the cooperation of so many conservative forces in Germany, to bring him to power, expecting that once he was there, he was going to crush the communists and the socialists, and bring about, kind of restoration, of the vi ha mine conservative empire, which of course, Hitler had no intention of doing.and Richard Evans, the author of, The third, the rise of the third, or sorry, the third Reich in power. Right. Makes exactly the same point. Evans is a professor of history at Cambridge, probably the world’s leading expert in Nazism. and he is emphatic about saying it was actually conservatives that brought Hitler to power, right?Without the conservative forces in the country, Hitler would never have taken power. and that’s because they thought. By and large, he shares a lot of our say our aspirations, right? He wants a restoration of the traditional family. He wants to re-arm Germany. He wants to make Germany great again, right?and undo, the tragedy of Versailles. And, putting him into power and financing him is going to help us achieve a lot of our shared goals, right? even if, many German conservative had a certain contempt, for Hitler’s populism and his youth and [00:34:00] strange ideas, right? and once in power, Hitler.Absolutely erected many conservative figures not to mention big business to positions of enormous suspicion in the new European order that he was going to create. Right? and the result was, of course, sending tens of thousands of members of the KPD, the Communist Party and, the SPD, the social Democratic Party of Germany into concentration camps, in many circumstances.They were the first victims of Nazi aggression. So this kind of claim, that I see people like Dinesh DEA make sometimes, that the Nazis were socialists or the Nazis were liberals, right? he tries to make that suggestion also. it’s just absolutely bogus. And, the people who are trying to make the claim are either willfully, distorting history, for ideological reasons, or they’re just stupid to be quite blunt.The folly of leftists who team up with reactionariesSHEFFIELD: yeah, they are. And well, and, but it’s also stupid on the part of people who are leftists, kind of ilian mentality as you reference, like to think that teaming up with fascists to destroy liberalism. Is not going to create communism. Like they don’t understand that like this will never happen.And that while perhaps you can rhetorically, work with some of the voters or people who are in the grassroots that are sympathetic to some of these ideas, the elites themselves. So like people like Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz, or. JD Vance, who, they do in fact hate capitalism. But they hate it for a very different reason than you do.And what they want to create in its place is monstrous.MCMANUS: Oh, absolutely. And look, I don’t want to deny that there are leftists again who gravitate towards the right, and the far right. a very good book on this written by a friend of mine is called, against Fascist Creep by Alex Reed Ross. and he talks about how, Starting in, the mid 2010s, many on the far right, especially in digital spaces, have actually tried to, brand far right politics and leftist sounding language consciously.[00:36:00] Right. to try to entice progressives to kind of side with them. a good example of this would be, eco fascist movements, right. Who are yeah, we should get back to nature, right? Getting back to nature will mean getting back to the law of the jungle where the strong prey upon the weak.So actually there’s an ecological dimension to fascism that, they. Play up in order to try to solicit, sympathy from various environmentalist movements. Right? or another good example that I’ve personally seen, to my enormous dismay, has been, the efforts of, various Dugan Knights, followers of Alexander Dugan, right?Alexander Dugan, up until quite recently when he started chumming around with people like Tucker Carlson, was militantly anti-American, right? for pretty obvious reasons, right? You saw America as a Russia’s fundamental geopolitical ally. And, consequently, Dugan has been very willing to espouse, militant anti-Western rhetoric characterizing the West as an imperialist force that is, traversing the globe invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to kind of expand American power.And Ross, I think quite convincingly suggests that Dugan does this knowing, that even if ma, his main audience is always going to be the far right, you might be able to entice a couple of anti-Western. Leftists into his coalition. if their fundamental convictions are, the West is just responsible for all the problems of the world.America is all the great Satan, and we’re willing to align ourself with anyone in order to kind of undermine it. So it is a real process. Right? but I’d also like to point out, that if we are going to talk about the proportion of figures who kind of. Made their peace with MAGA or moved over to maga.leftists I would not say are the major members of that coalition, right? Even if they don’t, there are a couple of Bernie Trump voters, I mean, think about, the sheer volume of right wing libertarians. People like Rand Paul, for example. who started out being tri critics of Trump, critics of the MAGA movement, and just completely conceded to a lot of his calls for.tariffs stronger borders, et cetera, et cetera. because they thought it was to their political advantage. there’s even a term, that’s been developed in libertarian circles. [00:38:00] genuinely libertarian circles describe it, border Arian, which I quite like, people in the von Misa, s.Factions are often characterized as boards, right because they’re committed to freedom for all, but not for, migrants. Right? So I think that, we should recognize that there are a lot of different reasons why people will gravitate towards far right politics. And there are a lot of different ways that the far right will try to reach out to different constituencies.While the left definitely needs to inoculate itself against any of those kind of temptations, insist that there are plenty of classical liberals and libertarians that should take a good, hard look in the mirror. If they made to think that. While Trump was passing some tax cuts, so really he’s a classical liberal at heart.ConclusionSHEFFIELD: Yeah, exactly. All right, well, we’re coming up on the end here, so, if people want to keep up with your stuff besides buying liberal socialism. What else? Do you have advice for that?MCMANUS: Yeah, absolutely. so we have a, myself and Dr. Ben Burgess have a new essay collection coming out soon on Gia Cohen, which people can check out for Paul Gray McMinn. GIA Cohen was a Democratic socialist author who taught at Oxford for a long time. And has some very interesting ideas that I’m quite critical of, but nonetheless are worth looking at.And I also have a new essay collection coming out in July actually which includes contributions from liberal currents editor Paul Kreider and Florian Maywell, and another academic. it’s called what is Liberal Socialism. and it’s only 11 bucks. I organize it because people used to point out how the academic book that I released, the Political Theory of Liberal socialism is a little pricey and a little scholarly.this is a much cheaper, much more kind of accessible kind of guide to some of the main themes of liberal socialism for people are interested.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Sounds good. All right, well, good to have you back again.MCMANUS: Yeah. Thanks Matt. Great to talk to you.SHEFFIELD: Alright, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation and you can always get more if you go to flux.community where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes.And if you are a paid, subscribing member of the show, you have unlimited access to the archives and I thank you very much for your support. It really means a [00:40:00] lot. This media economy is very bad right now. and so I really need people to support the show. We don’t have any connections to right wing billionaires or left-wing billionaires or any other billionaires, so we need your support to keep doing this; and I am really grateful for everybody who is one. And you can also support the show over on Patreon as well. Just go to patreon.com/discoverflux, and if you’re watching on YouTube, please do click the like and subscribe button and do the notifications thing so you can get notified when we do have a new episode or a new clip.Thanks a lot. I’ll see you next time.

After users discovered they could use Grok, the AI tool embedded in X, to generate nonconsensual nude images of women and girls, the backlash was swift. And the story raised a deeper question: are these harms a failure of artificial intelligence itself, or a reflection of the people, power structures, and incentives behind it? In this episode, Jen Taylor-Skinner is joined by Tazin Khan, CEO of Cyber Collective, for an important conversation about feminist AI, technology-facilitated gender-based violence, and the limits of blaming “innovation” for harms that are deeply human. From deepfakes and data exploitation to capitalism, surveillance, and platform responsibility, this discussion challenges the idea that technology is neutral—and asks who is protected, who is exposed, and why accountability so often stops at the code. This is a conversation about AI, yes—but even more so about power, responsibility, and the systems we continue to build without reckoning with their consequences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is luck?  How do we know when we’re destined for good or bad luck?  What can our perceptions of luck tell us about ourselves?  Author and law professor Bill Miller gives us answers to these questions and more.  

Episode SummaryThe shocking murder of Renee Good at the hands of federal immigration shock troops in Minnesota earlier this month was part of a larger outrage, the Trump regime’s fascistic deployment of tens of thousands of violent and poorly trained, but very well-armed paramilitary troops against people across several major American cities, arresting people who look or sound Hispanic.Since Good’s murder, the Trump administration and numerous right-wing media figures have attacked Good and her wife as “domestic terrorists,” who were engaging in illegal speech—and thus she supposedly deserved to be killed for temporarily impeding ICE officials before trying to drive away.Of course, this is rhetoric is wildly hypocritical given that Trump and his supporters have claimed for years to be so very concerned about protecting girls and women from trans people in sports and public restrooms. Aside from that, however, the right-wing attempt to “other” Renee Good is in support of the larger reactionary campaign to deny the legal rights and humanity of immigrants living in America.But the belief that immigrants (and Hispanic-appearing people in general) deserve to be treated as less-than-human is itself part of a larger dilemma that philosophy has dealt with for centuries, the problem of other minds. Since no one has direct access to any other person’s experience, other people’s moral rights can, unfortunately, be difficult things for many of us to understand. Far too much of politics is about whether some people are real and whether they should have rights.Liberalism used to talk about things like this more, and so in this live collaboration between Flux and Magic + Loss, we decided to explore the topic from several different angles.Audio Chapters00:00 — Introduction13:03 — Can alternative scripture interpretations save religion from fundamentalism?17:22 — Creating a list of books for deconstructing former fundamentalist Christians20:47 — Conservatism is not reactionism23:54 — Jeffrey Epstein and misogynist libertarianism37:04 — Theory of mind and empathy46:18 — Rene Girard and Nietzschean Christianity57:54 — Why reactionary Catholicism is becoming more popular in the U.S. far right01:06:31 — Somatic experience and a politics of determined loveAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: Hello everyone. Well, I guess this is your live, Virginia, so maybe you can introduce it and then we can go from there. You want to do that?VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN: So this is a co-hosting and I’m on the back foot when it comes to a good introduction here, but, Matthew Sheffield and I are-- Matthew is a cherished interlocutor of mine. He’s a philosopher, and I am me, and just a random Gen Xer, trying to pick my feet up day after day. And, and I, think we want to talk among other things about Rene Gerard and empathy and and, trivia like that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, that’s right. Yeah. and there is just so much to talk about, but I guess I think maybe we can start with a news hook, which is the recent Texas A&M decision to tell a philosophy professor there that he could not teach Plato’s Symposium in a class about ethics and moral controversy.HEFFERNAN: Right.SHEFFIELD: And to me, like, not only is this the inevitable product, of course, of, this, right wing censorship, that we’ve had in this year, but it’s also that it shows just how completely incoherent they’re, because on the one hand they say, well, we are here for western, western values and that we value the, traditional ideas and morality and all that.And it’s like, well, you clearly haven’t read the Symposium of Plato.HEFFERNAN: Well, is Greece really the West though, Matthew? I mean come on!SHEFFIELD: I know, that Plato guy.HEFFERNAN: I think it’s, I think it’s Colorado, maybe the [00:02:00] California,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, hah. Well, and just to summarize it just a little bit though, for anybody who hasn’t read it, Plato’s Symposium, it’s a work that is one of his most famous ones within philosophy, but it’s not one that I would say the general public is probably very familiar with. And that’s because, well, the whole book is about sex and gender and love and philosophy, which, philosophy as a discipline of course has no problem, has always discussed these things.But in the right wing movement of today, they don’t read the books. Like they don’t even read the Bible like these people, that was one thing—I used to, I was, born and raised as a fundamentalist Mormon, and one of the things that I discovered about Christian fundamentalists is that almost none of them have read even one book of the Bible in its entirety. They don’t, they just literally show up to church and they listen to whatever the pastor tells them, and they might read, like five or six verses, or a chapter 10. That’s it.HEFFERNAN: So why take the trouble to ban something?SHEFFIELD: Well, and that’s the thing, like Plato as a philosopher, and of course, so many ancient authors like Aristophanes and, all, and, I mean just, like you could go down the line, you could pick almost any ancient classical author or the Bible itself, and there’s all kinds of stuff in there that would be considered inappropriate, for, by right-wing Christians. My, my favorite Bible story is the story of, Jephthah, who was a judge in the book of Judges, a prophet who, decided, well, I’m afraid I’m not going to win this battle that you’re telling me to fight God, so you gotta do something. You gotta promise me that you’ll do it. And if you, and if, you will, if I win this battle, [00:04:00] I will kill the first thing that I see when I come home.And lo and behold, the first thing that he sees is his daughter. And so, in the same text in which, Isaac, the human sacrifice of Isaac is, said, oh, isn’t it great that we didn’t have to, he didn’t have to kill Isaac.Well, here you have another text. Whoever was like, yeah, it was a good thing to kill your child for God. And like, right. But, most, of course, most Christians and most, super Orthodox Jews have never heard that story or have any idea.HEFFERNAN: Matthew, and one of, one of the things I think that makes you such an interesting philosopher is that you have done something that very few of us have done, which is grown up in a totalizing episteme, and questioned it, and pulled out the threads of it and done what evangelicals called deconstruction, right.Parenthetically, I love that deconstruction is now. I think if you put it into Google, into Gemini, it will explain deconstruction, not as an invention of Jacque Deida, but as a practice of evangelicals, not destroying their faith, but dividing it, separating it into its component parts and evaluating them-- and, and kind of coming to terms with how this thing was built around them, which is. Exact. I mean, I can’t imagine a better application of deconstruction as I understand it from Derrida. It’s, it’s, just beautiful. And I wish he’d lived to see it, in fact, because for Christianity to use the tools of literary criticism, it’s exactly right to find a way to understand what, anyway, you did this yourself.It with, with a, like a very esoteric system. The books of the testimony of the angel Moroni, the, oddities of the Book of Mormon, the, weird readings of a kind of weird 19th century, brought together theology. But that is [00:06:00] binding for so many people and interesting for so many people and literal for so many people.And just one by one, I mean, it’s. You must consider it one of the great philosophical achievements of your life that you were able to pull the wires out of your head. So dexterously, that you now, have managed to expose yourself to, so many other philosophies. You were your own gly. I mean, if to get back to the greats, you were Socrates to yourself.Why do I believe this? why would I possibly believe this? and I think that puts you in a, uniquely good spot to think about these things. But, and I also think that if you believe in literal truth of the Bible, and I’m, I, don’t know I, that I know what that means exactly. Like, it--SHEFFIELD: Well, they don’t know either.HEFFERNAN: Right? But I don’t even know what believing. I don’t think any of us knows exactly what it is to believe something. In some ways that means you don’t read it, right? Like I believe in, a geocentric, I accept on faith or I believe in that the, I’m sorry, the heliocentric. I believe that the sun’s at the center of the universe, but, so I don’t read it.I just don’t read a lot of astronomy because it’s there. It’s sat down. Why do I have to look at it? Right? And if you believe in little truth of the Bible, then interpretation doesn’t matter. Then why does your reading matter?SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and that is, I mean, that is functionally I think how they, get away with it.But it’s also the, it’s different from what you just said in, in your thought process, process about centrism, because. They don’t care about proof. Like that’s the thing that I think a lot of people who are,HEFFERNAN: But I don’t care about, but I don’t care about proof for other things that I just think are true like that.I don’t, I mean, you don’t have to. I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone convince me, I’ve never looked up in a book why, what the actual proof is for the center of the universe. and that’s just an obvious one. Forget about everything else. I mean, a television working [00:08:00] or whatever else. the things that I believe in, the literal truth of, or a proposition that’s just been handed to me are the things I don’t read.Once you read, you’ve opened up the possibility of interpretation, exegesis, even if you’re simply committing to memory. I interviewed a, several months ago, a Chinese dissident who, grew up in China and the two things they had to do with the writings of Chairman Mao were memorize them and then memorized a reading of them, an interpretation of them.So they had to shield out any possibility that they, in any meaningful way, were reading. in addition to what they were. So lest you open up a slight possibility that you have a hermit, bring some hermeneutics to the occasion of reading, you now have something else to step in your brain in that place.And I guess to close the loop, you did this with the text you grew up on, and you did essentially what Nietzsche says, we have, again, Nietzche is someone you’ve written about. We, God’s dead. We’ve killed him, you and I, we killed him because we read and studied the universe with science and came to the conclusion that our, that this God didn’t exist.And you did the same, I think with the texts, I imagine with the texts of Mormonism, and the teachings of Mormonism. You read them closely and like lots of evangelicals, you probably came to elders and said, I don’t understand. Why would God have someone kill his daughter? And, and then you thought, well, I’m doing what I’m supposed to do, right?Read the books, ask the questions, and then the whole thing falls apart. I mean, is that how it went for you? Actually, I don’t want to, I don’t want to guess.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. that is how it went. And this is why I would say also that, when people have questions about, let’s say vaccines or something, or that they shouldn’t be told, oh, you can’t ask that.It’s fine to ask these questions. It’s fine to, [00:10:00] to, ask why. Like, that’s, that is the most fundamental idea. Like it basically all cognition devolves to “what is this?” And “what do I do with this?” And so if you can’t, if you forbid people from answering those, asking those questions, then you’re not going to be, you’re not going to be a viable political movement, I would say.But independent of that, yeah, like, so with Mormonism, I, I was, told, well, don’t worry about that. God will answer that in heaven. You don’t have to think about it. And there were some people that, so Brigham Young University used to have this academic pseudoscience department called the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormonism Studies. And basically it was like an apologetic organization. and I read some of their material and it was just so virulent and, nasty, and, just, saying, well, how anyone that would question these ideas, it’s just stupid and malignant and vicious and satanic and, et cetera, et cetera.And it had no, effect on me because, I was like, well, you’re telling me that you don’t have the answer, when you act like that. And then once I opened myself to the idea of, well, what if this isn’t true? And all of these doubts that I had clicked through in my mind, perfectly because then I realized, oh, if, it’s not true, then all of these things make sense.And that’s, that is the, dilemma that people who value science and value reason in our, time, we have to induce that kind of thought process for people. Because I, I had to do all this by myself, like there wasn’t anyone in my personal life that was helping me along the way or, [00:12:00] teaching me about introducing me to ideas.I was just following things on my own. And that’s, most people don’t have the time for that, or the inclination or whatever, whatever reason they’re not going to do it. And so we, so people who believe in sound thinking, we have to, be out there and then, and join the fray everywhere as much as we can.HEFFERNAN: Can, I ask you a question? What might, when you went to your parents or your, elders and, asked these questions, what might they have said? When you ask these questions, what might, some, wise person have said to you that would’ve kept you in the fold? In other words, could Mormonism have, sort of invented its own secularism, had it been able to accommodate, accommodate your answers instead of kind of killing off Socrates, the you person?right. So.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Can alternative scripture interpretations save religion from fundamentalism?HEFFERNAN: Yeah. could they have said, oh, let’s, I’ve, that one is, that’s a real, incongruity in the text. And what could that possibly mean, and why would that be included? Well, maybe let’s consider the possibility that the Bible’s a set of metaphors, or let’s consider the possibility that God is erratic, or let’s consider the possibility that there are a lot of texts, other texts, or as Sarah just said, that Mormonism is Satanism.there, if someone had said something like that to you, would there be a way that you would still be a, philosophical Mormon and you might’ve expanded the department at Brigham Young to include real science?SHEFFIELD: Well, I, there are people that are doing, trying to do that actually.. and so, and in fact the, for, there’s a, magazine that’s had a conference for decades, called Sunstone, in Mormonism, that, that has tried to do that. And, and I think [00:14:00] that they, have kind of also. because Mormonism, like many, high, demand religious traditions, places a lot of, they, they tell members to be afraid of, former members or people who question.. and so, and Sunstone has basically kind of been kind of the seed of, this idea that, well, these people who are former Mormons are not going to hurt you. They’re not evil, they’re not satanic. and so, yeah, if I, had been exposed to that a little bit earlier, perhaps I would’ve cha, been able to toughen out or figure some way.But, on the other hand, on the other hand, I just don’t know that would’ve been satisfying for me because, like in Susan Sontag’s essay “Against Interpretation,” she’s right about that. That when you do start getting into metaphorical interpretation of text, you are doing violence to it, epistemic violence to the text because you are imposing your reading of it over the author’s reading. And I don’t know that I could have really done that, in the, wellHEFFERNAN: I,SHEFFIELD: that would’ve satisfied.HEFFERNAN: I mean, I just, I don’t want to go it to go unsaid that I, starkly disagree with Sontag on that point. I mean, ISHEFFIELD: Oh, you do? Okay.HEFFERNAN: Well, I don’t know who the author is in the equation and the author seems as dead to me as God.I mean, when you’re talking about you’re superseding and by interpreting the Bible, say you’re superseding what the authorial intention is that God’s intention. That would seem to be a, the case for the literal truth of the Bible or the maybe not meaning of the Bible. yeah. and, Also the words belong to all of us.There are no private languages. And so we are always making meaning of words that we, [00:16:00] that we share. But I guess, the reason I ask that is I don’t, I’m not sure there would be a Mormonism that allowed that kind of open inquiry. and one of the reasons I’m thinking aboutSHEFFIELD: it’s of hard for people.Yeah. Because like actually they get kicked out. Some people get kicked out for,HEFFERNAN: yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. It’s like Mormonism, for instance, has an idea, has a doctrine. They don’t talk about it very often, and most of the non-MS don’t know it is that Mor in Mormonism, God is married and is a post-human.HEFFERNAN: Oh. ah.SHEFFIELD: And so, and God is a polygamous.HEFFERNAN: oh yeah. Interesting.SHEFFIELD: And so, actually, so even though they, currently do not practice multiple, marriages in, to living people. They actually still believe in it. And in fact, the guy who is the current president of the Mormon church, so they, they believe in eternal marriage as they call it.He’s actually married to two women. but one of them, one of them is deceased. so he has two wives.HEFFERNAN: But one of them is deceased. Yeah. but Right. Oh, I see. Eternal marriage. yeah.SHEFFIELD: So he’ll have two when, they’re all dead.Creating a list of books for deconstructing former fundamentalist ChristiansHEFFERNAN: Yeah, so probably I’m thinking about this because I’ve run into some deconstructing Christians, on tick on social media who are looking for just actively in search of tutors to, because they’ve been homeschooled, they’ve, their education’s gone awry in many ways or is non-existent. I think they started questioning the existence of hell.They started questioning some of MAGA policies and, and that was the thread they pulled and things started to unravel from there. but now they find themselves not knowing what the Federalist papers are [00:18:00] or, what their constitutional commitments are, if any, even really the difference between the private and public sectors.so you know why? A OC and Jeff Bezos are in different positions vis-a-vis the rest of us, right? Like how people get elected is versus how they get rich. and and it occurred to me maybe like in this fanciful way, but an overly optimistic way that we should do what, we did, like when I was a kid, which is, write letters to our counterpart Soviet school children and say like, we all have the same human heart.We can learn from each other, but maybe put together, people that create a syllabus about secularism, a short syllabus, essays, even if they’re, if no one’s going to read books, and do these kind of zoom. Conversations with people leaving and wanting to embrace because they’re so excited about socialism.they’ve shifted like, 180 degrees and are now, have decided that they are all in for the, left and, but they don’t quite know what capitalism is.So, and it, like that hunger to learn, that. Some religious kids have, ‘cause they want their big questions answered and, familiarity at least with the idea that they’ve gotta go back and study and what just seems like something that would make a, for a great student.But also, I mean, I would even ask listeners and readers to think about this. What would you do if you were going to give someone five essays, or documentary fragment of film, whatever, to, to try to move someone from, reactionary, evangelical Christianity and maga to, something closer to secular and liberal humanism, .Democracy. I think it’s a really interesting question. Like, [00:20:00] if you could build a little enlightenment, in, in the soul of someone and do it for yourself at the same time, because why don’t we believe those things, right? Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Like, yeah. yeah, That’s a, it’s a great idea. I mean. We, I, think that has been kind of the biggest failing of the broader non-conservative, or we’ll say non-reaction rate because, ‘cause like an actual conservative supports the enlightenment at this point now, right? And, you look at even people, in the beginning, like, like, Edmund Berger, he was, he supported reason and ideas. He was not a religious fundamental.Conservatism is not reactionismHEFFERNAN: I feel somewhat sad for conservatives because you, it always has to return to, the very first conservative you only have like hundreds of years ago. Well, if you go past William Buckley,SHEFFIELD: Well, Buckley was horrible. I mean, he wasn’t a conservative, I would say. he was a reactionary. I mean, that, that’s the difference. like when you, so in the 20th century, there were basically two figures in, in, in Britain and the us, that the right had to choose between effectively.And, one was, was Michael Oakeshott, who was, British, and he advocated for a processual view of everything. So, the cognition is a process. State craft is a process. There is no destination. There is only the responsible stewardship of the public trust.And so, he supported things like national healthcare. He, was, against, reli. He was not religious at all, in fact. And then you had, this other guy who was German [00:22:00] emigre into the United States named Eric Voegelin. And, have you ever heard of him? I don’t.I don’t. I, he’s,HEFFERNAN: no,SHEFFIELD: Basically the Americans chose him. Buckley chose him, and Buckley, in fact basically stole, Vogel’s, one of his signature phrases, “don’t immanentize the eschaton.” That was a, catchphrase that Buckley used a lot and they had on bumper stickers even, to try to make him seem like he was smart, but he actually stole it from, and soHEFFERNAN: the Escha that’s, that is the, afterlife?Yes. No. What does it mean?SHEFFIELD: No, it wasn’t so in Oh, okay. In the sense that Gellin meant it, what he meant was that he was an anti utopian. and, so the point of politics as he saw it was to well basically support, Christian dualism effectively. . and to make it be anti utopian. So make people think, well, things can’t get better, so you should just keep, give up about trying to improve things because they can’t ever be good. Humanity’s fallen, we’re stupid, we’re lazy, we’re worthless. And just accept that and get over it.And, like that, and that was basically the, idea of Voegelin. But, he dressed it up in, he was just, I mean, he was a horrible guy, frankly, and, just as one example, his, core thesis was, he was railing against what he called Gnosticism. Except Eric Voegelin couldn’t read classical, Hebrew. And then, he also had not even read any Gnostic texts because they hadn’t been discovered when he started doing his research. So,HEFFERNAN: I mean, I feelSHEFFIELD: it’s insane.Jeffrey Epstein and libertarian conservatismHEFFERNAN: It makes me, it’s sort of, it sort of feels like we shouldn’t give quarters of our brain [00:24:00] left to lately in going through the Epstein files, as they’re turned out, I think of all the intellectuals who I took seriously, who were in Epstein circle and and whose names will be forgotten, including God willing, John Searle and other people that we, that were in the group that I was in with Epstein Edge,SHEFFIELD: Oh, you were in on that, I did not realize that.HEFFERNAN: I was in edge.Yeah. and and. the fact that they, that we’re like fast finding out that for five decades, the American ruling class was depraved in the extreme and extracting everything from, women, children, and had a eugenics plan. I mean, you, it’s, like sort of more polished Q anon.I mean, it’s just, bizarre. What, or, it’s, and it’s so overwhelming to read the files. I don’t blame anyone for not looking at them, but the victims who are parsing them, especially quickly, especially keenly are finding, just example upon example of how of.All the kind of domains and spaces and idioms that were captured. And, and that includes b******t Ry departments, like evolutionary psychology, like, like all kinds of neuroscience. The new atheists, the, certain kinds of Christians that, Peter Thiel Christianity, which we, we’ve talked about Rene Gerard, some of Steve Bannon was obviously School of Epstein, right around Epstein.Journalists like Michael Wolf. and, and then, if you take the whole, just like, I think I said this in a recent piece in the New Republic, but you take the Victoria’s Secret aesthetic, right? So it’s like affecting people, whether they know it or not, a whole. Sort of way of knowing and understanding the world [00:26:00] paradigm that affects you.If you step into a mall, into a bath and body works certain sense, the way that the images of girls look, the, very, very useful girls, on the one hand, the evolutionary, that’s all Leslie Wexner program. He is Jeffrey Epstein’s biggest client, benefactor. There’d be no Jeffrey Epstein without the owner of, the, of L brands.And then at the high level, you have Harvard students in the evolutionary psychology department, much of which sponsor Pinker by Epstein, Steven Pinker. learning that, that rape is a male prerogative because something to do with wolf packs and our ancestors and lions or whatever. And so you, I just, I saw some historian, some just like white historian at, Princeton or something saying we should have listened to critical race theory and gender studies. I mean, they were really calling it, and, I mean, in some ways it’s, so vivid that we now have an actual stories and communication between and among people who were pulling the strings for conferences that introduced, David Brooks and, and Sergey Brinn and, all these masters of the universe and Uber mentioned who really did style themselves and how could you not beaded with your power in the world and see yourself as, as, opposed to slave morality as the nietzche.Perfect. Nietzsche and Overman. If you were, if you had Ehud Barack in your inbox and Leslie Wexner and Deepak Chopra and no Chomsky and Steve Bannon, and you were. You, must have felt, and any girl you ever wanted, more than a sultan, and, Hamms bin Almon. and and on and if, you were Jeffrey Epstein, you looked at your dumb Yahoo inbox and you saw one name after another like that. Some of them are asking for advice on girls. The former [00:28:00] secretary, treasury secretary, some of them are former presidents like Bill Clinton. You’re making plans to go to your special Lolita Island, pedophile island on the Lolita Express.How in the world do you not think that you are a God among men? And this is like, you’re the, yeah. And by the way, in terms of real world power, you had a lot of, they had a lot of power over us. extractive power take, like if you, just for men who wonder, can’t imagine identifying with Virginia Giuffre, just think about all the jobs you didn’t get at Harvard and MIT.think about like the books you didn’t publish while Edge was publishing every year. it’s big Question book and even publishing the works of Jeffrey Epstein in some cases. or, if you’re not intellectual, think about, any number of domains about private equity, about, about politics.I mean, geopolitics were being discussed in the same breath as Lolita.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and, I think, yeah, the thing about the Epstein crimes that, yeah, it did really reveal that I think probably more than anything else is that, there was this class of people who were doctrinated, libertarian, right?Wingers, and they had been burrowed inside of liberalism. That’s essentially what we’re talking about. . and, you know, so that, and you just go and you go down the line like that. I mean, one of the things about Trumpism that’s been good in a sense is that he’s taken the mask off and encouraged, these people to let their freak flag fly and they are .you know, and then these Epstein emails, that’s, that is where they’re doing it the most. So, like Larry Summers is not a progressive. Larry Summers is not, he’s a conservative. and and like, and, that’s why I do think it’s, it is very important to [00:30:00] delineate between conservatism and reaction, but they’re not the same.A conservative and then centrist are actually, most of them are just conservative. That’s what they’re,Jeffrey Epstein’s crass statements as illustrative of right-wing epistemologyHEFFERNAN: Yeah. Yeah. One of the things that I think about with Edge and, and by the way, the reason that I brought that up-- through my own fault didn’t finish that thought. The reason I don’t want to talk about those like European philosophers like Voegelin, whose names will disappear, is that I fear that they are like the cadre of people at Edge who were considered these great thinkers and that, and now that we know that they were at tables, Jeffrey Epstein would ask when philosophy came up, what has this got to do with pussy?That, that was the what passed for conversation among them. I really have started to think that there are a lot of Ted talk Davos sophistry that we genuflected before in the form of airport books and even Harvard lectures and then forget about, financial policy, at the Treasury Department or foreign policy.Anyway, I could go on and on, but that we thought were important thinkers and that we’re actually in this circle. Buckley, it seems kind of quaint, it seems like this cocktail party and, in fact included sometimes people like James Baldwin. but the Epstein one is like, when they really get to be on their own, and, they don’t even have to sort of cheat out for the cameras and make it look like they’ve invite, they, they have, they invite women.so. I guess that’s the way, that’s like how, influential are these philosophers as philosophers? Like they had, this bordia power, they had power to like, make things seem obscurity wrong when you were places and you saw, as I did recently at or not long ago, at a conference, John Searle was there with someone 65 years, his junior, who didn’t speak English and he didn’t speak her language Korean.[00:32:00]And and then was quickly fired, at, quickly fired after for showing porn to students, at the Sterl department or whatever it’s called. This his own particular department. for showing porn. Yeah, showing porn to students. that guy was at the conference I met him at, with the woman that he was with.maybe, I think she was more than a teenager, but I. But not much. at that conference, he was the keynote. He had managed to get, first class E for him and for his traveling companion. and yeah, that’s five decades, he’s in his eighties. yeah. And so I, that makes me wonder, what do you do with something that the, what do you do with the Chinese room theory or whatever his legacy is?I just don’t even want to parse it anymore.SHEFFIELD: Well, we don’t, I mean, we don’t need his particular formulation of that question, to, to discuss, the, problems of ai, in our large language models as currently constituted.HEFFERNAN: But maybe we’re asking the wrong question.If the question that that, Jeffrey Epstein wanted to thought everything came down to is what has this got to do with pussy? I think it’s fair to say like, maybe he’s maybe Epstein’s gloss on their philosophical questions is pretty much the right one. And that, like even s’s question, and I don’t want to go into AI ‘cause obviously it’s not our focus today, but that maybe even URL’s way of looking at things, which incidentally, I heard him give the same talk he gave in 1980 in 2016 and .It hasn’t aged well. But but maybe he was just asking the wrong questions. Maybe the pe critical race theory people were right, but, dicing up the world of ideas into these tiny, It restricting the domain from which you can speak. And you and I have really [00:34:00] bonded over economics doing this.Parel saying there’s only one trumping vocabulary in that vocabulary . Is economics. and, the 20th century is filled with people trying to close the argument by, just pointing to something to do with the circulation of money and laws that they keep violating and changing on us, and saying, there has to be structural unemployment and this and that.Like, why did we even learn those things? They just seem out the window now. Yeah. and, and, that was a per perfect one economics as my, my, co-host at, what Rafi says that, econ, they introduce a Nobel Prize in economics. I’m not sure if Epstein’s Circle ever got that, prize, but they got a, so there’s a physicist who got a Nobel Prize in his circle in 1969.And from then on. Economists have physics envy and finance bros have economics envy. And anyone who just wants to make a dollar has, finance envy. And so everyone just like economics is just another name for Garage quick. Like it’s just people just who want to make money, who then think the most important thing to do is study economics.And I think people who want to get laid think that the most important thing to do is study surl. Actually, I can, connect that loop even more if you like to touch on your libertarian point.This might entrust you. Okay. Sort of came to prominence in the free speech, free love movement in Berkeley.And he did that. The free speech, free love, movement crystallized over panty raids, which were, a response to co-education. So you have women on campus and, men are amazed and delighted and delirious, or everyone is delighted and delirious and, and they go and start stealing brass and underwear from women’s drawers.And most women feel somewhat violated by this, but some of them feel like it’s all game, [00:36:00] all fair game. And then is this like a, is this a expellable offense and suddenly it’s a politics around? No, it’s just like expressive high spirits and hijinks and wonderful. And the, some of the girls say like, well, we’re modern women and we think that’s free speech, and we think it’s fine.Some of them say, no, I should be protected. And that seems prudish and and anyway, we’re off and running on free speech and free love, right. But it’s like this weird violation that in retrospect, you don’t have to be a prude to think someone shouldn’t come and steal your property. And then also has an element of what we’d call revenge porn now, where they’re like wearing the underwear and showing that they, taking it as a trophy and it’s not inconsistent with what has that got to do with pussy?The whole like reduction of philosophy of a certain kind to that. and you’re right, that libertarianism, right? It’s like personal freedoms comes down often to the freedom to dominate women and children.Theory of mind and empathySHEFFIELD: Well, yeah. and that’s why, so yeah, I mean your recent series that you’ve been writing about, the, problem of other minds,HEFFERNAN: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Like that ultimately is actually. All politics is about it, is about what are other people and do they have the same rights as me? That’s basically what politics is about. And of course the reason why it’s such a perpetual disputation is that we do not have direct proof of anyone else’s mind.And, so, and so because of that then the moral conclusions then follow that are always, can never be objective. They are always inherently subjective. And so with libertarianism and the 1960s and 1970s, that movement was born [00:38:00] at that same time as kind of a alternative conservatism. That’s really what it’s, and. It is, I like generally speaking, it’s, I would much rather have people be a libertarian than be a reactionary. But, like I would, I probably, if you, some people, some people seem to be either genetically or, socially prone to these types of, beliefs, because they, come from cognition, and they come from, deep seated psychological impulses, like fear of death or fear of change, or, unfamiliarity.So these are things that, that, are beyond politics, beyond religion, that they, the religion and, politics come from them. yeah.And in, in essence, most of human history, we have, to think back that again, all cognition is about what is this and what do I do with it?That is literally what microbes are doing. Also, like your cells and your body. before they can do anything, they have to say, well, this is here, Whatever this is, and that cognition is built on that question, what is this? And, do what with this? And so, with regard to philosophy, this is just all, everything comes from that.So, like in the, original history of humanity, all questions were philosophy. They literally were like, that’s what, pla Plato’s Academy, that’s what, the, the Lyceum of Aristotle was doing. and they were studying all of, they were studying science, biology, they were studying physics, they were studying, ethics.They were studying, all of these history. It was all there. It was all one thing. and they were studying religion as well. And so, and so, over time as [00:40:00] religion became more institutionalized. It started to say, well, some things are inappropriate, supernatural, so that’s magic. And we’re going to be against magic.And magic is bad. And so, so you had, so then everything began to be separated into, religion, magic, and science. and essentially science and religion kind of teamed up to get rid of magic. But magic isn’t inherently wrong. It is a belief in a personal contact with, with physical phenomenon. In other words like that famous phrase of Arthur C. Clark, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” So, the two dilemmas that we have right now are “what is the role of magic,” and “what are other minds?” That’s really what our two big questions in society are.HEFFERNAN: Yeah. I mean, so one of the, in this, so I, I say in this very short series about, about empathy and ultimately about religious tolerance. that, and, other minds. So empathy, so tolerance, That I talk a little bit about, and I don’t know very much, but about, William Penn who, founded the state of the Holy Experiment, the state of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as a place where there would be religious tolerance and freedom of conscience.And he did this in a partnership with Tom and the affable. I think actually Tom and end, his name Chief Dom, Tom End meant the affable one. and somewhere in that [00:42:00] conversation, untranslated, right, like somewhere in, in the, somehow in the way that they communicated, they made a decision to do something, I think was very, I think maybe very radical not to debate, persuade each other, come to terms, discover that they had the same human heart, find things they had in common.And maybe, and because. Penn did not want to be proselytized to. And I think one thing when we think about education in the US is that we think about two, two, what I’m realizing about Christians doing deconstruction is that they believe that the only model for education is conversion so that someone is, that it’s sort of violence by another name.So it’s like some kind of imperialism. When you take a class at an elite university, they’re trying to indoctrinate you to sort of capture you and own your mind. And there’s not a spirit of, Socratic inquiry or other forms of dialectic or dialogue or other kinds of inquiry that where, just out of curiosity, as a curious kid, you get to say as you did, what is it with this Bible passage?Right? And then the other person can say. Damn if I know, I’ve never noticed that before. Let’s look at it in another translation. Let’s do Right. There is only, and Erika Kirk talks often about how much she loves dialogue. I know exactly what she means. She means I am totally, and Charlie Kirk was completely open to talking to the unenlightened savages and just hearing what they had to say, namely, please save me because I know nothing and then you can come and bless and save and convert me.Anyway, Penn and Tamin and agreed that they held completely, they had spoke in different idioms, they had completely different cultures. They were practically all but illegible to each other. But the one thing in common is they just wanted to be left alone to speak their language and have their lives.And so they made this wonderful agreement in retrospect, we don’t have that much of the [00:44:00] documents and pens. Sam Penn’s children actually betrayed the contract they signed, but the contract was live and let live and it was a little bit.The religious tolerance seems like such a low bar. Liberals especially want to make it something other than that, like ble, a blending of souls or great empathy, or we’re somehow all the same or that, everyone needs to learn every language so they can participate without appropriation, without exoticizing in every other culture somehow. But I think it was both more and less ambitious when Pen and Tamin said, what about you do your thing even if you believe I’m going to hell.Even if you believe your God is the true God, even if you believe you know that you know by rights, the world belongs to you. And only temporarily am I inhabiting this part of it, and I will likewise believe that mine is the utopia. Mine’s the true God. You’re going to hell, you’re a barbarian. But it doesn’t matter.We’re never going to try to persuade each other. We’re not going to try to have a circular argument about this. If we haven’t get along or trade this or that with each other, fine. But in general, we’re going to do the thing of knowing that you believe. Things that could be abhorrent to me. I eat knowing you have your own mind and anything could be going on in there.And it’s a universe. My mind is galactic to me. Your mind’s galactic to you, but, and guess what? I am just not going to come and punch you in the face because of it. That’s it. Yeah. The only restraint today is just that you are, you can sit in your house and think, God, I can’t believe how much those maga people just hate liberals.They’re just sitting there thinking, wishing Virginia Heffernan goes to hell. I think, I think Tucker Carlson has actually said that with my name, but Tucker Carlson has his mind. It is a whole universe. And just today I’m going to let Tucker Crosson have all his beliefs, and I’m going to tolerate the fact that other people believe something other than mine because how else can we oppose the violence they [00:46:00] do, except by accepting that they have other minds and then.It doesn’t matter what Jonathan Ross thought. He doesn’t get a full subjectivity that, that Renee Goode doesn’t have that. I don’t have that. You don’t have, we it, he, but we object to the violence that he did.Rene Girard and Nietzschean ChristianitySHEFFIELD: Yeah. yeah, no, and that’s, and I think that is the right framework. And this is where I think Rene Gerard comes into the picture becauseHEFFERNAN: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: He essentially rebuilt Christianity on Nietzsche. That is essentially what has happened. So, that, basically even to, sorryHEFFERNAN: Matthew, do you want to just tell our pals, why, we’re talking about Rene Gerard?SHEFFIELD: Oh, sure. Yeah, so, Rene Gerard, he was a French literary critic. Most people haven’t really heard of him. because he didn’t have a lot of prominence while he was alive. But he’s much more influential now. His star pupil was Peter Thiel. And basically Thiel has dedicated his life to, sort of forcing the ideas of Gerard onto the entire world.So, so Gerard, he was a con, a convert to Catholicism. he started off as a, non-religious postmodern French intellectual, so very steep in the, the French Nietzche tradition, which I think is very badly misreading Nietzche and his project. And so, but basically he took his Nietzschean inclinations, and merged them with his new Christian faith.and then essentially kind of rewrote Nietzche, but for a Christian audience. So, one of Nietzsche’s, [00:48:00] core ideas being that all, all of society is organized around resentment or using, he, I mean, he borrowed the French word ressentiment, and that he re he recoded that to be saying it’s mimetic desire.And so all of Girard is basically kind of our rebadged Nietzsche. And of course, I’m sure anybody who’s a ARD fan will be absolutely aghast in me saying that. but nonetheless, it’s true. And, and so, so basically they’ve taken the, core idea of Nietzsche, which is, there are everything is perspective and then moved it to, so therefore we can believe any false objectively, non-scientific belief. Everything is, so basically truth is a function of power rather than a function of, a, of, proof. And, and that is, I mean, essentially what post-structuralism argues, but they are trying to do it from a point of liberating people from that. Whereas this postmodernism that we have today is essentially saying, yes, truth is power and we’re going to take it and we’re going to make you believe our power. And you really see that in this second Trump administration. I mean, basically, Stephen Miller had said, recently, yes, we live in a world of power and that everything is, it comes down to that.And, it, essentially kind of restating with Thucydides said about foreign policy, that it’s all about the strong do what they will and, the weak suffer what they must.HEFFERNAN: Yeah, I mean, there’s no, I think, Rorty, Richard Rorty, so my mentors as Rene Gerard was Peter Thiel’s, said that [00:50:00] a liberal, and Rorty was the liberal who uniquely took his own side or say in an argument, right? He believed in actual just liberalism, which has religious tolerance as a key component. But anyway, he said a liberal is a person who thinks just this, the cruelty is the worst thing you can do.So any, anything that ends in cruelty is something that liberals must oppose. So, whatever immigration policy ends in the shooting of a innocent woman in the face the other night is a policy to oppose whatever your theory of immigration or state boundary state borders or nationalism. it doesn’t matter that po there’s something inhumane about that policy and that’s it.We just take it from there. But as you point out, Stephen Miller and, and, and Nietzsche, actually believed that the aversion to cruelty was the worst thing you could do. I think you quote in that, the essay you showed me about Gerard, and we should link it ‘cause it’s really was really interesting, great passages from Nietzsche that you pulled out.But one of them that said, God, I can’t even, he’s just such a terrific diabolically good writer. but something about these men that. Can’t re but respond to suffering in this feminine way by wanting to alleviate it. something like that. I don’t have it. which is like, yeah, there’s something, the terrible weakness in you, if you, if you, shy away from doing cruelty or if you, or, if you want, leave morale to under or soothe suffering.Right, right. I think I, I saw something by a, I saw an interview with a former, border guard, ice border guard, and, she was talking about all the ways that you [00:52:00] license cruelty in yourself. And mostly it’s, I mean on a mass scale, she’s repenting right now, but, they called, I guess the people, coming over the border.She was on the sa at the southern border that she called. They call them tonks ‘cause it’s the sound. Flashlight makes when you hit the person on the head to knock them out, but also call them bodies. So only bodies. And she said she was able with some conditioning to see them as not human. And without being able to see them as not human, she never would’ve been able to, gotten over her impulse to care for them, that she felt like was there.And, we could argue, and I’m not sure it’s worth arguing whether there is a natural instinct to oppose cruelty, but what I like about Rorty is he says, A liberal is a person who thinks the cruelty is the worst thing you can do. So if you, for whatever reason, you do not need to believe in God or Marx or Mao or anything, but if just out in your kind of.I don’t know, just it like in your infinite possibilities of how you can look at the world like the, microorganism that you just brought up, who like sees a thing and thinks, what should you do with it? If you see an act of cruelty like in Minneapolis the other night and you think that’s the worst thing a human can do, then you sort of know what you’re supposed to do politically.You don’t then need to derive any of your beliefs from philosophers of the Enlightenment or anywhere else in your private life. You can believe in all the superstitions you want. You’re totally allowed to think that, or actually find that praying for a parking place gets to your parking place.But it’s not a good basis for policy. In the, public sphere, your beliefs in magic or the Bible or revelation or the fact that we all need to get to Israel for the second coming, that’s not how you [00:54:00] design policy, foreign or otherwise. what you use that your beliefs for are to make your private life beautiful.And what you use your commitments to ending cruelty for is to make your public life humane. and that’s the best I think I can do to summarize Rty. when you get to Gerard and Nietzsche, you get to kind of. Crazy metaphysics that is essentially science fiction, right? Like at the end of Girard’s life.a and Teal at times has talked about, really lunatic, end time stuff. They believe in all kinds of sin and they just believe in well, andSHEFFIELD: They say that liberals are the antichrist. Literally they say,HEFFERNAN: That’s right.SHEFFIELD: It’s what they say.HEFFERNAN: That’s right. Liberals are the antichrist. So they believe that’s right.Yeah, right. So Thiel has been lecturing on the antichrist. So that’s the kind of world building that they ultimately are doing. And one of the things that comes with their world is a willingness, as in many video games and other sci-fi worlds, a willingness to do countenance, cruelty, to do cruelty, to encourage cruelty.and and then you see that in Steven Miller. So just a whole world designed to inverting. Not just the principles of, kind of Christlike Christianity or something that seems a little more jesusy than some of this other weird stuff. And, or, but the enlightenment too, but just standard liberalism.Don’t hit your kids, don’t hit your kids.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.HEFFERNAN: There.SHEFFIELD: Exactly. yeah. And, the, and that’s why it does go back to the, problem of other minds that, other people have the right to their beliefs and they have the right to their thoughts and they have the right to different thoughts than you do.HEFFERNAN: Yes.yes.SHEFFIELD: And that’s, and, that, and going into [00:56:00] psychology, I mean, developmental psychology, there’s just this enormous corpus of literature about both, developmental psychology in terms of, people have to progress through different cognitive abilities.And because everybody in our original earliest states, we’re entirely egocentric. And we, we are not able to perceive, the world and pay attention to it and understand it. And you see that just as simply as that, little, Susie doesn’t want to share her toys with her baby brother, because he doesn’t have a right to toys. Only she does.And that problem unfortunately scales up because a lot of parents don’t impart proper theory of mind into their kids. And then you see it also, this kind of-- so what starts from an egocentric frame of mind also eventually devolves into a fear of other minds.and I think that’s. That is kind of the core of the appeal of a lot of these reactionary, conservatism in that, because it’s like ostensibly they are Christians and supposedly they care about, society having more Christians in it. But so, so if you’re getting immigrants from illegal or otherwise from Latin America or whatever, these people are Christians and in fact, they’re probably more devout, and more Bible reading and believing than most of their American haters are.But it doesn’t matter because they’re not full people, because they’re not, they’re not American, they’re not white, or whatever.HEFFERNAN: Let, okay, first it’s 2 0 4, so I don’t know if we are supposed to meant to keep it to a certain.SHEFFIELD: We don’t have to, butWhy reactionary Catholicism is becoming more popular in the U.S. far rightHEFFERNAN: Okay. If we can, go on for, 10 more minutes or so.I, I [00:58:00] hope this doesn’t bring us too far field, although what field are we in to start with? I, when you talk about the Christianity of many of the people, especially, coming over from South America, it, I think one thing we’ve seen since Trump took office a year ago is, a split among Christians.And that is into see if you agree with me, but I think we’re starting to see a split between Protestants and Catholics assert itself or reassert itself that’s been papered over for a long time and so much that, Martin Luther Kings, I think. Even before he said he imagined had a dream of a world where white and black children would be together.He thought a world where Protestants and Catholics would be together. now we have, I don’t, I still don’t quite understand where Mormons now fit into the scheme. I know they’re not Catholics. but there’s a different word, right. For Mormon church.SHEFFIELD: I mean, people would classify them as generically speaking.HEFFERNAN: Right. Okay. So, but Know it’s Catholics coming over the border. Nick Fuentes is a Catholic, Catholic, Candace Owens is a recent Catholic convert. JD Vance is a Catholic convert. Peter Thiel is, I don’t know if he’s a cradle Catholic, but he certainly became more ardent about it. Like Rene Gerard, who isn’t, was a con, was a, convert.they have, they’re like in Opus Day there are people who think the current pope and the Pope that preceded him are too far to the left. and, so more Catholic than the Pope put it that way. and they, Tucker Carlson is Catholic Curious. He’s an Episcopalian, but he is talked a lot about how he maybe should be a Catholic and they have a very different relationship to Christian Zionism.[01:00:00]And this comes to theology than do Protestants who grew up with it. especially evangelicals who grew up with Christian Zionism. And are not quite sure that there is a Judeo-Christian world, right? They think that the church superseded, the people of Israel or Israel, instead of fulfilled a prophecy or that the Jews have still a chosen place, or that the state of Israel under Netanyahu, fulfills some particular thing.So this is really loud on the right, right now it’s sort of Charlie Kirk, the way that Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes used to show down before Charlie Kirk died. was along some of these lines. and the Catholics in this equation, the reactionary Catholics are much more anti-Semitic. they, they tilt me a Nazi.They’re isolationist, they’re anti-Israel. they are pro-Palestine in ways that like ominously means that some on the left approve periodically of the things they say. a lot of them. So, Marjorie Taylor Greene, was victim of priest abuse, or at least witnessed pre priest abuse when she was a young Catholic.And that influenced her obsession with the Epstein case and Q Anon. the sort of idea of a cabal of pedophiles was, actually something she was familiar with. and and I think all that is informing the conversation even around policy issues like Israel. Oh yeah, like support for Israel, and, yeah, and also how to accept immigrants, because Catholics have a giant empire and they have Catholics everywhere, and they, and Nick Fuentes has a Mexican, mother, a grandmother, and, and so a grandfather.And so, I think there’s a like a little [01:02:00] more hospitality to, to Catholic immigrants also. anyway.SHEFFIELD: Well, and yeah, and actually, yeah, as far as, and even like with regard to race, I think that’s true as well, that, generally speaking. I mean, if you look at the people who show up to Nick Fuentes events, a lot of them are black, a lot of them areHEFFERNAN: Hispanic.SHEFFIELD: Yeah,HEFFERNAN: That’s right. That’s right. It’s, he’s, can be less of a white nationalist. He’s a Christian nationalist, but, he, yeah. And objects to Trump now, just as Candace Owens does along the lines that he’s like a globalist who’s aligned with Jews. I mean, who knows? Although they do believe that there’s some philosophical reason for this, and Catholics and Protestants haven’t always, you paper over those differences long enough and, yeah.. And I think the difference between traditional Zionists and Christian Zionists has also been papered over and is splintering, yeah. Right now in interesting ways. This is all just to talk, get more to talk about the right and also talk about Stephen Miller as I think quite a secular figure.I mean, he, his wife will say any criticism of him is antisemitism, but I think as you point out, it’s straight, it’s doctrinaire, might mix right. Sort of I don’tSHEFFIELD: Nietzschean.HEFFERNAN: Very Nietzschean. Yeah. I guess Nietzschean. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. well, so there, yeah, the Catholic point is one that I, think doesn’t get covered in the media as much as it should because within Catholicism, there has, from its very beginning, been an anti-democratic elitist, tradition and that was something that was regnant within the church up until, roughly Vatican two, just a little bit before that. Probably one of the most influential reactionary documents, that has ever been published is the Syllabus of [01:04:00] Errors. and that was, published, by, Pius, 12th, I think. I’m sorry, I might not get the number wrong, so don’t, crucify me guys.This idea that modernity, is evil and it’s satanic and it has to be stopped. . you know, it, it’s, that is something that they have in common with, far right Protestants, but the far right protestants just do not have any sort of intellectualism, and they don’t have a history.So, so like, one of the fascinating things about, besides the fact that all that science, magic and, religion, were all together. That’s also the case within the artistic, world as well, that, all political traditions were kind of mixing up, for, centuries.And you just really saw that, in a lot of the Christian art and literary traditions that existed. like Michelangelo, you obviously was, anyway, that’s it. That bit far afield.So, but essentially, they right wing anti-modern people have figured out, that Catholicism does have this rich well of monarchists or fascists beliefs that they can draw upon. And so that’s why people like JD Vance have kind of gravitated toward that. I mean, JD Vance is someone, who has always craved stability and obeying authority. that’s what he is done his whole life. He’s not a guy that, wants to think for himself.He wants the thinking to be done for him more powerful people. And so that Catholic tradition does, it has a lot of appeal and that’s why you are seeing a lot of people, go into it. But that trend existed even before the recent influencer trend. Like when you look at the Federalist Society, [01:06:00] or right-wing judges overwhelmingly historically, they came from, they were either Catholics or Jews.They were not evangelical. Because evangelicals, their tradition is against intellectualism. It’s against trying to figure things out and use your . . whereas, at least with reactionary Judaism or Catholicism, they, don’t, they’re not against using your mind and just want it for intolerant purposes.Somatic experience and a politics of determined loveHEFFERNAN: Yeah, I mean, it also should be pointed out that, just as white supremacy and anti-racism or civil rights c grow together, there is also the pope himself, the first American pope who is quite progressive. And, and then the re new interest in liberation theology. It’s really my domain. But, the fact that I’m in New York, we have a democratic socialist, mayor at Democratic socialism was founded in part by Michael Harrington, the great liberation theologian.and, and the, sort of activist wing of it, I think John Fugelsang, whose parents are a former monk and a former nun who fell in love. When both of them had just taken vows of celibacy, and left and married and had John, and now he’s written separate separation of church and hate about the, the fundamentals of ju of Jesus’s radicalism.which is something I think of interest to some Catholics. and, and, and, South America has been a, a, site of kind of some liberatory practices. And so with Venezuela and the news and so on, who knows what will happen. But, and obvi and o OBAs day, he has been like really shunted out of the Vatican and, and, JD Vance is, I mean, it seems like the current pope.Has no trouble [01:08:00] trolling him and subtweeting JD Vance and, otherwise dunking on him. you, he’s pretty explicitly, critical in a, good Chicago, black Hawks way, I dunno. Yeah, Of JD Vance and that, and that, that’s been interesting to see too. But there, there’s life yet in these ancient religions.and, and, I think one of the things I once again get from Rorty is that there is no real strain of Christianity that points you to policy decisions in the present moment. I mean, I don’t know if you saw this, but a Tucker Carlson interview with Ted Cruz and, he, and, this is before.I’m not sure if it was before October 7th or not. It must not have been. But Tucker was asking him with his usual antisemitism, but, so I’ll caveat to that, but asking Ted Cruz why he is such a strong supporter of Israel. And Ted Cruz said, well, somewhere in the Bible it says, he who blesses Israel be blessed and he curses Israel be cursed.And Tucker Crosson says, well, where is that? and Ted Cruz is embarrassed and shuffles around and doesn’t know. And then, tuck Tucker, kind of zings him and tells him where it is, and then, says, well, but is this the Israel in Genesis that’s mentioned in Genesis? Is that the Israel that’s like run by Netanyahu?and it’s Tucker’s show, but you know, Ted Cruz is in the hot seat the whole time and can’t keep it together and can’t make any point. But the kind of overarching, like, why are we down here in the nuts and bolts of what God said to do about Israel? And someone’s point about some one passage in somewhere in some translation of the Bible that no one can remember, and they’re talking about it.And these two are debating, like they’re really important theologians and Ted Cruz has a real education, but we’re not seeing any of it because a passage about being blessed and cursed, which are, what are those things? They have no like correlates in the physical world that is determining Israel [01:10:00] policy, that kind of thing is determining Israel policy.This is a US senator making decisions about whether to further arm, a nation involved in genocide. And what is your grounding for doing that, sir? A passage in the Bible that has unfalsifiable claims about blessing and cursing to do with the word, can’t even remember Israel, that has something to do with something and he can’t even remember it.Yeah. So like that’s where we are. And and that’s what happens when you take religious reasoning and turn it into guns and violence. so that’s why according to Rorty, you don’t purify your religious thinking so that it’s so great that it immediately leads to perfect policy and moral decisions and ethical decisions in your life.‘cause you never will do that. You will not refine Bible stories such that you know exactly how to share your toys or not cheat on your wife. It’s just not going to happen. You do these things happen in different lanes. Politics, your political self is a much, well much simpler, but apparently harder thing that it can, you can be too smart for it.You can’t be too dumb for trying to. Oppose cruelty and prevent cruelty. it’s why things like the video the other night or the images of Gaza, that, Hillary Clinton and what’s her name, Horowitz, would have us never watch because they could cloud our thinking to see videos of Gaza. But those are the things that drive political action.The same thing happened with Vietnam, with images. Just, it’s very simple. When you’re making a good political decision, you just want to be on the side against cruelty. yeah. And, and then in your personal life, you can dream up as many lizard people and private life as you want. and, our tradition in America of religious tolerance of sort of respect and for other minds of, we don’t have a single religion, we don’t have a single language as much as Trump would have.It otherwise [01:12:00] means that, within the confines of your brain and your person and maybe your community. You can have all those beliefs, but one thing does not have to inform the other. And listening to William Penn have a whole idea about how the world should be run, or tamin have a whole idea about how the, lenape, were to live their lives.He was our, he was a leader, right? But just having no interest in telling Penn how to lead his life and vice versa. So what I don’t get is why like Ted Cruz can sit home with his kink about being blessed and cursed and blah, blah, blah, and Israel, and reread the Bible and look things up and pray on his knees and ask for forgiveness and do whatever is little, Christian heart desires, but please don’t go and, please don’t go and continue to vote for a genocide, and then cite the Bible as if that closes the case for anyone but you.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. well, that’s right. And, and, the. and that illustrates, this dichotomy with regard to, blessing Israel or whatnot. that does illustrate kind of the poverty of the evangelical tradition becauseHEFFERNAN: Yeah,SHEFFIELD: what they’ve done is essentially based a vast series of i policies and ideas based on one verse, that, they have taken outta context.so the, context.HEFFERNAN: But let’s say they took it, let’s say they took it in context because Nick Fuentes has talked about this too, and he says, well, no, because that is real, is the, as the sym Jews, and later they are the church, sorry, the church supersedes them or what it’s called, like replacement or something.It’s got the same replacement, whatever.SHEFFIELD: Supersessionism. Yeah,HEFFERNAN: supersessionism and, yeah. Excuse me.SHEFFIELD: I mean, yeah, I mean,HEFFERNAN: yeah, I mean, all of this sounds, even if it was sounds like Lord of the Rings, like I, okay, the orcs took over. They’re no longer the thing of [01:14:00] the S and the whatever. I am fine to listen to them, I guess.No, I’m not. I’m impatient listening to sci-fi. I just don’t care. I don’t care about Ted Cruz’s. I mean, Peter Thiel’s Antichrist or Nick Fuentes says thing. Yeah. They lead to neo-Nazis and they lead to whatever. And it’s toy thinking that way lays the rest of us. And like our good brains that could be like, to this exact point of we have ICE in the streets.So if like you have good strategic ideas about opposing ICE, then that is a very good thing to bring to the table. If you want to talk angels dancing on heads of pins and ENTs and orcs, then you know, there are definitely Reddit boards for that. And I, so in other words, I don’t think that a good biblical scholar, maybe John Fugalsang, or you or, a better reader than all these people should come along and say, well, actually what Jesus wanted was this, and that’s why we should oppose cruelty. or, if you read this carefully, you’ll find out that Israel is or isn’t prophesied as the contemporary state of Israel.all of that analysis is kind of nothing as opposed to, and again, I get this from Rorty, but, one or two photographs or one or two images of the, Renee Good being shot in the face, for making decisions about what to do.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, so I mean, ultimately, cognitive psychology, it does, basically, I’d say there’s a general consensus, not everybody buys it. The, cognition, there’s basically two types of partnership. There’s what I, call the somatic reasoning, which is the reasoning that comes from your body. It’s your instinct, it’s your intuition. And that’s good enough for most, most things in your life, but it is, [01:16:00] egocentric.It’s based on your stuff. But, that’s the thing. It is actually the basis for abstract reason, the other kind, because abstract reasoning always has, and this is the problem with large language models, is that they don’t have a somatic core to, to pull from. and so, but the thing is, so, so your somatic intuition’s about your own experience, nobody can falsify that, like .It’s objectively true that you’ve felt something when you experience something. And so like that’s, that’s the phenomenological basis of all truths. and, so, but the problem is that’s not. That cannot work as a basis for someone else. So in other words, I felt something is not a justification-- somatic experience is not a, it cannot be a source of truth for anyone else.And so we have to be able to think outside of our own body, in order to, and that’s the basis of society is to say that, our personal experience, it is valid from a civil rights perspective. And it means we have civil rights.But basically, what you’re describing, like that’s, that was the basis of the enlightenment also, but, and, Penn’s experience of, doing that fits within that larger project, but we just, we haven’t explained it.So like a lot of people don’t know the history. They don’t, know why this stuff works and why we believe it, and that’s really what it comes down.HEFFERNAN: Well, I mean if you count as somatic experience the evidence of your eyes and ears, right? I think So we’re now talking somatically about the body.So the eyes and ears just take a look at the videos about, of the, of the murder the other night and the other day and, and. Whatever your intuition and sense of it [01:18:00] is probably pretty right. they’re definitely, and by the way, that intuition does not have to be whose fault it was, or, it just that gut feeling that you get from photographs and fiction and and works of art, where you know what to do.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.HEFFERNAN: And the thing to do is to make sure that never happens again.SHEFFIELD: Exactly right.HEFFERNAN: AndSHEFFIELD: yeah. So,HEFFERNAN: and that’ss theSHEFFIELD: truth. Yeah.HEFFERNAN: And everyone who doesn’t want that to happen again, is on our side. They don’t, it doesn’t matter if they, it doesn’t, it truly doesn’t matter what they believe about immigration reform or if they’re socialists or Antifa or right wingers, or never Trumpers or maga.If you look at that and think, that should never happen again, then then I want to be in solidarity.SHEFFIELD: Exactly. And whatever your other beliefs are, we can work it out. That’s it. We believe it.HEFFERNAN: Your other mind is, your mind is your own place. Yeah. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: That’s right. Yeah. So like, ultimately the best way to defeat this fascistic, monarchist impulse is a politics of determined love. Like that’s really what we’re talking about here.HEFFERNAN: Yeah. Rorty says, so told Jurgen Habermas, right before he died, and it’s this like rare, very sincere moment that he just wanted to live in a world where the only law was love.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And yeah. And and we have to do that in our own lives and, promote that as a way of life for everyone else. And we did.HEFFERNAN: We have to end there. there’s no way. Matthew, thank you so much. I always love talking to you.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, this was great. now, do we know how to end the stream? I don’t know. Can you I see X button.HEFFERNAN: I see it. I see an X. I’m going to push it. Thank you so much everyone for joining us.SHEFFIELD: Thank you [01:20:00] everybody. Thank you Virginia! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

As The Electorette returns with a new season, there was only one place to start: the front lines of civil liberties. In this episode, Jen Taylor-Skinner is joined by Deirdre Schifeling, Chief Political & Advocacy Officer at the American Civil Liberties Union, for a wide-ranging and urgent conversation about what Trump’s second term really represents—not chaos, but a calculated “shock and awe” strategy designed to overwhelm the law, the courts, and the public. They discuss the ACLU’s unprecedented legal response, the escalating attacks on immigrant communities, and why the Supreme Court’s upcoming birthright citizenship case could fundamentally redefine what it means to be American. Deirdre also explains how coordinated legal and civic pressure can slow executive overreach, why public engagement still matters in moments like this, and what people can do right now to meaningfully defend civil liberties and the rule of law. Mentioned in this episode: Firewall For Freedom: States Must Safeguard Our Rights Stop ICE's Attack On Our Communities Episode Chapters & Timestamps 00:00 — Season Return & Why the ACLU Now Jen kicks off the new season of The Electorette and explains why beginning with the ACLU is both urgent and necessary. 02:00 — “Shock and Awe” as a Governing Strategy Deirdre Schifeling explains why the current moment isn’t chaos, but a deliberate strategy designed to overwhelm the law and civil society. 06:30 — The Scale of the ACLU’s Legal Response How the ACLU mobilized immediately—and what it means to file hundreds of legal actions in a single year. 09:30 — Immigration Enforcement, Due Process, and Escalation A look at aggressive immigration tactics, racial profiling, and why conditions may intensify as new funding takes effect. 14:30 — Public Backlash and the Limits of Fear Politics Why demonizing immigrant communities has consequences—and where public resistance is already visible. 18:30 — Are the Courts Holding Up? An assessment of how the judicial system is responding, where it’s working, and where the risks remain. 22:30 — Birthright Citizenship and the Supreme Court Test Why the birthright citizenship case is so consequential—and what’s at stake for the Constitution if it fails. 28:30 — What Birthright Citizenship Really Means Historical context on why birthright citizenship exists and how it defines American equality. 33:30 — Executive Power and the Role of the Courts How recent court decisions have expanded executive authority—and where guardrails are most needed. 38:30 — What Comes Next for Civil Liberties Looking ahead: where pressure points are likely to emerge and how rights are most vulnerable. 42:30 — Civic Engagement Beyond the Courts How public participation, organizing, and legal advocacy intersect outside electoral politics. 46:30 — The ACLU’s “Firewall for Freedom” Strategy How state and local governments can act as safeguards—and what that looks like in practice. 51:30 — What Individuals Can Do Right Now Concrete ways people can support civil liberties, engage locally, and stay involved. 55:30 — Final Thoughts & The Work Ahead Closing reflections on this moment, the long view, and why sustained engagement matters. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My returning guest this week is C. Thi Nguyen, a professor of philosophy at the University of Utah, and author of the new book The Score: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else’s Game.  We discuss the nature of games, why it's problematic to build a society based on keeping score, and whether or not the real monster is always capitalism. Enjoy!The Score: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/735252/the-score-by-c-thi-nguyen/Music by GW RodriguezEditing by Adam WikSibling Pod:Philosophers in Space: https://0gphilosophy.libsyn.com/Support us at Patreon.com/EmbraceTheVoidIf you enjoy the show, please Like and Review us on your pod app, especially iTunes. It really helps!This show is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.Next Episode: Lottocracy with Alex Guerrero

Episode Summary  Donald Trump has been on the national political scene for more than 10 years, but in a lot of ways, it seems that America’s top news organizations have yet to figure out how to cover him properly. That’s a serious problem because during his second term, Trump is encountering much less resistance from within the Republican party, and as a result, is breaking domestic and international laws much more frequently and blatantly.In 2015, the national media were not prepared for a politician who lied as easily as he breathed, and who viciously attacked anyone for telling hard truths about him. A year into his second presidential term, they still have not been able to adjust.Despite the many failures of America’s media with regard to Trump, however, it is also the case that in 2025, some journalists, like the Pentagon press corps, showed courage and alacrity in dealing with the bullying and the deception—including from corporate executives eager to show fealty to an administration that loves to deploy government power against independent media.But Trump himself is not the only one assaulting American journalism. It is coming under attack from within thanks to billionaire oligarchs like Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos who have bought up marquee journalism institutions and corrupted them through paying off Trump’s nuisance lawsuits and hiring Republican spinmeisters like newly installed CBS editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, who has made a career out of passing off conservative dogma as moderate pragmatism.There’s a lot that happened in 2025 with Trump and the media, and so in this episode I wanted to unpack some of it with Margaret Sullivan, she’s the executive director of the Journalism School at Columbia University, the former public editor of the New York Times, and a former columnist at the Washington Post. She also writes for the Guardian and for her newsletter, American Crisis. Be sure to check out the series she wrote on journalism ethics at Columbia Journalism Review as well.The video of our December 22, 2025 conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content—In his second term, Trump’s lawsuit threats against the media are getting real results—America needs to hear what Republicans think, but that should be through reporting, not platforming lying commentators—Flashback: Far-right media channels were previewing Trump’s radical second term agenda —How reactionary media outlets are radicalizing conservative Christians—Trump and the radical right are utilizing the same disinformation playbook developed by tobacco companies in the 1970s—For nearly a century, Republicans have been pretending to be the ‘real liberals,’ Bari Weiss was only too happy to helpAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction07:12 — What Trump could have done with a Fairness Doctrine12:15 — Bari Weiss and the myth of the moderate conservative TV audience21:22 — Media organizations pushing back on presidents36:03 — Journalism as public philosophy40:38 — Rethinking objectivity in journalism45:16 — Democracy cannot function properly without a public that thinks soundlyAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So it’s been the first year of the second Trump administration and I thought it would be good to do a retrospective of how things were in this first year in the media, from your standpoint and whether you see things changing for the better or for the worse. There’s a lot to talk about, so why don’t we just start overall with what are the main differences in the way that Trump is being covered this first year versus the previous term?MARGARET SULLIVAN: Right. Well, I wish I could say that I saw a dramatic difference in the way he’s being covered in this second time around, but I don’t really think that’s the case. My feeling is that the mainstream press never really learned how to cover him to begin with. And I don’t really see a huge change in that. You have to deal with the fact that he has a lot of lies and misstatements in what he says. But they’re so constant that I don’t think that the mainstream press has sort of ever—there’s fact checking, there’s an effort to say, oh, well, that wasn’t true. But there’s still there’s still a lot of the same stuff that I think beveled the press and the public, [00:04:00] frankly, in his first term.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think that’s, I think that’s right in terms of the coverage. In terms of the owners though—SULLIVAN: Oh, that’s, that is different.Yeah, that is different. I mean, we’re seeing in big media just this really very fast consolidation of ownership that is continuing to progress. So these media conglomerates are getting bigger and and they, and then the decisions, this is particularly true. But not only, but particularly true in the world of, TV news. So, ABC is owned by Disney, CBS is now owned and controlled by Paramount Global, and that too is probably going to grow and get, bigger or different. CNN is in the mix because of because of their ownership and, it kind of. Goes on and on like that. So, I think what happens is that the priorities are less coming from the journalists. Not entirely, I don’t want to overstate it, but certainly there have been decisions that have been made about settling lawsuits. That Trump has has begun that seem pretty clearly to be coming from corporate concerns rather than journalistic values.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. One definitely with ABC, that was the case. And CBS as well. And yeah, the, I think what, a lot of this has shown though is that really, what we, what the media had in terms of, standards and things like that, they were norms. there was no real mechanism by which the public could hold them accountable or the staff could hold them accountable or something, organization professional associations or whatever.These didn’t exist, and [00:06:00] that’s, I think is the kind of biggest thing about the 10 years that we’ve had of Trump on the scene is that norms are nothing. Ultimately they exist only in your mind, they’re enactments, they’re not actual, real things to stop problems.SULLIVAN: No, there’s no, it’s not as if there are media cops out there who are going to say, let’s consult the, society of profession or professional journalist, code of ethics and issue tickets. it’s, and this, as you say, a lot of what’s happened. During both of these Trump administrations is that we found out that people were acting out of norms that had developed for a long time and that the norms have been smashed. And oh, I guess, oh, that can happen and not, and there’s no consequence for it. And maybe the norms weren’t so great anyway, but in some cases they at least sort of, There were some good things about them. So, but we find out that, in a way, this is, again, a little bit overstated or maybe a little falsely stated, but it’s like, it’s like we were all on the honor system and now we find out that’s, oh, there’s no consequences for doing things another way.What Trump could have done with a Fairness DoctrineSHEFFIELD: and there’s an interesting paradox to that topic more generally though, that when we look outside of the United States. Some countries, like the UK for instance, have agencies, government agencies like Ofcom, and these agencies exist in many different nations, that do have regulatory power on media.And I, it, I think a lot of times people have said, well, that would be nice if there was something that could administer accountability. But gosh, can you imagine what Donald Trump would have done with an Ofcom under his control?SULLIVAN: I mean, i’m always very nervous about the idea of the government, whatever, government having, direct regulatory or funding power [00:08:00] over the press. So, I mean with, the funding piece of it, I, think about this in terms of the demise of local news, which has really, continued at a really fast downward pace. And people say, oh, well, certainly you wouldn’t want to see direct funding of news organizations. And there was a long time in my many decade career where I’ve said definitely not. and now I am like, well, I don’t know. Would it mean the difference between keeping. Some local newspapers coming operational or not.And maybe in some cases if there could be some guardrails built in, maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. But, and people always, the public likes to remind me that there once was a thing called the fairness doctrine, which had some which had some power over, kind of. Kinds of issues for, broadcast news and that, went away long time ago.And people, I think it’s more that they like the idea of it. I’m not sure they would really like the reality of it too much, but.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I think that’s right. And when you look at Brendan Carr, FCC i, it’s obvious that this would be something that, that, Trump and his cronies would a hundred percent abuse in ways that would be appalling to even the most ardentSULLIVAN: Yeah, I think that’s right. Yeah, that’s true.SHEFFIELD: The other thing also is and of course this is, I can say this as a former member of the liberal bias industry is that, the, Trump administrations, especially in the second one here, is this is the apotheosis of the liberal media bias complex. Since Reed Irvine and Richard Nixon in the seventies had spent basically 50 years completely undermining and attacking the, national press and saying that it was [00:10:00] hopelessly, permanently irrevocably biased and must be de-legitimized.Trump is, this is the fulfillment of that Nixon project. And in a way that I think a lot of people, that’s not something that I think, has been remarked upon enough.SULLIVAN: Right, Right, And I think another thing that came out of that era was, the birth of Fox News. You know that, oh, we can’t kind of Roger Ailes, Nixon, the idea that we can never let this happen again. We can never let a Republican president be drummed out of office again. this is the, thinking on it.I’m not saying I subscribe to this, but so we need to have our own media and now, and then, Fox is born. I think 1996. And, we see what a profound impact it has had. And then of course, everything that’s kind of cropped up around that. But Fox itself is still, powerful in its own way, influential. Influential, I guess I’ll say.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, it’s, yeah, it still remains the biggest node in the right wing mediaSULLIVAN: Right, right, right. sure.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and I mean it, and that, that, project that you, that we’re talking about here, it is. I mean, they, literally did Roger Ailes and other people wrote a memo for Nixon, to, create television news Incorporated which launched as a proto, CNN, actually, that’s actually where CNN came from. I just a, I don’t, I’ll link to I think it was Gabriel Sherman that wrote, about that with regard to Roger Hales in that end. That’s it’s a little bit of history that’s, it like, I, and it’s, it, created satellite television in, in a large way for news integrated in, into a that way.SULLIVAN: That Was a time too, when basically social media didn’t exist. And so we really are living in a very, different world [00:12:00] now in the world of podcasters. She said, well, on a podcast and, very powerful media figures who aren’t traditional journalists, but rather, influential voices, whether we like them or not, they’re very influential.Bari Weiss and the myth of the moderate conservative TV audienceSHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. Well, and one to that to that point, one of the other. Kind of dynamics of the first year of Trump from the corporate standpoint is that it does seem like, especially when we look over at Skydance and Paramount and the installation of Bari Weiss at CBS News that there seems to be this thought that there’s just this massive audience out there of, of right wing voters who want a staid broadcast news that it has more Republican talking points in it. And I don’t think thatSULLIVAN: Right. Right, I mean, I guess I would tweak what you said a little bit. I think the thinking is that there’s this that there’s this huge demand for some sort of center-right kind of mostly centrist, but also kind of right-leaning like the, Scott Jennings, Scott Jennings, who as your listeners probably know is, on CNN for the most part.And, is a defender of Trump’s, and, has been recruited as I understand it, by Bari Weiss at CBS as he’s oh yeah, if we could only have more of that. And I agree with you, Matthew, that I, don’t think there’s a huge demand for that. CNN tried a version of that a year or two, I can’t remember now, a couple years ago where they tried to go very, very sort of center, right?I think and, it wasn’t successful. In fact, it failed pretty badly. So, I mean, CNN always [00:14:00] struggles, so who knows? Who knows what, what can work there. But yeah, the, this sort of thinking that, yeah, the Bari, that Bari Weiss is the answer because she’s anti woke and she won’t be like the rest of these liberal media, people. And in fact, she’s, that is turning out to be the case. But whether it’s a successful formula, I have my doubts, especially when you. Do things that alienate your newsroom pretty badly, like she’s doing.We’re recording this. The day after we find out that Bari quite unilaterally has with, held back an already reported, already vetted, already lawyered piece. On 60 Minutes about these El Salvador prison that would make the Trump administration, attempts to hold them to account and they tried very hard to get comment from different heads of agencies and departments and so on and, probably from the White House and, this happens. You don’t get comment. Well, you, run the piece anyway, and you say they wouldn’t comment. But what she’s saying is, no, we’re not going to run it because it’s lacking in that comment and it needs more reporting. Well, the, that reporting piece of it has already been done. And when you have. When you have a staff like you have at 60 Minutes, that’s very experienced. They, don’t like that. And I think that, you don’t really want to lose your newsroom, which I would imagine she’s in the process of doing just that right now. Yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and a lot of them have already quit. And I have to imagine that, people are, looking, are the people who are still there are, looking for the exit and trying to find a place to land. I have no doubt about that. Now with, yeah, with regard to her though, one of the other initiatives that she has put into place which will be launching in 2026 is a, debate series, which [00:16:00] seems to be trying to recapitulate the, the debates of a b, c news filed in the, 1960s with or I think it was, or was it the seventies? I forget the, whatever that was with William F. Buckley Jr. And Gore Vidal.I think that’s what they’re trying to do, because I mean, for ABC they were the, and also ran at that time, they were new network. And they use them to get more ratings. So I think that’s what she’s trying to do.But the problem is she doesn’t know how to have debates and she doesn’t have relationships with people who can actually have a meaningful debate. so she’s booked basically a bunch of Alan Combs, liberals.Or, people who are conservatives like stephen Pinker to represent the left. And it’s like, well, this is not, this is a Potemkin debate. and, the topics that she wants people to debate are tired and boring. And one of them being, has feminism failed women? Well, the fact that a a woman is allowed to be the editor in chief of CBS News and also one who is not straight that would seem to be kind of a, an indicatorSULLIVAN: Yeah. And also one who’s never, and also one who’s never been a journalist. How about that? Add, that into the list of qualifications. Certainly, and certainly, anyway yeah, I mean, it, it doesn’t seem like a super compelling topic to me.But and also she, had this vaunted town hall interview with Erika Kirk, which, from what I’ve read, the ratings were poor. Not that everything should be about ratings, but I don’t think it sort of caught the public imagination in the way that might have been hoped.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And, I think the reason for that being that the people who like Erika Kirk do not like CBS News, they’re not going to watch it. And then the people who [00:18:00] are watching CBS News.SULLIVAN: Right, right. And I think that’s, and I think that is a, actually a lot of what happened. A version of that happened at CNN during that period we were talking about, which is who’s your audience here and who do you think your audience is? Because I’m not sure there is one.So I mean, there’s something, there’s, to me, there is something appealing, of course, about trying to. Get an audience and a readership or, people, citizens, if you will, who don’t necessarily agree with you or may have very different takes on things. I mean, I think that’s good, that’s what AmErikan democracy is supposed to be about.But this version of it that’s kind of, it’s seeking an audience that is in somebody’s fantasy world and turns out not to really, it’s what you said. The, fans of Erika Kirk don’t like CBS. The people who are traditional CBS watchers don’t, don’t like Erika Kirk. So you’re kind of. You’re kind of missing them both there, I think.And, it’s, we, experimentation is fine and great but I think you have to know a little bit about what you’re trying to do. And so far it doesn’t seem like that’s happening at CBS News.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and as somebody who was, in, in a past life, in, coming from a more mainstream, moderate, conservative viewpoint which I’ve since changed from I, I can appreciate what she’s trying to do, although she doesn’t want to admit that’s what she’s trying to do. I think that’s part of the problem is that she tells people that she’s a liberal when basically there’s no position that she has that’s liberal other than that she supports seems to support abortion rights and seems to support lesbian and gay marriage.But that’s, those are positions [00:20:00] that lots of Republicans have in fact. And we can see that obviously with these abortion referendum, they all, they pass everywhere, they’re, allowed to be on the ballot.SULLIVAN: Yeah, there those are, that’s become sort of mainstream thought, so it’s not really liberal. So Yeah. it’s, it’s a weird, it’s, it’s interesting to watch it play out. I don’t think it’s, it know, it’s sort, of disturbing, but it’s, and just to, so sort of see the, As you mentioned, the settling CBS settling that lawsuit that Trump filed over 60 minutes interview with Kamala Harris LA last fall before the election, which, was pretty standard editing. From everything I know.And so, to sort of say, oh, this was edited to make her look good. And then for CBS to say, here’s whatever they said, $16 million for your presidential library. I mean, I’m, I don’t, I’m not a hundred percent sure of those numbers, but you know, they settled it.What they didn’t do was say, this was standard editing and we’re going to defend ourselves. So then when that happens. When ABC does what it did, which was also subtle it gets much harder for the next media organization to stand its ground.Media organizations pushing back on presidentsSHEFFIELD: It does. But I do, we do have to give some credit to the, New York Times and CNN for resisting Trump lawsuits against them in that regard.SULLIVAN: Yeah, no ab absolutely, and I would say even more, well, as much as that the Associated Press, which, because the Associated Press has a global audience. It’s not just people within the boundaries of the United States. When this thing came up about, oh, we’re now going to call this body of water. The Gulf of AmErika, something that had been called the Gulf of Mexico for many, years, and to people around the world, it is known as the Gulf of [00:22:00] Mexico. the AP said, well, no, we’re not going to change our style book because of a, what appeared to be a whim. And then Trump. Punished them by keeping them off of Air Force one and keeping ’em out of briefings and stuff like that. And so the, AP has sued and they, it’s still happening.This, they sued, they won one round. There was an appeal. They lost a round. So, but they have not just sort of said, oh, okay. And then I think the other thing, Matthew, that we saw was all these, almost every news organization walking away when. Pete Pentagon said, you basically in essence said if you want a press pass, if you want credentials to enter this building and come to briefings, you need to only publish what we say is okay. And really hardly anyone would agree to do that.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, absolutely. And that was a, definite, bright spot for sure. but it does also contrast with the White House Press Corps, I think in a bad way for the White HouseSULLIVAN: You mean Because it, it suggested some solidarity, which we don’t see from the White House. Yeah. You’ll, get a, like a strongly worded letter, but, But you know, when, the president, points to a reporter and tell, orders her to be quiet and calls her piggy, there’s basically very little reaction in the moment at least.It’s just kind like, we’re just here to do our job and we’re, and some of that is about competition. Some of that is about fear of losing access. So I would like to see that improve.And what I mean by improve is I’d like to see some collective [00:24:00] action there, even if it’s, honestly, even if it’s just the next person up saying I or several people saying, I’d like to repeat the question that I can’t remember her name at the moment from Bloomberg News said, becauseTo point it out and say, I don’t think it’s acceptable because it’s really not acceptable.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And and I, think it’s worth looking back to the Obama presidency because there was, they, there was solidarity against something that Obama did that his White House was they were contemplating, or I think they did at one point talk about. Banning Fox News from briefings because of its obvious partisanship.And that was pushed back even by CNN and all the, television networks said, no, you can’t do that. And and look, I’m not a fan of Fox. I, they lie pretty much all the time. And but they still are a part of this country. Like it or not. And they have a right to, to be there as a, as an organization that is professional and that does produce, yeah. New shaped contentSULLIVAN: Yeah, no, I think that was good to see during the Obama administration. And they backed off very fast and, which, obviously these are two very different administrations, but it does suggest that some kind of collective action and pressure might have an effect, but we don’t know because we’re not seeing that. So that’s, unfortunate.SHEFFIELD: It is. Well, and this is really a, classic case of the tragedy of the commons in a lot of they’re not they’re not used to an administration, but so constantly and blatantly, viciously attacks their profession and, their content and their, the things that they make. And so they just think, [00:26:00] well, if I don’t, they don’t say anything, then it will go away, or that everything will blow over.SULLIVAN: Some Some of this I really think is competition and, journalists are always been competitive. It’s not, it’s, it doesn’t tend to be a kind of all that much sticking up for each other. It tends to be quite competitive and as I said before, nobody wants to lose access.And meanwhile, your bosses are probably like, just stay in the room and so we can put your question on the air later and show that we’ve got someone in the briefing room. I mean, that’s the motivation more than sort of press rights writ large.SHEFFIELD: Well, and it’s, and it’s an antiquated. Idea, I think because, I mean, nobody, the audience, they don’t give a shit. If you have somebody in the room there or not, they do not care. They just want to know, do you have news that is interesting to me? And important. That’s what they want to know.they don’t care if you’re in the room. They don’t care if you get on camera with a question. It doesn’t matter to them. They don’t even know who your journalists are for that matter. So you’re not accomplishing anything. But this is just this very antiquated mentality from. going back to the idea of, when televised news briefings were novel, so it was a, a status point to have your correspondent on camera and everybody knows, oh, so and so from X, Y, Z asked this question.But those, incentives do not exist anymore forSULLIVAN: not as, Certainly not as much. I mean, I do see, for example I mean, everybody likes to make fun of the evening news broadcast that they don’t matter anymore, but actually they have pretty big viewership,SHEFFIELD: Still bigger than any cable news show. Yeah.SULLIVAN: Exactly.SHEFFIELD: show.SULLIVAN: It’s like if you look at them collectively, the three of them, the three, big ones, it’s like, I think it’s something like 20 million people a night, or it [00:28:00] was, and ABC will say now, and I, I don’t know whether viewers care about this, but I do see it, here’s Mary Bruce, she’s there, and we’re going to hear, they don’t say it just this way, but we’re going to hear her question to the president right now.And I think there’s some sort of pride of, pride of place there. Whether that is meaningful to the public, I don’t know. But then again, ABC is the leader on, among those three. So maybe there’s some effect on,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, the, there’s definitely a, solidarity problem. And I guess one of the other stories of 2025 that kind of did illustrate that also, or that came out in 2025 was the absurd saga of. The reporter, Olivia Nzi and her basically some sort of affair involvement with Robert f. Kennedy Jr. And seemingly actively working to protect him from, damaging news or to get ahead of it and giving him a strategic advice. I mean, this is, i, we haven’t seen anything like this in a long time. time Seems like.SULLIVAN: No, I mean, I have been, the whole time that was happening and coming out and developments were coming out, I was teaching an ethics course, a journalism ethics course at Columbia University. And, we, would, it was like it became this like ripped from the headline class because it was, one week we seemed to be talking about the coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein files and, or, what was coming out in the early releases of those emails. The next week we were talking about Olivia and Noie and we, former fiance Ryan Lizza, who was writing on Substack all the time.I mean, it was. It was pretty wild. And, I would say to my students who are graduate students in journalism, one of my mantras throughout the course was [00:30:00] like, there’s a, in the, in journalism ethics, there can be a lot of, there can be a lot of gray areas. Not everything is cut and dried, but I was, when, the Olivia Nzi thing came along, I was like, no, th this actually is something you should never ever do. Th I can tell you that this one is black and white. Don’t do that.SHEFFIELD: good. You, could have just put her picture up on the wall and say, okay, that’s it. Just follow this story. Don’t do this stuff. do this.don’t,SULLIVAN: don’tdo this. So, but, I mean, it’s it’s been a, soap opera for sure. And it’s also something that regrettably, I think if you already hate the press and you don’t. Bring a ton of nuance to it. You’re like, see, what they do. And That’sSHEFFIELD: yeah, and that’s, an, important point because, actually, I, recently rewatched the, the, film Broken Glass about Stephen Glass. And, it was really notable to me when I was looking at the production credits as they flash on the screen, how many huge. Movie stars had financed this film.Because, I think that a lot of the public, and thanks to Trump and Nixon and all these other people and have, they really do want, the public to think that all journalists are unethical, all journalists are liars. All journalists are trying to manipulate you. And so, this, the, news, E story and, glass, this is exactly what these people have wanted and it, really propels their narrative so so far.SULLIVAN: I mean, the thing is that, journalists do mess up and news organizations do mess up, and then when they kind of come clean or are forced to come clean and talk about it, when they, for example, have a public editor [00:32:00] or when they have to give back a Pulitzer Prize or any of that stuff, it actually seems to, even though you know the transparency and the. And the fessing up is necessary and the corrections are necessary. They actually also add to the problem of people’s mistrust, which is at a low. Very trust is at a very low level anyway, so it, all kind of makes it worse and it’s difficult to know how the press recovers from that because it’s been going on, as we’ve been talking about it, it’s been going on for decades.And I think Trump has really because he’s been so constant about it. About fake news. Charging mainstream reporters with being fake news and talking about what a terrible reporter this person is or you’re a loser and all that sort of thing. And even though a lot of people don’t like that and they think he’s being rude, I think his message still resonates toSHEFFIELD: It, it does. Yeah. And, you as a former public editor have some credibility to talk about that topic in particular.And, but, we, those positions have basically entirely, mostly been eliminated. Although, ironically now CBS News has one, and he’s a Republican donor donor.and activist, so.SULLIVAN: Yeah. I mean, that’s not exactly, I don’t think. I don’t think that’s a true ombudsman or public editor. I mean, usually if you want to do it right, and I think I was the public editor of the Times, and I, think I, I think it was a good position to have. You, know what you want. There is a veteran editor or reporter, someone who is a journalist who kind of knows how this stuff works and is not. As you said, and not an activist, not clearly political and not chosen to have a particular point of view.I mean, when I did the job, I was trying to just reflect what the [00:34:00] readers of the New York Times were saying to me. I wasn’t kind of trying to bring my own politics into it, but rather to say, Hey, I’m hearing from a lot of readers and they’re upset about this story, so how about it, Dean Beke, what, went on here and what is the reason this story was reported this way?And then, I would kind of be able to report it back out to the readers and to synthesize it and draw some conclusions myself. But it wasn’t like it I think the CBS one is it, that’s not an ombudsman in the traditionalSHEFFIELD: Yeah. no. I, don’t think so. Well, and, but these, dynamics of organizations that issue corrections and fess up to mistakes and ethical breaches the, paradox as you, noted, is that when you tell the truth about your mistakes and your fallibility, it makes. Captious critics more likely to say, see, they’re all this way. And they themselves do not ever admit mistakes. They do not admit lies. They do not admit ethical breaches and, and, that’s not something that they’re fan base ever. They, never are able to draw that juxtaposition in thathypocrisy.SULLIVAN: right. I mean, what I have said a lot is that you can. That a bare minimum for judging whether a news organization is credible. And a reasonably good source of news is do they have a corrections policy and is it, can you find it somewhere and do they follow it and do they run corrections? If not, then whatever mistakes they make or whatever falsehoods they put out there, whatever they’re doing, it’s just onto the next thing. And so, I think that’s a litmus test. But in order to, get that idea across to the public, we would have to have like mandatory [00:36:00] news literacy taught in schools. And I don’t see, I mean, I’d be afraid right now of what that would look like.Journalism as public philosophySHEFFIELD: Yeah, if Trump’s around the class. Yeah.Well, all, of this does point to the. A larger dynamic, which I think a lot of journalists and editors and producers, they don’t want to think about, which is that journalism is public philosophy actually. If it’s going to be any sort of approximation to reality and not just peer advocacy if you’re doing reporting, what you are do, you are in the epistemology business, whether you realize it or not.SULLIVAN: Yeah, I mean, we’re trying to determine what’s true. We’re trying to seek. Publish the truth and, the truth as close as we can get it. you in, when you’re on deadline and there’s a developing story, you, at least want to stay close to the facts and then try to, try to get as close as possible to truthful information that you’re sharing with the public.And it’s not just, I mean, it isn’t just that, it isn’t just, here’s a bunch of facts. But it’s also what stories do we choose to do? How are we framing these stories? What’s the headline? What’s the photograph? What investigations have we decided to put a year and a half into? So when people say, I don’t know why these places can’t just tell me the facts and get outta the way.I understand why people say that, but I also know, because I’ve been in the business for a long time and have run a newsroom that. You’re constantly making choices. And that’s a part of it. And that the purpose, one of the main purposes of journalism is to hold powerful people and institutions to account to the public, so [00:38:00] again, I think this stuff is kind of, is not really well mis well understood. Matthew, when I, was at the Washington Post as their media columnist for a while, and while I was there, it came to my attention that there were a number of people who, when they saw a source and a story that was given an anonymity, so they weren’t named they actually thought that those sources were also anonymous to the reporter.SHEFFIELD: Oh, yikes.SULLIVAN: A phonecall, like, Hey, here’s a hot scoop. And when in fact, places like The Post and the Times and many cnn, there’s like a whole process for using an anonymous source and the reporter and probably at least one editor absolutely knows who that person is. And it’s a decision to, are you going to let them, speak anonymously?I think it’s overused. It’s not just because somebody called you up and gave you some supposedSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Wow. I did, I, didn’tSULLIVAN: kind of goesSHEFFIELD: thought that, yikes.SULLIVAN: yeah. It’s, it, I thought it was amazing, but, and I would hear it from time to time, not, there obviously are more sophisticated readers and, listeners and viewers done that too.But some people think that, and, we don’t do a great job of explaining ourselves to people. And that’s part of the trust problem.SHEFFIELD: It is. Yeah. and, ultimately, I mean, really what the, fundamental questions of journalism are, what is truth? How can we know truth? What in this instance is true and what is meaningful? And these are all philosophical questions that have been being shuffledSULLIVAN: I mean, I never know.SHEFFIELD: of years.SULLIVAN: Yes I agree, but I also don’t think that journalists tend to spend a lot of time thinking that way. Maybe they should, but I do think that most journalists are, pretty interested. They, they want to [00:40:00] get it right. They really do. And so that speaks to your idea about, truthfulness or not.But then, you have politicians who lie and what are you going to do about that? When, maybe one of the politicians who lies a lot is the president, what are you going to do about that? Are you not going to quote him? Are you not going to put his lie into a headline? What about if he wants to give an address to the public across the broadcast airwaves?You’re going to take it live and just let it all spew out there. I mean, these are all decisions that have to be made. And there, there’s no rule book really.Rethinking objectivity in journalismSHEFFIELD: No there isn’t. Well, and, that does, circle to the question of objectivity, which is something that you recently wrote about under the headline. Is objectivity still worth pursuing?So first of all, what I mean is, and you, quote the philosopher Thomas Nagel, who has is very relevant in the context of machine learning and AI as well. Now but in this context, you talk about the, view from nowhere whether that caneven exist and itSULLIVAN: Yeah. Yeah. There’s a change. There’s a change in the way we talk about objectivity. But there it’s, if by objectivity you mean I enter a story, I’m a reporter, I enter reporting this story with an open mind, and I am looking for evidence that I’m going to then present to the public. If that’s objectivity, I think that’s great, but often what ends up being. Called objectivity or seen as objectivity is just well, we’re going to take, we’ve got two opposing points of view and we’re going to present them as equal. And people call this, both, sides. Both sides and things, which means like, well, there’s, no such thing as climate [00:42:00] change. And a group of people who say, no, actually climate change is a big crisis. And like if we were to present those in a story as kind of equal that’s, and if we were to present them as equal, I don’t think that should be called objectivity. It should be called laziness. Because you’re not actually trying to bring anything to it except sort of st this person says this and this person says that.So, if that’s object, if that idea is objectivity, then I think it’s out of date.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.SULLIVAN: Maybe it had a place once. But if objectivity is, the idea of entering a story with an open mind and looking for evidence based. Facts that you can make into, what you’re referring to as, truth?Well, that’s a different matter. So it’s, sort of how youSHEFFIELD: yeah, it is. Well, and, then there is also the question of who you is. And I think that’s been probably one of the biggest ongoing problems of the national press in the united States, is that it tends to overwhelmingly be the same editors who have worked there for decades, and they hired the, their, alumni from the university they went to, or they hired their friends, or they solicit op, op-eds from their friends.Like there isn’t and so basically what it’s done is it’s created this insular community, which sometimes people call the village, quote unquote if you remember that and like there’s this, and it is insular and it’s, not only not able to see certain stories but also it’s, excludes most of the public from the conversation. conversation.SULLIVAN: Yeah. And then I think then there has been. This effort to have what’s been known as diverse voices. And [00:44:00] particularly in the wake of the George Floyd murder in 2020, there, there was sort of this reckoning in newsrooms about, well, we see things from this old school point of view and we need to look at it differently. And that had its moment, but I think that moment has. Passed quite.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. It has, and I mean, ultimately. I think what has to be done is that people have to, they have to figure out how to bring, bring in new, voices, but maybe not necessarily directly. In other words, you can say these are things that people are talking about. Because a lot of times they might be somebody who’s not used to being interviewed, they have no idea how to do it.So if you interview them, they’re going to be embarrassed or, and, or they won’t want to do it. So, but they’re, but what they’re saying is still important and it still matters. and then also just the idea to, as, you said earlier, that the media business has to educate the public about what this is, what you’re doing.Because ultimately any concept concepts don’t exist in some platonic realm. Concepts are actions. They’re what you are doing. They’re not what you think, and even the act of thought is what you’re doing. IThe challenge of democracy requiring a sound-thinking publicSULLIVAN: Yeah, and I mean, not to get too wonky about this, but there are organizations out there that are trying to do that thing of teaching people how to compare and contrast how to judge whether a news organization is legit or not, or. And I’ll just mention the name of one that I’m familiar with, the news literacy project, and it’s like gone into like, it’s, reached millions of people, but it hasn’t reached even more millions of people, to sort of say oh, and I’m sure you do this too, you see something circulating on social media and you sort of go, really, I wonder about that. And then often. What I do at [00:46:00] least is I start to kind of search around and see is this the only place that’s reporting this and is this place that’s reporting it credible? does it have a history of credibility? Does it correct its errors? We could put the litmus test in there. But there’s a sort of a, learned way to not just go, oh, wow, that’s really interesting. Let me share it, and therefore spreading it all over the world. Which we’ve seen an awful lot of. So yeah, I think we need some, help in thatSHEFFIELD: do. yeah, and, and, one thing on that end, so I is that within, so within, political science and, cognitive psychology, there’s a pretty large volume of studies now over the decades that have noted that people who have more, let’s say intuitionist or somatic ways of thinking compared to abstract reasoning that they, drift toward right leaning parties.So that the paradox of, what I’m of Bari Weiss at CBS and some of these other initiatives is they, something like that should exist. But it has to be educating conservatively inclined, or, somatically inclined people about abstract reasoning and why it’s good.and I don’t think that’s what she’s going to want to do. but like, yeah, the conservative assent to democracy is one of the, core ways that it can exist. Because it’s not for somebody who thinks that their own personal feelings about God or the Bible or whatever, that they are the absolute truth. If you think that, then you’re not well suited to participate in ademocratic republic.SULLIVAN: No, that’s true. It’s true. I mean, people ask me all the time, how can the reality based press, people who [00:48:00] basically deal in facts and, not just share a bunch of lies. how can the reality based press. Get through to the crowd that is so willing to accept a conspiracy theory or declare that an election was rigged or so on.And I mean, I wish I knew the answer to that. I, really don’t, I don’t think it’s by putting Scott Jennings on the air, I, don’t think it’s, I don’t think it’s about the things that we’ve seen. And I, I wish I knew the answer to that. I, really don’t. But I think it’s important because because that, as you just said, if we’re going to have a democracy, which is questionable, honestly you need to have an informed electorate.And that what they need to be informed of is actual facts edging right up to the truth. Hopefully it’s even the truth at some, level. So, I think there’s some real problems.SHEFFIELD: There are yeah. Well, and that’s why people like you are out there, Margaret to elevate these issues that the, you don’t have to offer a solution, but we, have toSULLIVAN: Yeah, we can. We can at least excavate the problem, so, yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. All right. Well, so, for people who want to keep in touch with you, Margaret, why, don’t you give some advice?SULLIVAN: I mean, I, have a Substack called American Crisis and it does not have a paywall, so, I mean. I ask people for money, but you don’t have to give me money. I took the paywall down. So that’s one way. And I also write for the Guardian’s American outlet called the Guardian US. And those are the major places that, that I’m publishing these days. SHEFFIELD: Okay, cool. And yeah. Great. And we’ll have a link to your series in the show notes.SULLIVAN: Oh, that’d be great. Yeah, the series, I’ll just say real quick, was about sort of a new, of trying to take a, does [00:50:00] traditional journalism ethics need a fresh look? And it was published in Columbia Journalism Review. So in several parts. So, if people are interested in that it’d be great if you gave ’em a link. I’d appreciate it.SHEFFIELD: Okay. Cool. All right. WellSULLIVAN: Sure, thanks Okay, Matthew.SHEFFIELD: Alright, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation and you can always get more if you go to Flux Community where we have the video, audio, and transcript of this show, and also a lot of other articles and podcasts about politics, technology, media, and religion, and how they all intersect and create our culture. And if you want to stay in touch, you can do so on Substack at flux.community, or you can subscribe on Patreon. Just go to patreon.com/discoverflux.Thanks a lot for your support. And if you’re watching on YouTube, please do click like and subscribe. Alright, I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode Summary  It’s a new year and while so much is going wrong in the country and the world right now, there are actually some signs of hope. President Donald Trump’s abduction of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro could certainly be the beginning of a period of prolong violence in that country, but the fact that Trump is engaging in foreign policy adventurism is actually proof of his political insecurity here at home. Trump’s weakness is easy to see: Democratic candidates vastly over-performed polls last November. Trump’s approval ratings in general and on the economy are near record lows. The administration’s cover-up of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes has deeply conflicted many of his supporters. Congressional Republicans just scheduled their first-ever votes to override Trump vetoes.Of course, we have no idea what else 2026 will bring, but a big part of ensuring better outcomes is envisioning how they can be made. And in that regard, the new mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, is very much worth discussing. In the first place, his policy positions are much more in line with Americans’ desire for massive social changes. But it’s not just the policy. As a candidate, Mamdani is a great example of a Democrat who has adapted to the current media and political environment, and he was someone willing to put in the grueling work of rallies and on-the-ground campaigning—just like Trump was in 2024.Talking about all of this with me today is Elizabeth Spiers, she’s a contributing writer at the New York Times, a podcaster at Slate, and a former editor of the New York Observer.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.Related Content* MAGA and Trump are much less popular after his first year back in the White House, can Democrats seal the deal with the public?* By failing to challenge Trump on immigration, Democrats are ceding the critical issue of American identity* The civic institutions and cultural pillars of our country must be strengthened* Since Democrats are hiding their 2024 autopsy, here’s ours* As Republicans have radicalized, Democrats have become more passive—and less successful electorally* Why Democratic establishment consultants aren’t doing political science* Flashback: Trump’s big 2024 bet on low-engagement AmericansAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction03:16 — Trump is stuck in the 80s, Democrats are stuck in the 90s14:03 — How voters actually make decisions22:47 — Democgraphic identities and economic issues are linked28:03 — Trump’s appeal across demographics32:23 — Democrats playing defense on trans issues38:20 — Trump and Mamdani put in the personal ground work that their rivals did not52:50 — Curtis Sliwa as an example of a Republican who likes an anti-oligarch message and agenda01:02:13 — Democrats have to aim for gigantic majorities, not just ‘wins above replacement’Audio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: We were just talking before our recording here, that in a lot of ways it’s like Donald Trump is stuck in the 1980s and Democrats are stuck in the 1990s.ELIZABETH SPIERS: Yeah, I believe that, I think with Trump, you know how when people peak in high school, they can’t really think about anything else except through the lens of that, that was sort of their high moment and they want to go back there? That’s Donald Trump. B ecause in late eighties, 80, 88, 89 in particular, was kind of his peak in New York society—which is still a place that he wants to be on top of and has always kind of rejected him, but they probably rejected him the least during the late eighties. [00:04:00]And so I think he has done everything in his power to try to be accepted by New York elites. And it’s just never worked for him for a variety of reasons. But you see it in kind of the way that he makes decisions now, the way he views the world. The stuff that’s going on in Venezuela right now, I think.I was joking with somebody yesterday that part of it was that he wanted his own Manuel Noriega and that Maduro wasn’t cooperative, so he just went in and abducted him. But the more I think about it, the more I think that’s actually part of it. He, he has this sort of memory of US activities in Latin America and cooperating with, dictators and using them as assets and then it, when they, when they start to be uncooperative, just arresting them and charging them with drug trafficking.And but it’s, you see it more in his sort of day-to-day, his aesthetic the things that he talks about, the things that he values. And, and I think he, he would happily doom all of us living in 1988 if he could snap his fingers and do it.SHEFFIELD: Oh yeah. And I mean, hell, he is trying to bring back the Star Wars program of Ronald Reagan.SPIERS: Yeah, it’s amazing. I feel like he read a kid’s book about Reagan and took the top lines and said, well, alright, I’m just going to take all of the Reaganism that I think conservatives during that period liked and then replicate them without actually understanding anything about them. He sort of like took the slogan, make America Great Again. He has a very superficial understanding of both history and Reaganism.SHEFFIELD: Well, he does, and, and even with regard to Russia as well, because like if you’re kind of dumb and you look at eighties history You it’s easy to see, wow. He was doing all these deals with the Russians and cooperating with them, and helping them build a better country and make our country safer by making deals with them. Like even though it was the opposite of what Reagan’s intentions were.SPIERS: Well, he [00:06:00] thinks that all of foreign policy, in fact all of his job is really, analogous to being in business. And so, another thing I used to work in finance and one of the things that I, I sort of observed then was that there were so many Wall Street people who saw the movie, wall Street did not understand it as a satire.They thought of it as a playbook. And Gordon Gecko as a kind of hero. And that is precisely the kind of person that Donald Trump admires. And, these strongmen that he sucks up to are, are sort of gecko types. I mean, that, that describes Putin perfectly. And he admires them. So it’s hard for him to sort of wrap his head around the idea that, the Cold War happened for a reason.Democrats stuck in the 1990sSPIERS: He thinks it was all just a big misunderstanding that we can just talk past and he’d rather be friends with the Gecko figure than, and, and, and any kind of antagonism.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and then on the democratic side of the aisle looks like the powers that be continue to be stuck in a time warp in that regard. Just one decadeSPIERS: yeah, so my theory about that is that a lot of the people who still retain a lot of influence and power are people who came out of these campaigns in the nineties, where this sort of centrist model that had some libertarian characteristics that wasn’t as hostile to neoliberalism was electorally successful.That was a long time ago. Every time I see James CarVal being trotted out on a stage to explain what Democrats should be doing, now I want to slip my wrist because I, I don’t think that that model is relevant to the electorate we have now, or the times or, or anything that we’re dealing with. But when you have these entrenched.An entrenched class of people who are responsible for determining how Democrats talk to their voters. And they still consist of mostly those people. We do have a gerontocracy problem. We end up with that kind of rhetoric and I, I, I think it’s just very out of touch with where [00:08:00] people are now.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, it is. And here’s, here’s another further irony about this viewpoint though, is that given the state of the economy in 1992 and the, the, the long lag between the, because, there were like GDP numbers had actually recovered by the election of 92, but, had not, and there were a bunch of other things that had not so.This was effectively an election in which, and then you had Ross Perot, coming in, siphoning away a lot of the people who might not have liked the Republican abortion policies or things like that. because he was pro choice. And so basically it’s almost like I have to say that I think almost any Democrat who ran a reasonably competent campaign would’ve won in 1992.And it had almost nothing to do with their strategy.SPIERS: I, I think I, I definitely think that the secular factors were at work there. I, I wouldn’t go so far as to say, to say any Democrat.SHEFFIELD: I mean, it’s hard. I said, well, I said they had to be competent!SPIERS: Yeah. Fair.SHEFFIELD: And then the same thing also by the way, is true about. Barack Obama in 2008, I would say, because like if you look at polls about, what is the public opinion about what’s your, what is your view of the economy, like the state of the economy and how it’s going, 1992, it was like a, it had a steep slide sorry 2008 had a, it was a steep slide. And so like, again, uh, and then you had the, the Katrina disaster and the Iraq disaster. Like any of those Democrats that were running that year that had a, that were in the top tier candidates, they would’ve won.Now I think Obama himself as a candidate would, was a very good candidate. But the strategy and the positioning they were not as important as his qualities as a candidate and then the overall environment.SPIERS: He wasn’t a progressive, he was, he was a fairly centrist candidate [00:10:00] on, on most levels. So I, I don’t think that Democrats were making a radically different choice, except in the sense that they elected the first, black man as president. I, I think on a policy basis, Obama was not, a radical departure from prior Democrats.SHEFFIELD: But I’m just saying as in that the, like this idea of lionizing presidential strategists because they took part in a campaign that largely would’ve won without them,SPIERS: Yeah. Well, I think it’s Carvile and the war room did a lot to sort of turn those people into quasi celebrities and as much as you can be one, and, and, the tiny sphere, political world. So I, I think that that’s sort of like an an x-factor that, I wrote a column for the Times about how I thought people of that generation had also been brainwashed by the West Wing.And, and for similar reasons. And, and I think sometimes there’s a culture that evolves that, or sometimes devolves a around the way political operatives think about the world that’s really driven by outside portrayals of what happened. And, and I think that’s why we’re, we’re all stuck with Carville.SHEFFIELD: Yeah,SPIERS: About everything.SHEFFIELD: I, yeah, I think that’s a really good point. But, so for, I think a lot of people, they maybe have been too young to have watched that show though, so maybe why don’t you give us a little summary for those who are not familiar.SPIERS: So people who are obsessed with the West Wing would dispute my characterization of this, but that’s because I, I find the West Wing kind of catchy and sometimes insufferable, uh, and, and it’s basically the paradigm of the West Wing is that you have. Essentially, well-meaning President and Jed Bartlett, who is ostensibly a Democrat.Uh, but Bartlett is continually reaching across the aisle to equally well-meaning, but wrongheaded Republicans. And fundamentally, everybody at the end of the day wants America to be, [00:12:00] unified and not divided. And, uh, it, it’s this sort of it, it’s a sort of chorus that you hear a lot in Democratic messaging that talks about bipartisan cooperation, uh, or, you know, the idea that really, you know, we just need to talk to each other, that we have a, a sort of dialogue problem and not political problems.Uh, and that’s not to say that, the West Wing never got into the weeds, but there would be, there were a lot of kind of saccharin moments where theSHEFFIELD: And we should say it’s, and I’m sorry, I should say it’s Aaron Sorkin.SPIERS: Yes. And this sort of idea that there’s some vast homogenous middle that really wants all the same thing is, is something that the show kind of really is sort of built on, and the idea that there’s fundamentally not very much difference between the parties at, at the center.So I wrote this column for the Times about Democrats being brainwashed by the West Wing, and then a couple weeks later, Aaron Sor, Aaron Sorkin wrote a column for the time suggesting that if Democrats wanted to bring the country together, they should nominate MIT Romney as the candidate and the primary.And, and, I, I, I couldn’t ask for a better validation of my thesis, but that that mentality is still there. You, you hear it. And I mean, not just CarVal, but you know, a lot of people of his generation who have worked on that generation of campaigns. Talk about particularly a kind of fictionalized swing voter that always looks the same, and if, if you’re working in modern politics, you, and you have a lot of interaction with people who are actual swing voters, one thing that will become apparent to you very quickly is that not only are they not homogenous, they often vote for erratic and esoteric reasons. And that, ideology isn’t a linear continuum.It’s, it’s more like a 3D plot. You can be highly conservative on certain issues and highly liberal and others, or vice versa. And it doesn’t necessarily wholly [00:14:00] determine where you line up in a partisan lineup.How voters actually make decisionsSHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and also that people change their opinions a lot. In terms, especially in terms of candidates. If, if they’re, if they don’t have, as you said, if they don’t have a consistent ideology and you know that that’s what you would expect them to be doing, and that they are choosing in part based on personality.I mean, that’s or their personal vibe of a candidate. So like one, one thing in political science that is a, I mean, the, like, here’s the irony. I think the sad, sad irony of, of uh, democratic politics is that, the vast majority of political science professors are Democrats or for even further left.And yet the Democratic Party listens to them almost not at all doesn’tSPIERS: Well here, here’sSHEFFIELD: that they have to say. And sorry. Well, sorry. And just, and then like, and they, but.like,one of the things that they’ve said is that and studies have consistently shown that when you have a woman candidate voters are more likely to think that she’s more liberal and she actually is.And so, and so then that was true with Hillary, It’s true outside of the US also, that they assign liberalism to female candidates automatically subconsciously a lot of people do. And, and,andso I don’t, I, they didn’t really play into that at all or do anything about it as far as I saw it.Or very much, or, or, or at least, I don’t know. So like people, in other words, this is my long-winded way of saying that people vote based on their comfort. A lot of people just vote on their personal vibe. And, and if you can’t accept that and that they’re not voting on the issues, they’re just voting on, well, who, who makes me feel comfortable?SPIERS: Yeah, I think that’s, that’s very often true. I think that’s part of the reason why a lot of our messaging falls. We talk to people like they are the embodiment of, the platonic economic man who’s making a rational choice between different policies. And that’s just not the way most people think about it.[00:16:00]But, to, to your point about academic research, we don’t have a huge body of academic research around voter behavior that I think is enormously relevant in modern elections. Partly because in order to study it, you and, and I say this, having worked with academics in some randomized controlled field experiments first of all, you, you have to be able to find people who can do these studies who are not partisan aligned.If, if they’re going to be, if they’re going to meet all of the, sort of fairly rigorous. Study constraints that would lead them to being disseminated outside of partisan circles. Another thing is that, if you’re studying elections, especially presidential elections, they only happen every four years.It’s very difficult to draw massive conclusions when you have, you have, there’s one big national set of data, and it’s the national election survey that comes out, well after the election. But with that kind of frequency, we, at best, we can kind of look at the data and make some reasonable assumptions, and then we might be wrong about all of them.It’s, it’s not like a, a strictly. It’s not like testing something where you have a lot of frequency and you can see patterns emerging over time. It’s, it’s really just we’re working with what we have. And our explanations are heavily determined by historical context and what we’ve seen before, which is why we miss a lot of stuff, especially if it’s emergent and it just hasn’t showed up in earlier elections.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, yeah, that’s a good point too. But evenso, I mean,there’s just, there’s so much in political science that has come out in terms like when they do, ’cause you can run things with, house races or other countries or like, sothere aresome things that, and of course, yeah, it’s, it’s still nothing’s definitive.But nonetheless, like one of the things that is pretty unanimous is that campaign money. Doesn’t really do anything very much in at the executive [00:18:00] level. So, you know, at the national level, the brand of the presidential candidates is no, like people know who they are, and watching another ad about it isn’t going to make you interested in supportingthem.Not at all.SPIERS: I think at the presidential level that’s absolutely true. I, I think down ballot, it, it does unfortunately make a huge difference.SHEFFIELD: Well, yeah, andthat’sbecause name recognition is much, much less. So yeah,SPIERS: Well, and, and there’s less, less earned media too. That’s, that’s, it’s hard to sort of calculate the value of that.SHEFFIELD: That’s true. Yeah. So, but you know, so I mean, still as it is though so much of the, the democratic calculus, it does, it fits into this nineties messaging model I think, in that not just in terms of thinking that people have consistent, moderate preferences, but also in that they think that, well, we were just going to have the right message, the perfect message uh, and the one, the one message to rule them all, if you’ll, And that’s not how things work anymore nowadays.SPIERS: And they workshop it to death, and you end up with not just one message. It’s, it’s always the most anodyne, uncompelling thing ever. One of the things I, I thought during the first Trump campaign, uh, when Jared Kushner hired Brad Parscale, Parscale was coming out of lead generation and digital marketing didn’t know shit about politics.But that turned out to be a little bit of a strength. And the chaos of the administration turned out to work to their advantage because Parscale would just throw shit against the wall and see what stuck. And they were not. You know, there was no real message control. But as a result, you sort of had a defacto experimental environment where, you know, they would just try stuff and they sort of understood better than I think we did, that the media cycle is so fast that if you put out a message that doesn’t work or you know, there’s some downside liability to it, it’s going to disappear in like two days.It’s going to be [00:20:00] out of the discourse. And so as a result, they were able to, I think, surface a bunch of messages that worked and they, they didn’t feel the need to like consolidate them into a consistent platform because they didn’t, Trump didn’t have that kind of consistency. So they, you know, would target one message to a specific audience that they thought it would resonate with and then say exactly the opposite thing to another audience.And, that’s not an honest way to communicate with voters, but it was effective for them.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, yeah, shameless dishonesty can be an advantage on the campaign show. whoSPIERS: Yeah, I don’t, I don’t advise that we adopt that. I, on principle, so,SHEFFIELD: yeah.Well, and, and as a long-term matter, it, it doesn’t work either because, and we saw in 2024 that the Trump did worse among people who followed politics more so like the people who had paid attention and had been listening to what he was saying.They did not support And so, and, and, but then of course the Democrats, they had theother,kind of, the other problem in that, a lot of democratic consulting tends to have kind of a, a fixed model of, of non-white voters in thinking that, well, they’re going to support.TheDemocrats because they’re this race.Or people, well, women will support or women will support Harris ’cause she’s a woman. Or Asians will support her ’cause she’s a, Asian and none of those things turned out to be true.SPIERS: Well, I think that’s, it depends on which population. I, I agree that, nobody’s going to support a candidate solely based on identity. I don’t think that that means that identity isn’t important. If you’re looking at, particularly there, there are a lot of minority populations that vote so consistently democratic and, if, if population is voting, 80 plus percent, it’s, it’s a fair statement to say that population generally skews democratic and, and to sort of assume in the next election that unless you fuck it up, they’re still going to [00:22:00] vote that way.But I, I do think I don’t think you can take it for granted that those populations are always going to turn out for you. And this is where I, I think there are a lot of people who don’t really distinguish between turnout and where natural constituencies lie. I, I think when Democrats screw up serving their, their core base, a lot of those people just stay home.They don’t turn around and vote for Republicans, but they do stay home. And, and I think that’s why you, you sort of can’t ignore the people who have shown up for you the most consistently and very often that is, less, women as a class, but minorities certainly white women have done plenty of voting for Trump.But you know, I, I, so I, my feeling is you can’t pin everything on identity. You also can’t dismiss it. So,Democgraphic identities and economic issues are linkedSHEFFIELD: Yeah, but it’s, and it’s also that these, identity markers, if you’ll are, or characteristics they are correlated to policies in a general sense. So you know that if you are a woman who, might want to have an abortion at some point in your life, then you know, it’s not a, it is not to your advantage to vote for Republicans.SPIERS: Or if you just need to be on birth control for hormonal reasons, you know, all there, there are things that people just don’t even, I I, I think the people who are sort of dismissive of identity and politics sometimes don’t realize how deep those political choices, the policy choices affect specific populations.You know, they don’t, you know, really understand the extent to which housing, uh, is heavily driven by race in a lot of places. Or, environmental regulations, environmental justice is something that I’ve worked on before. Where, you know, we had a, in fact, one of my first. Policy experiences was in college when I was working on a a project for the Alabama attorney general’s office about a, a stockpile of chemical weapons in Anniston, Alabama that we’d had been sitting around since the Korean War and the military [00:24:00] was trying to figure out how to dispose of them.Uh, and they consistently wanted to dump them in the backyards of these predominantly black poor communities. So that’s the kind of thing that, you know, it’s like if I said, how does chemical weapon disposal policy, how is that related to identity? It may not be facially related to you, but you know, whenever you, you sort of, if you’re, if you’re black person who lives in that area of anniston, you absolutely know why identity is matters in that case.And these things aren’t apparent to, especially to voters who don’t fall into those groups of people who are affected because you’re just not aware of it. It’s, it’s not part of your life. And so most voters don’t walk around with some global knowledge of how. All policies affect everybody else.They, they really only understand how policies affect them for the most part.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Well, and I guess the, the reason I’m bringing it up though is just that they, it seems like a lot of the strategies tend to just kindof, theylook at the trends and they just assume they will continue. And, and like on the Republicanside, Republicans didn’treally try very much to get the votes of black Americans, like,SPIERS: they don’t have to, I mean, their, their identity politics based too, but their politics are different. Their, their, their identities are primarily, white, Christian, straight men. That’s, that’s theirSHEFFIELD: Well, yeah. Well, but no, what, what I’m saying though is that Trump actually did try to forward his campaign among black Americans. He, was, was inviting Amber Rose, to speak at the RNC for instance. Or constantly going on these MMA podcasts things like that, that and, and, and, and it worked.I mean, at the end of the day, this was outreach that he was doing, and Harris, and were, invited before her were not doing it. YouSPIERS: I would disagree with that, but yeah,SHEFFIELD: well, they weren’t doing the podcast. They weren’t that’sSPIERS: I, I don’t think the podcast [00:26:00] specifically univer, I mean, and she was doing podcasts. She didn’t do Rogan, but she did a lot of podcasts. And also certainly Kamala Harris was reaching out to the black community. She spent a lot more time there than Trump did. Uh, I think Trump did stuff that was unusual for a Republican candidate, not in terms of reaching out to, uh, minority populations.But in terms of doing the stuff that prior candidates would’ve considered lowbrow, like, doing the mf MFA, you know, that sort of thing. But I think that has more to do with Trump’s personality. Uh, you know, where, where he feels comfortable, truly, and than it does, you know, any sort of strategic outreach to certain populations.I think, it, that was a collateral effect. If anything.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, I mean, you could say that to that Yeah, I mean, this is, he was a wwe sideshow, so, being interested in, in fight television obviouslySPIERS: Now we’re all just a WW side show.SHEFFIELD: Well, and we’re going to have that in the 4th of July later this yearSPIERS: money.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. But, I, I, at the same time, I, it’s, well, and actually that, that does raise another point that, I, Republicans they also, to a large degree, I think they’re the strategies that they’ve had.Havebenefited because of who he’s, So like, I think that there’s a lot of people who would not vote for Republic, except for they would vote for him. Because, they like his crassness. They like his offensiveness, they like his misogyny. They, they like his race, racist, open racism, and like some people, and, and that also is even true, across racial groups.’cause Trump got more numbers than any Republican before him. Outside of Reagan in 84 the highest numbers among black Americans and Hispanic American. I mean, almost, he got a majority of Hispanic men to vote for him in 2024. So, but like, but I guess what I’m saying [00:28:00] though, like a lot of the things.Trump’s appeal across demographicsSHEFFIELD: So this is me giving a caveat, basically saying that, saying, when that there’s a trend that certain things are going this way, it could just simply be that he, he’s a unique candidate because I don’t see a lot ofthese, WW fans being like, oh yeah, JD Dance, ISPIERS: I I think that’s, that’s true. But you know, I, I also wrote a times column about this theory of hegemonic masculinity, which sounds more complicated than it is. It basically says that if you live in a culture where you believe that the dominant hierarchy of power as it is, is the natural order of things.That’s called hegemonic masculinity. But it, but it’s not just about masculinity. In fact, I think they should call it something else because it’s, it’s about the intersection of power at every part of the hierarchy. So that includes, race class, you know, whether or not you’re able bodied, stuff like that.So the top of the hierarchy is able-bodied, straight white dudes. Bottom is, you know, everybody else. And so if you believe that that hierarchy is the natural state of things, that more than anything would’ve predicted your vote choice in 2020 and 2024 and 2016. Um, and there’s, I, I cited in my column some research around that.And when you look at the, the, the places where you did see some demographic shifts, that still makes sense because. Especially among, you know, Hispanic community is, is not a monolith Cuban Americans and Mexican Americans in particular skew more conservative for different reasons, but they do, about a third of all Hispanic people vote Republican consistently.And where you see differences, you know, it’s a swing 5% in one direction or the other. Black men consistently vote, uh, a small portion of them vote Republican. So I, I don’t think that Trump did anything cataclysmically there. I, I think what did happen is he projected a kind of strong strongman image that’s [00:30:00] consistent with that hierarchy that puts the right people at the bottom of it and the right people at the top of it.Uh, and that’s what particularly, you know, I think of, you know, my mother’s side of the family, I’m adopted, but my biological family’s Mexican and all my Mexican uncles and. They, they’re all pretty conservative and they do have like a kind of machismo orientation toward the world. So they love Trump.They think that, I mean, they don’t love him as much at the moment, but when, when he started running, he was emblematic of something that they think of as, as, you know, sort of American strongman, you know, he’s an entrepreneur. He’s big and tough. He’s got a lot of bravado.SHEFFIELD: in America.SPIERS: Yeah. Yeah. So I, I don’t think it was sort of like Latinos shifting to Trump.It was a little bit of what you’re saying. They, they, they liked his personality for all the reasons that make him sort of mostly a bad president. But they, they sort of like the idea of that person, like a, a strong man who embodies these macho, characteristics.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, yeah. And, and so, I mean, and, and that is, circling back to what we were talking about earlier, with regard to the, the, the the end, if you will, at the, in the social science term, the number of elections, it’s just so small. It, it’s hard to know for sure about anything.And, and so I think you,I meanreally to, to a large degree, we, you could operate from the idea and it would be hard, I think, to. To disprove itthat,a lot of the presidential the presidential elections are mostly decided by external factors and thatpartiesthat want to,and,and this is why both parties have been stuck, because they don’t, they don’t make an affirmative case for their own ideology.And, and, and [00:32:00] that’s why, that’s they’re, they’re basically, they’re fighting at the 40 yard line or the 50 yard line back and forth 40 on the other side. Like, to use a football analogy, that that’s essentially what’s been going on since the nineties but neither party’s really been able to, to have a kind of blowout type victory.Or to the extent that Obama had a, a bigger one in 2008. He kind of, didn’t really use it.Democrats playing defense on trans issuesSPIERS: Yeah. One of my concerns is that Democrats are still, like, they, you know, this is a hangover from the nineties stuff, but we’re so often playing defense and refusing to play offense for fear that if you say something, even a little bit too liberal, seeming that the right will weaponize it. And, and to me that’s just an incredibly naive viewpoint.They’re going to weaponize it no matter what it is. And it does not matter if you run on it or not. You know, you see this with trans issues and, and, you know, defund the police. Which nobody ran on. But if you, if you were paying attention right wing media, you would think that it was the number one platform for every Democrat in America.And it’s so, it’s become so ubiquitous that our failure to talk about it and to really, you know, litigate our actual positions on these things mean that I’ve had, people who are liberal democrats, who are reasonably well-informed, people who subscribe to newspapers, repeat right wing hoax stuff.To me that’s just coming out of that sort of rhetoric around either defund or trans issues. Like, do you remember the hoax about high school kids identifying as cats and putting litter boxes in bathrooms? Do you know how many Democrats I’ve had tell me that story? And I had to explain to them that it was generated by a right wing blog.It went viral in right wing media, and now somehow it has made its way back to them. And because Democrats have been largely silent on trans issues. People think this is true. Like it’s, it’s, we’re, we’re handing them the instruments of our own demise. Whenever we refuse to articulate what we actually do stand for, for fear that it might alienate some [00:34:00] hypothetical potential swing voter.SHEFFIELD: yeah, yeah. That’s, and, and trans issues are a, a great, probably the best example of that because, the, the and, and, and it’s worth recalling that before, the movement for transrights became morepublic as it was,the backwhen the, the, fight for same-sex marriage was, that was the, the project the Democratic Party wouldn’t help at that either.And, and that that was done by the actress. And eventuallySPIERS: Well, and, and also Joe Biden accidentally blurting out that Obama tended to, was planning on doing it. That’s aSHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, but to get to that point though, it was the activistsSPIERS: yes, that’s true.SHEFFIELD: they, they, they, they realized eventually, oh, they’re never going to help us. We have to do it ourselves. But one thing that they had that was, that was different compared to now with trans rights is that pretty much everybody knows somebody who he is lesbian or gay.And that’s not the case with people who are trans. And so, and that makes the, that makes their portrayal in the media much more influential on people. because like everybody claims, oh, I don’t believe it’s a media, but in fact you do.SPIERS: they they just, they’re, they’re like, well, which media? I have people say that to me, in my family who are conservative and they’re like, but I watch Fox News. That’s the truth. And it’s like, well, that is media, everybody. Consume some kind of media and believe some kind of media.It’s just a question of which media, what sources. But to your point another area where you see this, there’s research that says that exposure helps reduce bigotries in every situation except misogyny because there’s no one who doesn’t know a woman or have women in their lives.But you also see this being weaponized against Muslims. Islamophobia in this country is huge [00:36:00] because, where you do have Muslim populations, they’re usually in pockets in large cities. When I, I, I grew up in rural Alabama, and when I go home, when I hear Islamophobic stuff, it’s usually coming from people who’ve literally never met a Muslim person and they’ve never met a trans person.And I’m not saying that, if they were exposed to, somebody, one person in their community, they would change their minds. But it is a function of. Not feeling threatened by these populations because you do understand their humanity. You are interacting with them, you understand them as part of the community that you live in, and that they have obligations to you and you have obligations to them.That’s the social contract.SHEFFIELD: That they are not hurting you,SPIERS: yes. Yes.SHEFFIELD: and that you know that from your own experience.SPIERS: Yeah. I mean, this is a, we were talking a little bit about Mamdani before we started. It’s, he’s a roshak test for a lot of people outside of New York. Because when they look at him, they, there, there are a lot of people who, first thing they see is that he’s not white, that he’s a Muslim.For other people it’s that he’s a socialist. And I find that, it’s, it’s a little bit ironic because I think a lot of the people who voted for Zoran in the primary didn’t know he was a socialist. Like, and, and I don’t think they gave a fuck. Like, I, I think that. He was successfully branded externally by the right as a scary brown Muslim socialist.And that’s just not how he was viewed here because he was heavily evaluated on, what he ran on who came out for him what the policies were and what his concerns were. And, to your point about identity, he didn’t go out and say, you should elect me because I, I would be the first Muslim socialist mayor of New York City.In fact that that never led any of his conversations. He, he sort of takes it for granted that, that and that it’s obvious. And, he ran on a really compelling affordability platform that I think a lot of, machine democrats here don’t want to run on because [00:38:00] we do still have a lot of money in politics and the real estate industry in particular is very powerful.So making housing a key part of your plank. Is a little risky for especially a Democratic pol politician who coming into the primary might not have enough name ID to, to make it to the general.Trump and Mamdani put in the personal ground work that their rivals did notSHEFFIELD: Yeah.Well, and yeah, no, and, and he’s, I think he is definitely worth focusing on here. Because, in addition to, and, and, and I do want to circle back to your, to your point about, affordability and not, and also he did the work as a candidate, and, and that’s, that is one of the other things that, that Trump has as an advantage compared to past Republican candidates is that.Say what you will about him, but that guy was out there, doing seven rallies a day, toward the end of the campaign. And, like he, and, and when Joe Biden, by contrast, did almost nothing for a long time.SPIERS: I think with Trump it’s, it’s people sort of viewing his rallies as hard work, especially when he is golfing, like he is just,SHEFFIELD: But they’re effective though, like,SPIERS: They’re effective because they’re, they’re about visibility and, and that, that is, you are, I think you’re absolutely right that that matters.I think, when Pete Buttigieg ran his publicist was Liz Smith, and one thing that I think she did that re, that Democratics are usually reluctant to do is, she booked him everywhere. She had him appear on any show that called, he would show up to the opening of an envelope.When you don’t have name id, you need to do that. But also, if you want to convince people that you are out in the community and you’re doing stuff that’s also really important. And historically, the way that Democrats treat comms around candidates is that it’s tightly controlled. We’re only going to give tight interviews to preferred outlets.We’re going to make sure that nothing, impromptu happens. And you just can’t run a campaign like that anymore like that. That’s a 1990s era prescription. And we have [00:40:00] a 24 hour news cycle. People want to see the candidates all the time, not just trotted out like a priest coming out of a cathedral once a week.And, and I, I think Trump doing rallies and constantly being on social and constantly being on tv, he, he’s spent a lot of time making himself visible. Not so much time working at his job, but it is effective. It makes people think that he’s ubiquitous and that he’s constantly on.SHEFFIELD: Oh Yeah. Well, that’s what I meant whenI said doing the work, doing the work as a candidate as a president. Yeah. He does not do the work. But, but yeah, and like to that point though, like, this fear of saying something wrong or saying the wrong thing, I mean, That’s over and that’s over it.Obviously that’s over in the Republican side, with Trump. But, but I mean, you had Greg Gianforte, he assaulted a reporterand he stillwon his election. But even, Jay Jones, the, who just won the attorney general ship of Virginia, he said pretty awful thing.And, he still won his election and he and so like people and so, so being concerned that you might make a sillystatementmuch less an offensive, horrible one. Like you need to get over that. And I think that that’s, that is another thing that that mom Donny really also did well is that he was always out there.So not, not just ’cause he did lots of door knocking and lots of volunteers. And he didn’t do a lot of, of, TV ads. We I shouldSPIERS: He also, yeah.SHEFFIELD: but, but, but he was, he was doing interview, he was letting anyone interview him basically that was interested init because,because,he was starting almost from nothing.SPIERS: Yeah. Well, he’s, he’s, so, he was an experienced field guy. You know, one of the things that I, I think Cuomo did that really fell flat was run around pretending that he was an intern who had never had a job before. Uh, because the people who were, you know, coming out to organize for him, the, the politicians who were endorsing him big members of his co coalition and, and, you know, [00:42:00] core voting constituencies, especially in the primary, knew who he was already because he had.He was an experienced field organizer, and he had worked on Tiffany Ban’s DA campaign, which he only lost by like a handful of votes. And, and so he was not an unknown here to people who, you know, would’ve been interested in the primary. And when Cuomo got up and said, you know, treated him like he was a child, and then you see mom Donny doing this straight to camera messaging where he’s talking very knowledgeably about in particular housing policy because he had also been an eviction counselor.It sort of makes Cuomo look like he’s running a lazy campaign. He doesn’t have anything that he’s running on except for his, family name and history as governor. And so it, it sort of was an opportunity for Mond campaign, viewed it as an opportunity for contrast and not a liability. Uh, and of course they were good at social media.And this is, this is, it was so funny when. Cuomo lost their primary, and when asked to reflect on it, his only takeaway was I should have been on TikTok more. Just a wild misunderstanding of why Mom Donny was resonating with people. It’s like, yeah, you, you know, it’s confusing the medium with the message.SHEFFIELD: I think some people on the Democratic side are starting to realize this, but, so much of what Momani did effectively as candidate obviously his message and platform were very relevant.But, a lot of what hedo does andhow he says things,theyhave nothing to do with his ideology. And that people, the, the people want a candidate who can speak off the cuff. they the, and in a lot of ways, the, the social media age is kind of in some ways taking us back to the way things were before.Because when, it, when Mass Media first became a thing. It, it was this,the, you hadthis this concentration of [00:44:00] attention in just a handful of outlets. And so everyone expected everything to be, perfectly produced and amazingly staged. And, and, and this, and, and, and, and that wasn’t how the politics werebefore.And so, before it was, you’re out there pressing the flesh and that was how you won. And so, in the social media age we’re, we’re going back to that in a lot of ways that people want to, They just, they want to hear what you actually think. They don’t care what your workshop, poll tested focus, groupmessage that you’re going to repeat 20 times in two minutes.They don’t want that.SPIERS: Some of it too is New York City DSA has become a kind of training ground for a certain kind of candidate, uh, because they’re really good at field organization and they’re not as much, you know, especially compared to establishment Democrats, they’re not as top down in terms of controlling message, you know, being control freaks about talking to specific populations a specific way.Uh, there was a lot of organic messaging coming from, uh, not ban’s organic campaign staff, but from volunteers. They had corralled and trained. So it was sort of the equivalent of having, you know, where Parscale threw a million different digital ads against the wall and tested them all on Facebook. With mom Dining campaign, you know, they had the people who were highly engaged, who were, you know, committed volunteers would come up with their own messaging, they’d make their own merch.They would talk to people, you know, they, they weren’t, if you’ve ever been canvassing for a very mainstream democratic candidate, you’re often given, you know, this very tight messaging, and you, you’re only supposed to respond certain way. I have not met a single mom, Donny Canvasser, who behaved that way.You know, they were, they’re just, um, more eng willing to engage people and, you know, have conversations about the core issues without needing to, control the language. One of the things in my West Wing column that I wrote about that still drives me crazy is how [00:46:00] much establishment Democrats workshop the messaging so much.You know, they, there’s nothing wrong with poll testing messaging within constraints, but they end up talking to people in a way that like no normal human would talk to them. You know, there was, uh, early in the, when Kamala was at the beginning of her sudden presidential campaign I remember the Democratic, the DNC account tweeted out something like, Donald Trump is for main Street, not Wall Street.And I thought that, did they just dig that out of a crypt from 1992? Like, nobody talks like that. You know, you, you, if you want to say Donald Trump is, you know, in the pocket of Wall Street, there are ways to say that the way you would say it if you were sitting next to somebody at a bar. They would nod and be like, fuck.Yeah. That’s also, I’m sorry I, I curse a lot, is that I’m allowed to on slate money, so I, I just habitually. But you know, we we’re, and I think these you know, younger campaign campaign staffed by younger staffers are not, haven’t been programmed to do that. They’re, they’re programmed to talk to people like their normal humans because they part like, because they spend so much time on the internet and social media and the people that resonate with them are, are communicating that way.And, and so I think the way mom Donny talks to people, it’s like normal person talking to you at a bar about something they’re passionate about and not, they’re not handing down some tablets with the official, messaging lines on them.SHEFFIELD: Well, and, and that is another thing that Trump does very well also.SPIERS: does it because he, he can’t, he’s not capableSHEFFIELD: well, that’s I was going to say, that. Oh yeah, he’s not smart enough to stick to the script or the message. But you know, as it turns out, that’s not what people want anyway. So like that, that, that, that’s the, I think there is a fear among some Republican strategists,andyou do hear it vocalized every once in a while that they’re saying, you know what, after this guy [00:48:00] we’re fucked.because nobody likes us. And nobody likes our people. And so, but of course the, as I was saying about this, the fighting over the 50 yard I think if Democrats can’t make an affirmative case, then they will have just, temporarilyhad what,what Biden had, in, in 2020 They just, yeah, they got rid of Trump, but they weren’t able to, really move the ball forward in terms of,SPIERS: Here’s a ISHEFFIELD: rolling back these problems that the Republicans across the country.SPIERS: I wrote a thing for the New Republic about what National Democrats could learn from Mom Donny. And whenever I, I first published it, there’s a lot of friends of mine who are, who are more centrist democrats, like, read the headline, be like, New York City isn’t the rest of the country.And I would say, I know that, read the column. Because the, the thing that he did that I think was so effective and could work for, any Democrat is just articulating the things that we’re going to do to fight the bad things that are happening. Brad Lander, who teamed up with mom Donny at the last minute, he was a, another New York City mayoral candidate and they’re buddies now.But La Lander sort of characterized it, as people are now being forced to choose between fighters and folders. And they want fighters. And there are just too many instances of them seeing Democrats kind of publicly folding or saying, well, we can’t do anything. We’re not in power right now.And they want to see the people they elected try, even if they fail. So Mati coming in and saying, okay, here, here are five, kind of, out there policies. And by the way, none of them are that radical. But it, if you’re sitting, I don’t know if you’re watching Fox News or something, maybe like, we’re going to have one free bus line, we’re going to have five grocery stores run by the city.SHEFFIELD: actually have free buses in Salt Lake City, Utah,Actually.SPIERS: yeah.And, and every military base in the country has a government run grocery store and people fucking love it. [00:50:00] But the, the point is, even when those are cast as radical policies which leaving aside the fact that they’re not. People want to see their elected officials try to do something to make life better.They want to see improvements, they want to see, trying, they don’t want to be told repeatedly that things cannot be done or, or because they couldn’t be done 30 years ago, we’re not going to try them now. Which is another kind of nineties itis thing that I think we have were things that would absolutely work.And, with constraints now, did not work then. And so it’s like, well, we tried that once, let’s just not do it again. So what Mamdani was offering people is, first of all, the absolute understanding that he would fight for New York City. Which is probably the only advantage that maybe Cuomo did have coming in, is that he has a reputation for belligerence.Maybe people thought that he was going to be a New York City strong man and stand up to Trump, although increasingly it looked like that wasn’t going to be the case, and, and then mom Donny also said, we’re going to try some stuff and if it fails, it fails, but we want to make life here more affordable.And here are some programs that actually help people. And, and I think we are bad about doing that. Whenever we do, we, we, we offer promises to try very incremental things that are usually highly technocratic complicated tax credits, et cetera. Instead of doing the simplest thing that people just want, they want, they want simple problem solved easily.There’s a, a good example is Leanna Kahn tried to in institute a, a, a new role that if you sign up for something on the internet, you should be able to cancel it just as easily. It got pulled back because of some bureaucratic stuff, but it’s supposedly probably going to be instituted again.And that’s the kind of thing that it doesn’t matter what party you’re in, you’re like, yes, that makes sense. That is good for people. And so I, I don’t think, first of [00:52:00] all, most people, most voters didn’t really think of Ma Donni as a socialist first. They thought of him as a candidate who had a specific vision for what New York was going to be.AndSHEFFIELD: And hadsome enthusiasm and. Yeah. And that that you could see that he actually cared. You could see it.SPIERS: Yeah. I mean, even Curtis Lewes toward the end was like it was just sort of sick of Cuomo and he showed up to Mom Donny’s inauguration and people were interviewing him and he said, look, I believe the guy cares about New York City and he’s going to try. And, it was largely complimentary.And, and I think when you, if you watch the debates, Lee was discussed with Cuomo was largely that he thought, Cuomo thought he had it in the bag and didn’t have to work for it. And, what was he going to do that was going to be different? SoCurtis Sliwa as an example of a Republican who likes an anti-oligarch message and agendaSHEFFIELD: Well, and, and also speaking of sweet Sliwa, he also even after the, the campaign was over in January, was talking about.Thathe, he was against the billionaires. everybody in this country hates these oligarchs. And so if the Democrats, were able, like they, they, they claim to be data driven.Well, gosh, you have a, you have a, you have a group,that,uh, everybody dislikes and for a justifiable reason, like who is a bigger threat to the average American Elon Musk or a trans woman trying to go to the bathroom. Hmm. You know, like the, the, this is you, you couldn’t ask for a better thing.And but they, but they, but they don’t, they they don’t know how to do it. And also they don’t want to do it. I think aSPIERS: Yeah. Some of it’s we have an asymmetry, the Republican Party, it’s entire platform is, is we can cater to billionaires ’cause we’re a pro billionaire. For Democrats it’s hard to run against billionaires when our biggest donors are also billionaires. And we do have money in politics. And I’ve seen this directly when, [00:54:00] when you’re trying to get progressive media outlets funded.The right has no shortage of people willing to write checks for right wing newsrooms because they’re not worried that those newsrooms are going to turn around and say, we need to raise taxes on billionaires. But a progressive newsroom would probably put billionaires under, under the microscope.And, and so we, it’s hard to get, it’s hard to get these things funded on our side.SHEFFIELD: yeah, although,there is a, there is an interesting kind of wrinkle to that, which is that, so when Trump was,when hewas first running, all the Republican billionaires hated him actually. And so his fundraising numbers from them were almost nothing. He got almost nothing from them.But he ended up. Getting more money because he got more money from the base. And that same dynamic is true in the Democratic party as well, that the Republican party is much, much, much more dependent on like five or six people than the Democratic party is. And so like, but, and so this is another kind of stuck in the, the nineties kind of scenario that the Democratic party as it has like this is both, it’s there, there’s some negatives to this, but the fact that the Democratic party has drastically improved its vote share among white collar professionals means that the, the small dollar donor base in the Democratic party is enormous.And it can easily compensate for any loss of billionaires,SPIERS: Well, I, I would say maybe a few years ago that would be true. Now I think there are enough billionaires in Trump’s court that he’s got plenty of resources and I worryabout the fact that we, have consumer spending fullbacks and, small donors are really stretched right now. Yeah, I generally agree with you though.SHEFFIELD: yeah. Well, okay. I mean, that’s fair. But yeah, I mean, if, as the economy go down, but on the other hand, that motivates people as well. So, plus minus. But, now that he’s taken [00:56:00] office though, Malani, he, he gave his inaugural speech and and, and one of the other things that happened since he took office ’cause we, heard during the campaign and Cuomo said it and lots of Republicans said it, that if this guy gets elected, all the rich people are going to leave this city.Well, theySPIERS: Oh, I love it when they threaten to do that. They do it every single time. You know, a, a progressive gets anywhere near a position of power. Uh, but the reality is, you know, new York’s wealth is heavily centered in the financial industry, uh, and, you know, commercial real estate, things like that. And these are the same guys I was talking about earlier who idolize Great Gordon Gecko and think of him as a role model and not a cautionary tale.Those people are so ego-driven, they’re not, they, they want to be, you can’t be a master of the universe from Boca Rat Time, Florida. You just can’t, like, they’re, they’re part of their entire identity is wrapped up in being a big. Sky in New York City, not in some random town with lower taxes in Texas. So the idea that, and, and also New York is a global hub.It’s, it’s, it’s sort of an important place because of its geography and centrality and, and things like that, uh, that you can’t replicate. You can’t have a pile of billionaires. Just, this is also why they all keeptalkingSHEFFIELD: not going to get a flight to Riyadh from Boca Vu?SPIERS: yeah, they, they all want to go live on some libertarian paradise island, but they don’t go do it.Because what would be the fun of that? Like, they,SHEFFIELD: Well, because it would suck. That’swhy.SPIERS: Yeah. And they, they know that, so they’re not going anywhere.SHEFFIELD: No, they’re not. I, mean, evenSPIERS: would, I would love it if they left. I, maybe it might, be less expensive around here, butSHEFFIELD: Yeah. I mean even,EvenFox News, like, which is basically every single day saying, oh, New York is a hellhole. New York is a shithole,SPIERS: While they sit in front of a window where you can see New Yorkers peering in the tourists. Kind of, yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.So like, there, these [00:58:00] are all meaningless threats.And the same thing is true even much, much more so at the national level that, the, the American market is so big and so multi Ferris and there’s so much so many resources here and smart people that making people pay their fair share. Is a no brainer. Like they can afford it and they’re not going to leave. And if they did, they would be idioticSPIERS: Well,SHEFFIELD: no one else wants them.SPIERS: what’s so insufferable about so many of the, the vocal oligarchs is that they have such a mentality that no one appreciates them and they’re really victims. And so, the sort of underlying point. When they say, I’m going to move out of New York, is, is that New York will fall apart without them.And the reality is most of them don’t even pay taxes in New York anyway. They have sort of, everything’s in some offshore shelter. And so I, I don’t think, they’re not,SHEFFIELD: And whatever they’re doing, a hundred otherSPIERS: goes somewhere else. Yeah, it’s, but it, it’s the poor me. No one appreciates me.The little people don’t understand how much money I, I spend on philanthropy in order to get tax breaks and restructure my own finances, blah, blah, blah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah.Well, and, and, and when you look at just the, the numbers, likethe, the investment in of the federal government back to the national level but the investment of federal government in education or in infrastructure or housing , and regulatory consumer regulatory kit helping people not get nicked and dime to death.All of that’s gone down starting with Reagan. And so the, the,youknow, it was like this was an experiment that was tried and it didn’t work, and, and, and Democrats should say that, just, just tell people this isthe storyof what’s happened. And then, you know, Reagan came along and he, and he, and he took away he made, he stopped making people pay their fair share because they were benefiting from our country and our government and our.[01:00:00] System. And look what’s happened. They, they haven’t shared the wealth. They said that it would help the economy and help us, you know, become, you know, I have all this opportunity and whatnot. Well, it didn’t work. And now you can’t support a family on one income. Now you can’t buy a house like the average age of a home buyer.Now I read recently is 52 of, uh, of, of a first time home. That is awful. That’s awful. And it used to be, in, in the late seventies, it was like 32. So that’s, that’s the measure of where we are and just simply saying this stuff and telling people what happened.’Cause I, I, I think that’s overall is the biggest problem of what That they don’t tell people what’s happening and what has happened.And this ain’t like with Biden, sorry. And like with Biden, when he, he was doing the, the student loan forgiveness initiative people liked it. And then Republican sued and the Republican Supreme Court blocked it. But he never told people why they, whythat happenedSPIERS: yeah, I got into, I got into a big fight when I was still on Twitter with a Biden person who, who kept saying like, well, no, but we made an announcement. We had a press conference the other day, and, and it’s like you’re missing the point. That, that is such an old, outdated style of communicating to the electorate.Like, you don’t not do it, but you gotta do a million other things and you have to say it over and over again. And this is another area where Trump’s style of communication is not strategic. It’s just Trump being Trump. It’s, it’s, he, he’s a braggart. He can only hold three messages in his ti in his head at one time.And so, as a result, as a result, he repeats himself a lot. And, and that sort of has the, the utility for Republicans of, people being, hearing the same message over and over again. And he takes credit for everything that he does in the most obnoxious way possible. We don’t, we’re like, well, we, we all did this at as a team and we worked hard with Republicans and here’s our policy brief.And, and it just doesn’t break through the noise. But also it doesn’t sound like a big deal [01:02:00] because Trump comes in and he says, I did this little thing, but it was the greatest, most amazing. And it doesn’t matter that he’s full of shit and he’s being hyperbolic, it’s still just, it takes up more of the oxygen in the room and we just don’t counter it,Democrats have to aim for gigantic majorities, not just ‘wins above replacement’SHEFFIELD: And and no, that Yeah, that’s a great point. And it, is just, just simple, basic.market.I mean, that’s really what we’re talking about here. That if you have this, this is, you are selling a product and you might not want to think of it that way, but guess what? That’s how it’s andsoyou, you have to have that mentality as well.And and if you get lucky and nobody in the Republican side can step up and, do that in the same way that Trump did. That’s, that’s not a vindication. of,of antiquated media strategy. That just means that you got lucky. And, we, this is not like the goal has to be, we have to figure out how can we get these FDR type majorities.Again, like that has to be the thought no more. Well, we’re just going to get a plurality. That’s that, that’s, we’re just going to get, enough electoral votes. Two 70. That’s all we need. We’re not going to worry about anything else. I mean, we’re, we’re, we’re going to optimize our house candidates and only compete in this, in the, in the places where we can, get uh, wins above replacement, blah, blah, blah.Like, this is all, it’s all nonsense and it’s fake. It’s fake data. It’s not real. And so you just need to getover it.SPIERS: Yeah, it, it’s, it’s also, I, there’s a lit, I see a little bit of a bright spot where there are people who, I think it’s beginning to sink in that communicating to the electorate is something that you have to do 24 7 indefinitely. It’s, it’s not just in the run up to an election. And it’s not just formal communication, I don’t see resources being spent that way yet.And unfortunately where I do see them being spent, they’re being given to the same old consultants who have been, recommending the top down, tightly controlled messaging [01:04:00] forever. But, republicans have always had like a 20 year view on comms. They’ve always sort of said, there there is no comms period.It’s, it’s a rolling thing, we’re always talking to the electorate. We’re always cultivating new voters. This is why a lot of people ask me, why don’t we have a turning point? Or something similar. And I way before Turning Point, I mean, the Republicans have always had sort of youth recruitment vehicles.I got recruited by the Federalist Society when I was a freshman in college. Like I, I don’t we don’t, we don’t build these things for long term, we’re, we’re way too focused on the next cycle and not the next two decades. And unfortunately, cycles get staffed and resourced only, part of every four years.And we don’t have enough permanent projects to really build the coalitions that you’re talking about, either organizationally or via messaging and comms. So,SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and that’s why it is, might possibly be the case that the solution to these problems is probably not inside of the party. ISPIERS: well, it, it’sI think insurgent candidates are helping, you know, they, they’re, because they are sort of forcing some people to rethink their, you know, the way that they look at how campaigns work, how the electorate consumes media stuff like that. So in as much as, you know, I, I would say like, I, like, I think AOCs campaign, you know, helped some people better understand how you should be communicating with voters.Not as many as I would’ve liked, but you know, now it’s like, well, is she an insurgent or she, she’s democrat. Like, she’s pretty clearly part of the party apparatus now. And I think the best case scenario is that for the party is that you have enough insurgents who come in with these talents. That, and, and we also just have some turnover in leadership, which I think, you know, needs to happen probably anyway.So yeah.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, it’s a, it is a story that we can [01:06:00] keep tabs on for quite a while, Mm-hmm.SPIERS: As long as we’re still here this time next year, it’sSHEFFIELD: yeah. Yeah. Well, fair point, fair point. Alright, well, so, Elizabeth for people who want to keep up with you what are doing, what’s your advice?SPIERS: Yeah, I’m a contributor to the New York Times opinion section and I also co-host a finance and econ podcast for Slate called Slate Money. And I send out my columns on my personal newsletter, which is just at elizabethspiers.com.SHEFFIELD: Sounds good, thanks for being here.SPIERS: Yeah. Thank you.SHEFFIELD: So that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation you can always get more if you go to flux.community where we’ve got lots of podcasts and articles about politics, religion, media and culture and how they all intersect. And if you are able to support us on Patreon or Substack, that would be great. You have free subscription options on both of those places. Just go to patreon.com/discoverflux, or you can go to flux.community on the Substack side. And if you’re watching on YouTube, please do click the like and subscribe button so you can get notified whenever there’s a new episode. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe

Episode SummaryThe middle part of the twentieth century wasn’t that long ago, and yet in some ways, it seems like it was an eternity. That’s particularly true in regards to the public branding of American Christianity, which nowadays is often associated with right-wing evangelicalism.In the mid-20th century, however, American Christian public discourse was very different, and it was dominated by Protestants who were theologically liberal. Public intellectuals and leaders like John Foster Dulles, G. Bromley Oxnam, and William Ernest Hocking are mostly unknown to people today, but in their time, they were nationally famous.In the conversations they had with each other over the decades, they often disagreed on the particulars. But overwhelmingly, this group of ecumenical Protestants wanted a more just world, and were among the earliest white supporters of racial equality. They also worked for the creation of global systems that they hoped would protect human rights and religious freedom, such as the United Nations.Nowadays, the only people who use the term “new world order” are far-right conspiracy theorists, but it’s worth understanding just what they are seeking to destroy.Joining me to talk about the religious left and how it came to play a major role in the creation of the political order of the 20th century and what came afterward with the religious right is Gene Zubovich. He is the author of Before the Religious Right, Liberal Protestants, Human Rights and the Polarization of the United States. He’s also an assistant professor of history at the University at Buffalo.The video of our conversation is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.This episode previously aired in full on June 17, 2023.Related Content* The Christian Right was a theological rebellion against the idea of improving society* Why the decline of unions and moderate religious communities has led to political radicalization* How many low-engagement liberals became post-political and what to do about it* Government support for religious organizations seems to make citizens less devout* Despite Trump’s extremism, societal tolerance has actually increased dramatically and we shouldn’t forget that* How Christian fundamentalists rebuilt their faith using the tools of the world’s most famous atheist, Friedrich Nietzsche* Across the globe, Pentecostalism is spiriting away the membership of other Christian churchesAudio Chapters00:00 — Introduction11:53 — Ecumenical organizations and the birth of international organizations like the United Nations17:30 — The birth of the USSR and the American Christian left28:13 — John Foster Dulles: from religious lawyer to secretary of state38:48 — Building the kingdom of God on earth40:55 — The invention of the term “Judeo-Christian”46:21 — Political struggles within Roman Catholicism54:14 — Liberal Protestantism’s failure to defend its own intellectual tradition01:05:35 — The clergy-laity gap in mainline ProtestantismAudio TranscriptThe following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: It’s nice to have you here today, Gene.GENE ZUBOVICH: Yeah, thanks so much for having me.SHEFFIELD: All right. Well, so, let’s maybe just start with kind of the overview in what, who is this book about?ZUBOVICH: So this book is about a group of folks that are not [00:04:00] particularly prominent, familiar to most people. If you were like me and you grew up in the wake of the religious right, you forget that in the middle of the 20th century if you were to turn on a radio or a television set and you were to hear a religious voice, odds are it would be a liberal religious voice. So my book is about the liberal Protestants who dominated the American public sphere from about World War I until the 1960s.And it’s so, it’s a particularly prominent religious community at the time, these were folks who represented maybe a between a quarter and a third of the American population. But their power over American religious life and over American politics was much greater than that because in the middle of the 20th century, if you came from if you were, in charge of something big in American life, if you were an American president a Supreme Court Justice senator corporate executive, odds are you came from the liberal mainline community.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and that’s a really important point to understand is that these people, they were everywhere. They were, in some of their cases, world famous. Certainly nationally famous and yeah, nowadays, pretty much no one knows who they were. And it’s really kind of a stunning thing to contemplate.So let’s maybe talk about who specifically are some of your main figures in the book here?ZUBOVICH: Yeah, yeah. It’s hard to define any group with a religious group with specificity. For liberal Protestants, we talk about Protestants today, we’re talking about over 30,000 different denominations.Liberal Protestants were liberal theologically. They believed in the compatibility between science and religion. They believed in a kind of historical approach to the Bible. And they constituted themselves around the Federal Council of Churches nationally and the World Council of Churches internationally.Most of them came from about 30 different [00:06:00] denominations, the most important of which were the seven sister denominations. These are denominations like the United Methodists, American Baptists, Northern Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and so on. And so these were the major denominations from which people came from.But the book talks about people with kind of funny names. G. Bromley Oxnam, key Methodist leader social gospel and a kind of world traveler. John Foster Dulles, the longtime kind of religious Presbyterian layman before he became Eisenhower’s hawkish Secretary of State. Thelma Stevens, an underappreciated figure who was central to the Civil Rights Movement.So, my cast of characters in this book really revolve around the three things, three political movements that I trace in the book, which is the efforts to diminish racism in the middle of the 20th century, to make the economy more fair and more just, and to get the United States to engage more internationally and to diminish colonialism and the nefarious actions of the American state overseas.So the folks that I discuss are kind of central to those three movements of race, the economy, and foreign relations.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And one figure that I noticed you did not mention, and maybe he’s kind of more out earlier than your timeframe were the Bellamy brothers. (cousins) Maybe if you could talk about who they were for people who don’t know who they were?ZUBOVICH: Sure. Yeah. So, Richard Bellamy is the author of Looking Backwards, a kind of, utopian novel.SHEFFIELD: It’s Edward, I believe.ZUBOVICH: Sorry. Yeah. Excuse me. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Edward Bellamy was the author of Looking Backward, a kind of late 19th century utopian novel, imagining Boston in the year 2000, and the kind of solutions to all the social urban unrest. These guys were social gospel guys. It’s kind of a complicated story, but they probably authored the Pledge of Allegiance or some version thereof.And they [00:08:00] believed in a kind of strong state kind of government intervention in order to better the world. You’re right that my book kind of picks up at the end of World War I and so their most kind of creative moments came in the late 19th and early 20th century. So that kind of Progressive Era, social and gospel era spirit of ambition and reform that continues all the way into the 20th century.So that social gospel heritage of the Bellamys and many other folks who promoted that idea. What’s new after World War I is that the social gospel heritage meets kind of Wilsonian internationalism. So what happens for people like G. Bromley Oxnam as they are influenced by the Bellamys, they’re influenced by the social gospel, but they’re also taking the social gospel internationally, they’re traveling abroad to places like the United Kingdom, Germany, the Soviet Union, and they’re transforming and reforming these inherited ideas and making them a new in the 1920s and 1930s.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And it’s important to kind of also think about in that framework is that they were, as you were saying, they were very internationally engaged and they were responding to the scholarship trends like the documentary hypothesis and things like that, that had been emerging in Europe. And you kind of talk about to some degree that they gradually became, I don’t know what, maybe less theologically oriented perhaps? Is that an accurate way of saying it?ZUBOVICH: Yeah. I wouldn’t say that in those exact terms. I think that there’s a lot of theological substance to what liberal Protestants are doing. I think they get knocked for essentially not being orthodox enough. And the people who believe that are the kind of the religious enemies or religious rivals of liberal Protestants.So if you are an Orthodox Catholic [00:10:00] or a conservative evangelical, what liberal Protestants are doing and saying theologically doesn’t make any sense, it just sounds kind of secular, but they had strong, coherent belief systems that just looked different from the kinds of theological systems that, say, evangelicals subscribe to.But it was important to them. What I would say is that professional theologians, that sort of like small sliver of folks who are in seminaries who are talking about Carl Bart and people like that, those don’t feature us prominently. What I found is that anybody but theologians became activists.So social ethicists, missionaries, denominational executives. These were the folks who were really on the front lines of the political initiatives of liberal Protestants in the mid-20th century. So I will say that sort of professional theologians who are not particularly central to the political story, but they did have clear theological commitments and they followed through on them to try to make the world into the kind of place they thought, they were commanded to create, right?They were, they wanted to create the kingdom of God on Earth. And they tried to do that.SHEFFIELD: What I’m saying theological, they’re less interested in sort of the controversies of doctrine or history and more thinking more about values and sort of: ‘We say we believe these things. So, how do we put them into practice?’ Kind of–ZUBOVICH: They’re concerned about lived theology.One of the innovations of liberal Protestantism is they start paying attention to the body as much as the spirit, right? They come to believe that, taking care of people’s bodies is a prerequisite to taking care of their souls. And so for them, making sure that people are fed and clothed and are thriving physically, economically, that’s a necessary part of them thriving spiritually.So, what you see is the work that they’re doing, right? The political work, the activism, the social welfare stuff that they’re [00:12:00] doing, but there is a kind of deeper theological basis for that work that’s maybe not as evident, maybe not as central. They’re not as concerned about, the nitty-gritty debate, theologically debates, but it’s there, nonetheless.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then, so let’s maybe just go to the different organizations that they started creating at this time period. So you mentioned what later became the National Council of Churches. Tell us about that organization and what was the impetus behind it.ZUBOVICH: Yeah. The Federal Council of Churches, which was renamed the National Council of Churches in 1950, the Federal Council of Churches, the predecessor organization, was founded in 1908. It was this kind of social gospel moment. It was a kind of a combination of a kind of a think tank and a political action committee on behalf of mainline Protestant groups.So sometimes it’s kind of, described as a bulldozer. It kind of clears the way for denominations to engage socially and politically. So it came about in 1908 at this moment when there was a lot of enthusiasm for the social gospel and social reform and trying to make the lives of working-class folks better.By World War I, it became really engaged in anti-racist initiatives as well. In the wake of the race riots that took place during World War I, it became engaged on that issue as well, and it really was part of the ecumenical movement. It’s kind of an old-fashioned word, but what ecumenical Protestants thought they were doing was bringing different denominations that had split apart over the course of history for various reasons, Northern Presbyterians and Southern Presbyterians, Northern Methodists and Southern Methodists, all these various kinds of German reformed denominations.Liberal Protestants came to conclude that these were all kind of accidents of history and that Christianity demanded unity. And so this was a kind of theological commandment that they were trying to live out is to bring Christians [00:14:00] across denominational boundaries together.So that began with the Federal Council of Churches, but by the 1930s, they were working to create the World Council of Churches, which was doing the same thing on an international scale, bringing Protestants and Orthodox denominations. Catholics were kind of kept out until the 1960s. They brought together Protestant and Orthodox denominations across national and racial boundaries into some kind of world community and world communion.So that was the goal, was to unite Protestants and other kinds of Christians together, both nationally and internationally. And as they were doing so, they found that, even though they had lots of theological disagreements, the one thing they could mostly agree on is social work, political action, right?It’s the kind of activist stuff that really brought them together.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and I think it’s important to note and I do want to discuss the Catholic context as well. But you know, during that time period, the United States was overwhelmingly Protestant. I mean, people who live today and don’t really have a knowledge of that, of the religious history of that moment.I mean, it was, what was it, like 75% or something like that, Protestant. Catholicism was obviously there as a minority, but there was nothing else. Like there were no Muslims, there were no “Nones,” as they’re called now, non-religious people. America was overwhelmingly Protestant, and they really did kind of see what they were doing as almost the fulfillment of the Protestant mission that ‘we fixed Christianity and now we’re going to fix the world.’ Something like that, right?ZUBOVICH: I think that’s right. I should point out that, in the United States, there were Muslims in what is now the United States before there were Protestants. And so there were lots of religious minorities present in the United States.But they weren’t recognized in the way that maybe they are today. So even though there was lots of [00:16:00] religious diversity, the key power figures in the United States in, say, the 19th and early 20th century really believed that the United States was essentially a Protestant nation. And okay, you have these kinds of minor groups off to the side, the Catholics being the largest, Jews and maybe Muslims as well. Maybe a couple of Buddhists here and there.But essentially, the United Nations belongs to Protestants. The United States was founded without an established church. But as historians have pointed out, there was a kind of moral establishment, a Protestant moral establishment that kind of acted like an established church for much of the 19th and 20th century.And so in a sense, our Constitution made the United States different from, say, European countries because of that lack of established church. In practice, Protestant denominations essentially ran the show in somewhat similar ways.And so you’re absolutely right to point out the kind of exclusivity and sort of possession of the nation by Protestant elites. This is something today that we talk about Christian nationalists want the United States to become conceived of as a kind of Christian or maybe Protestant nation. We had that in the past. We had that sort of moment where Jews and Catholics were kept out of positions of power and there’s a very ugly side to that history.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And even if it wasn’t official, it was kind of unofficial. And again, the difference with today’s Christian nationalists is that really, they are Christian supremacists and that they want to not just go back to the way things were. They want to make it far more discriminatory against people who disagree with them. And also, more doctrinally to their liking. Whereas before it was just kind of, it was in sort of an ecumenical consensus, if you will, more than anything else.ZUBOVICH: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: So let’s maybe, before we get into the relationship and the ideas of Catholics within this milieu, let’s talk about the [00:18:00] Soviet Revolution because that did also play a role in kind of jumpstarting international Christian politics to some degree. Would you agree with that?ZUBOVICH: Absolutely right. Yeah. The Soviet Union is kind of a part of the way in which liberal politics were structured in the middle of decades of the 20th century. What I was expecting when I began my research was to see the sort of Cold War anti-communist stuff from the very beginning.When I started researching before the religious right, expected that when liberal Protestants thought about the Soviet Union in the twenties and thirties, that they were essentially going to come to the same conclusions as they did in the 1950s, which is, the Soviet Union is evil. It is the kind of the mere opposite of what a Christian nation ought to be.But what I found is that, as they traveled there in, say, 1926, there was this initiative by the wealthy socialist evangelist Sherwood Eddie, who took some of the youngest and brightest minds of ecumenical Protestantism and traveled with them across the world to India and to western Europe, to China, and to the Soviet Union for the first time in 1926 on something called the American Seminar, where these young Protestant leaders who were kind of taking the reins of power in the 1940s were chatting away with Stalin, right? And with Georgy Chicherin, Soviet foreign minister.And they went there with an open mind. I mean, they didn’t like atheism. They didn’t like Marxism, particularly, but they tried to understand what was going on in the Soviet Union in the context of that place and what they found right when they were talking with Chicherin, for example were ideas that ended up changing their minds.So one of the folks that I talk about in the first chapter of my book, G. Bromley Oxnam, who’s the leader in the 1940s of the movement to create the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a really prominent Methodist bishop who’s very close to [00:20:00] presidents when he was traveling in the 1920s, he was really sympathetic to imperialism.He went to India, and he was in India during the Amritsar massacre, where the British put down a kind of rebellion against British colonial rule, and he was sympathetic to the British. He thought that the Indians were getting what they deserved. But when he traveled to the Soviet Union, he spent time reading up on the place and studying the place and trying to understand its history and its people.He came to the conclusion that the Soviet Union was essentially going to get rid of colonialism one day, and Protestants needed to abandon their commitment to supporting European imperialism and American imperialism. And so there is this kind of complicated tangled history between liberal Protestants and the Soviet Union that I found really surprising.I had expected there just to be antagonism, but actually the Soviet Union was a site where Protestants kind of reconceived ideas about their own society and their own place in the world.SHEFFIELD: Well, and then I guess also, and you mentioned the Cold War era ideas about that. So maybe talk about those. What was the change after that?ZUBOVICH: Yeah. Well, with the Cold War, one of the hardest things for liberal Protestants was that they were constantly accused of being sympathetic to the Soviet Union, right? Liberal Protestants were figures who took ideas that arose out of the labor movement, out of the socialist movement, sometimes from the Soviet Union itself and they kind of made it their own and gave it a kind of theological blessing, right? That was one of their functions in American history, to take ideas that seem threatening to the American middle-class public, socialist ideas, and to endow them with the cultural capital of Christianity and to repackage those ideas and to make them safe for consumption by Americans who otherwise wouldn’t engage with these ideas.And so this was hugely [00:22:00] important. And one of the problems is once you do that, when the context of the Cold War arises, when you know people are hunting for reds in the United States, those ideas that you’ve been promoting and in many ways continue to promote all throughout the Cold War, those become suspect and they lead you into trouble.And so what you see by the 1950s is that ideas that had once brought Protestants together in the ecumenical movement are now dividing it apart. You see tensions and divisions emerging during the Cold War, and one of the fault lines is an economic fault line that the liberal Protestant leaders who are promoting socialist ideas in the guise of Christianity, and doing it publicly and sincerely, are now facing resistance not only from communist hunters and politicians, but members of their own rank who now see these ideas as really threatening.SHEFFIELD: It was to some degree kind of a mutual interest as well. I mean, there, there is some evidence that the Soviet Union and the KGB itself was interested in the World Council of Churches and had some individuals that were spies that were inside the organization.You want to talk about that a little bit?ZUBOVICH: Sure. Yeah. I will just say that I did go to the archives in Moscow before the war when these things were accessible and looked at some of the Soviet era files from the government bureaucracy that kept charge of orthodox affairs. I’m a native Russian speaker so I can read these things.And what I found is that there was an interest and the Orthodox, Russian Orthodox Church was sort of used as a foreign policy tool on behalf of the Kremlin. But what they really cared about is Catholics and the Catholic Church in the Vatican. That’s where most of the energy went because there were lots of Catholics living in Warsaw Pact countries and parts of the Soviet Union.So they didn’t see the World Council of Churches and liberal Protestants as particularly threatening and they didn’t use a lot of resources, [00:24:00] but nonetheless, they did eventually send the Russian Orthodox Church to join the World Council of Churches. It took some time in haggling. At first, the World Council of Churches said no, and the Russian Orthodox Church wasn’t particularly interested, but eventually there was a rapprochement between the two and they ended up kind of cooperating and working together on basically anti-racist initiatives.And they found the one area of common ground between liberal Protestants and the Russian Orthodox Church was to call out racism wherever it existed. And so they were trying to focus the attention of the World Council of Churches away from issues like religious liberty, which kind of presented the Soviet Union in a negative light for obvious reasons, and trying to shift the dialogue away from issues of religious liberty to issues of western racism and white supremacy. So there’s a lot of that in the sixties and seventies going on.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And now what about Metropolitan Nikidim? Sorry, I’m probably butchering the pronunciation there. Talk about him. Who is he?ZUBOVICH: Yeah. I don’t write much about him in this book. I’m working on a new book that might mention him a bit more often. He was higher up in the church. I think he was for a while, the kind of, the person who was in charge of kind of, essentially like the church’s foreign policy or, international diplomacy. Kind of a mysterious figure. I couldn’t get much of a sense of who he was as a person from archival information, but probably Soviet specialists know more about him than I do.SHEFFIELD: Well at the very least apparently in the Mitrokhin archive he was listed as a Soviet KGB agent.ZUBOVICH: Yeah. I will say that what it means to be an agent is not as sort of clear as you would think, right?These are just folks oftentimes who agree to cooperate and send reports based on what they’re doing once their trip was done overseas somewhere, it was actually quite common in the United States as well. [00:26:00] Matthew Sutton has a great book called Double Crossed. It’s about American missionaries essentially working as spies, sometimes willingly cooperating.Sometimes a member of the OSS or the CIA would just pose like a journalist and just kind of ‘oh, tell me about your time in China, what was that like?’ and they’d ask them some specific questions. And so I just say that because, on both sides of the divide, right, the iron curtain divide, there was a lot of cooperation between religious figures and state intelligence agencies. But what that cooperation looked like and what it means to be a CIA asset or a KGB agent really could mean very many different things. If that makes sense.SHEFFIELD: Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely it does. And I guess another example of that would be William F. Buckley, the right-wing media impresario. He was apparently had some sort of relationship with CIA during his lifetime for a few years. But to that end, though, I guess, one of the key figures that you talk about quite a bit in the book is John Foster Dulles.I think to the extent that people nowadays know who he was, they know that there’s an airport named after him. But he was just a huge presence in both American and religious and political life. Let’s talk about him for a little bit if we could.ZUBOVICH: Yeah. Yeah. A really interesting guy, of course, Dulles Airport is named after him. He is probably most famous for being Dwight D. Eisenhower’s very hawkish secretary of state. He was a close advisor during the early Cold War to Eisenhower and was a proponent of taking a tough line on the Soviet Union.He was a hawk, and he was a proponent of, oftentimes, using nuclear weapons, which never ended up happening. But in the archive, you could see him again and again, sort of, pushing to use nuclear weapons either as a deterrent or to win this or that conflict.So he’s known as this kind of hawkish guy, which makes his long association with liberal Protestantism all the more [00:28:00] interesting. He grew up in a diplomatic family. His grandfather had been a Secretary of State. His uncle Bert, the Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, also served in that position and took a young John Foster Dulles to Paris in 1918, 1919 when World War I was coming to an end and the Treaty of Paris was being negotiated and the League of Nations being negotiated. So he comes from this pedigree of foreign policy and that’s kind of what he eventually does.But he also comes from a religious family, a Presbyterian family. His grandfather was a longtime missionary, and he himself becomes a prominent layman. And for most of his early life he works as an international lawyer, but he also works as a religious lawyer. He gets involved in the 1920s in these heresy trials.This was a moment when the modernists and the fundamentalists are fighting it out between the two of them over Protestant theology. It’s one of these moments when theology really does matter and it’s at the heart of things. And people like Henry Pitney Van Dusen get put on trial by their denominations because they say, I don’t believe in the virgin birth of Christ, or I don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And then there’s this trial that happens where you’re tried for heresy to figure out whether you can remain a minister of good standing in this denomination. And John–SHEFFIELD: And I’m sorry, that is the original cancel culture.ZUBOVICH: Yeah, that’s, that’s a great way of putting it.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. The today’s Christian right has literally flipped, flipped the history on its head, that they the far-right Christians, were continuously throughout Christian history been the ones that were interested in censorship and canceling people.ZUBOVICH: Yeah.SHEFFIELD: But I’m sorry, go ahead.ZUBOVICH: No, just to add to that, I mean, the, it’s a perennial question in any religion [00:30:00] including Protestantism, right?How, to what extent can you honestly reassess your faith, your theology, and your values in a community that usually has sort of standards for what orthodoxy means, right? This comes up again and again. In a community like Catholicism, this is easier to figure out, right? There is an authority, right? He’s in the Vatican and he gets ultimate say of what is and is not Catholic theology.Protestantism, it’s much messier, right? There’s no Protestant pope. Even lots of denominations which follow, for example, the congregational model, they, each church essentially gets to decide what theological orthodoxy is for themselves.And so it gets really messy and tricky, right? And there’s lots of innovation and change and flux in these communities that makes it a really interesting group to study. But Dulles is very much on the kind of liberal, modernist side. He believes you can be a good Christian without having to believe in certain forms of miracles or certain kinds of doctrines that other people consider orthodox.And he’s really good at getting these people off the hook. And the people for whom he acts as a lawyer in these heresy trials mostly end up retaining their pulpits. And in this way, the modernists kind of win out over the fundamentalists who split off and create their own institutions.It’ll become really important later on in life. Dulles after this kind of religious work is also an international lawyer. And he’s thinking through the challenges of international order in the 1930s. He’s attending the meetings of the League of Nations, the kind of precursor to the United Nations, which is falling apart in late 1930s and after one of these particularly contentious meetings where the League of Nations tries to stop the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, but can’t do anything about it, he goes to Oxford, England in 1937 from Geneva. And at Oxford, he sees many [00:32:00] people from the same countries cooperating with one another. And this is the conference where the World Council of Churches is being created. And he thinks that there’s something about Christianity that’s especially good at binding people across national boundaries and promoting cooperation.And he thinks to himself, we need more of this in the world. We need religious values to be more prominent in international politics so that there is goodwill and brotherhood promoted, and he thinks that the World Council of Churches is going to do a much better job creating that unity than the League of Nations.And so he essentially gets really close to the churches and all throughout the 1940s, prior to the election of Dwight Eisenhower, he’s working with church groups and he’s working on essentially creating a kind of world government, the thing that becomes the United Nations. This is Dulles’s main project all throughout the 1940s.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And well, and also for him, it’s, I think there, there seemed to have been some real concern that, I mean, he kind of maybe saw himself as sort of betwe in between, like, and wanted to see the World Council of Churches and liberal Protestantism as the reasonable middle between atheistic communism and, Christian fundamentalism. Is that, would you say that’s an accurate assessment?ZUBOVICH: I think that’s right. Yeah. I think lots of people believe this. What’s distinct about John Foster Dulles is, from his point of view, there’s really no difference between a liberal international order premised on Christian values and American values, right?There’s no conflict between creating an international community and spreading American influence throughout the world. These two things are [00:34:00] basically the same project for Dulles. So in the late thirties, 1940s, you could hear him saying, we need a world government that, that’ll essentially be like, the early history of the United States when, the states were sort of coming together slowly but surely and eventually evolved into a kind of, a kind of more serious government structure, right?He wants, he has that vision for the world. He wants like a proper world government. He says things like, we need a new deal for the world. And I think he’s genuine. I never quite figured out Dulles, but I think, he’s really taking seriously the issue of war and conflict and really believes that world government is the thing that.The world needs. And once the Cold War comes and once he figures out, oh actually, right, this world government’s going to involve the Soviet Union is going to involve lots of countries that don’t want to promote American values. And once he sees there’s actually quite a cleavage right between the spread of American, wealth and power and ideas, a kind of true world government. Then he abandons the project and becomes much more of a nationalist. So that, that’s kind of my read on him. This fascinating trajectory where he is really involved in kind of world government debates to becoming a kind of hawkish, nationalistic figure in the Eisenhower administration.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Now what about the idea though, of sort of, I mean, so yeah, the idea of world fellowship or world government, I mean, obviously these are different things. But there was and to go back to Edward Bellamy for him, he, the key kind of the main reason in his book looking backward of why Americans created this sort of socialist utopia was that.For him that they were making the world ready for Jesus to come back to. That’s why they were [00:36:00] doing that. And how much is this sort of eschatological thinking animating liberal Protestantism? And not everybody had it, but some of them did, right?ZUBOVICH: Yeah, that’s right. Yeah. So there are two ways of looking at, I mean, broadly speaking, two, two ways of looking at eschatology.And historians often make the distinctions between. Premillennialism and post millennialism. Premillennialism is the idea that, just really, really roughly speaking that the world is going to become a much worse place before the return of Christ. And so if you hold the premillennialist view like many fundamentalists and evangelicals did in the 20th century then you know, you’re not going to invest quite as much in institution building because all of that’s going to fall apart right in the tribulations.And, in, during the rapture most liberal Protestants also had an eschatological view, but they believed that essentially in the post millennialist view that the way in which the second coming is going to be accomplished is that peace by peace, the kingdom of God on earth is going to be built.Built right. So the, the kind of trials and tribulations were, a thing of the past, right. That, you could slowly but surely right. Make the world an increasingly Christian place. Right. An increased place where, harmony is harmony, peace and justice thrive.And after that happens, then Jesus returns, right? And it’s a much a view of eschatology that is much more amenable to, social welfare and racial justice and international engagement in that, in the post-millennial view, those things seem much more important.SHEFFIELD: Well, and so I mean, so how much was that?Animating some of these key figures that we’re talking about here.ZUBOVICH: Huge. Yeah. Hu hugely. Yeah. The idea of the Kingdom of God is, all throughout Protestant literature in back in the social gospel and all throughout the middle decades of the [00:38:00] 20th century, right? The context in which, they’re doing all the very kind of specific things that, that I talk about, if they’re in a, picketing as part of the Civil Rights movement, if they’re, lobbying to get this law changed so that, Whatever, farmers can get social insurance or something like that.They’re doing that within a broader theological context. And those two things are the main two things of that theological context are building the kingdom of God on Earth and Right. The ecumenical movement, bringing Christians across the world together into unity. Right. Those two things were, part and parcel right of the same sort of movement to make the world better, right.In order to bring about the second coming essentially.SHEFFIELD: And yet it was in their political rhetoric, not something that they really did talk about too much. It was something that they kind of said amongst themselves. Is that accurate, would you say?ZUBOVICH: Yeah. Yeah, I think so. There was an internal rhetoric, right, meant for, fellow believers.So if you look at like, the Methodist press and what they’re talking about this stuff would be all over it. But ecumenical Protestants also recognized that they lived in a country and in a world where there were lots of Protestant denominations and didn’t believe the same thing.They were early cooperators with Jews and Catholics and so they recognized that there were lots of Americans, who weren’t. Christians who weren’t even or Protestants, and they recognized that, in the broader world, there were officially atheistic countries. There were predominantly Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist countries.There were lots of different types of people in the world. There was a very diverse world. And so the justifications, right, maybe the motivation for the work that they were doing came from their own specific theological belief, but in a diverse world, you need to justify your actions beyond your [00:40:00] own community.And when speaking to broader communities, they found that they could talk about these, the same ideas, right? In a way that would appeal to people beyond their own specific Protestant denominations. And so one of the languages that they started using was the language of human rights, which for them felt like it was saying much of the same stuff as the Bible was saying as their own religious traditions were saying, but in a way that wasn’t overtly couched in.In specifically Protestant values. And so they came to believe that the language of human rights was one way of, building a more Christian world without making it explicitly Christian, right? Inviting, Jews and Catholics and Muslims, and even atheists to take part in building the kingdom of God on Earth, even if these other groups would do it for their own reasons, right?That didn’t necessarily come from, Protestant theological commitments. So that’s one of the reasons why I highlight the language of human rights in my book, is that I think essentially, it’s a translation of Protestant theology for a broader, more cosmopolitan, more diverse world.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And I guess, well, two things really quick, I guess let’s maybe cover one that you don’t talk about too much in the book is this idea of Judeo-Christian, that this concept was invented, the term was invented in, in your time period here, roughly like the 1920s, 1930s, I believe.And you note that Franklin Roosevelt was one of the people who used that. But so specifically though, why did this term get invented and what did people say before this term? Why did they say it? What did they say instead before?ZUBOVICH: Yeah. For much of American history the United States was conceived of as a Protestant nation and beginning in the [00:42:00] 1930s and accelerating after World War II, more and more public figures started talking about the United States as either a tri-faith nation or a Judeo-Christian nation.So the goal of calling the United States, not a Protestant nation, but a Judeo-Christian nation, was to welcome in Catholics and Jews into the American public sphere. Now there were two ways of doing this.One way was, it was to, it was about increasing pluralism, right? It was about inviting different kinds of religious communities into the public sphere and accepting them and promoting greater tolerance of Catholics and Jews. So there was a kind of more liberal version of Judeo-Christianity.But there were other folks who believed that the focus of Judeo-Christianity would be to find only really religious Catholics and only really religious Jews in order to create a kind of tri-faith alliance to combat atheism. And so in the Judeo-Christian rhetoric, you kind of had a tension within it.There was the increasingly pluralistic attention to diversity strand of that rhetoric, right? Let’s welcome in Catholics and Jews. And there was another strand that talked about really keeping out atheists from the American public, making sure that anybody who’s prominent in American public life is deeply and devoutly religious.So that rhetoric sort of did both of those things at the same time. And the United States, just to kind of conclude the story, started abandoning this rhetoric in the 1960s when it became kind of solely the province of the religious right. So lots of folks on the left thought, okay, the Judeo-Christian moment served its purpose. It welcomed in Catholics and Jews. But now, right, we have all these people coming from Asia and Africa. Many of them are non-Christians, right? They’re Buddhist and Muslims, and the world is a [00:44:00] very diverse place and lots of people actually don’t believe anything at all. So we need new ways of discussing the American nation that’s less religiously specific, and that’s when the religious right really grabs onto the rhetoric of the Judeo-Christian nation. And that’s why today, you only hear about Judeo-Christianity coming out of the Republican party and not, the Democratic Party.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and it is notable also though, that I think, within the historiography of religion, Judeo-Christian never really caught on as a term because it’s largely inaccurate in terms of specific doctrines. Christianity and Judaism have extremely different interpretations of many of the key stories in the Hebrew Bible. And so to say that in some limited sense—that they have the same text that they both claim to believe in. That’s true. That exists. But in terms of political history of these two religions they’re really not related to each other. And Judaism has no influence on Christianity after the establishment of Christianity. Not really. Would you agree with that?ZUBOVICH: Yeah. I think that’s more or less right. I mean Jews were one of the, along with liberal Protestants, were one of the communities that was really forceful about this rhetoric. And it served a purpose for them in the 1930s and 1940s when antisemitism was unimaginably popular in the United States. It was common, it was widespread. People talked about it openly and in public. Franklin Roosevelt essentially said that we’re a Protestant nation and Jews and Catholics are here under forbearance. And he said this at an event where there were Jews and Catholics in the room.So people were openly antisemitic and, weren’t particularly shy about expressing these [00:46:00] sentiments. And so it was a— Judeo-Christianity was a strategic move that made sense for Jews and certain kinds of liberal Protestants in the thirties and forties. But by the 1960s when pluralism was sort of more in the air, more rooted, more established, Holocaust memory started rising up then, the differences between these religious communities and the theological distinctions became more prominent once the feeling that antisemitism is going to make a huge comeback, kind of seemed more remote. That’s when in the sixties, right? You’ve kind have more of this theological parsing those that was happening.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. All right. Well, so we’ve talked about Catholics in this conversation a bit here, but let’s maybe focus on them directly, so I think to a large degree, and you talk about it that Catholicism had its own tradition of international order. And it had many centuries of doctrine about the relationship between church and state.And so to some degree the people who were doing this, creating liberal Protestantism, they were doing it as a way in a, in some sense maybe to create something that is a mirror to what the Catholic tradition was. But the Catholic tradition also, up until the Vatican II reforms was very skeptical of democracy and skeptical of separation of church and state.So let’s, I mean, there’s a lot to, there’s a lot in there, I acknowledge. So, let’s maybe just start wherever you want to start with that, and then we’ll continue with the Catholic discussion.ZUBOVICH: Yeah, let me just backtrack to say that the reason why I wrote this book about liberal Protestants, not about Christianity more broadly is because these liberal Protestants in the mid-20th century were essentially the last establishment in the United States, right?Evangelicals and conservative Catholics today wish they [00:48:00] had that kind of cultural power. But they’re just partisan groups among many partisan groups, right? I don’t know if the United States is ever going to have a kind of truly established, religion in the way that mid-century Protestantism was.And so the reason I was interested in this community is because of its, kind of, hegemonic role, right? The last establishment essentially, and their history is really weaved into American history. So is the history of American Catholicism. It’s a really interesting story, a minority faith in a country that is predominantly Protestant, as you had mentioned under siege for much of the 19th century, both in the United States and in Europe.And so over the course of 19th century, Catholicism becomes much more conservative, we could say. Much more anti-republican, anti-liberal more focused on cementing the power and authority of the Vatican because in Europe, ever since the French Revolution, the Catholic church is sort of losing power and influence on the European continent.And there the Vatican looks at the United States with a lot of skepticism. All this stuff about, pluralism, individualism, mobility, right? These are values that look from the perspective of the 19th century Vatican’s point of view as antithetical to Catholicism. And so they are they essentially condemn what they view as quote unquote Americanism.All these liberal values that are being promoted in the United States. But that’s not to say that Catholics are just following along the lines of the Vatican. There are lots of folks in the United States, both clergy and especially in the laity. Who essentially acculturate to American political norms and start thinking of themselves as essentially both good Americans and good Catholics. And they don’t see a conflict between the two, but on the Vatican’s line[00:50:00] essentially is the predominant one until the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s.And so for much of the period that I discussed in my book, right, Catholics essentially position themselves as a kind of conservative alternative and a set of institutions that are alternative to the kind of mainstream liberal Protestant project.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And this is definitely beyond the scope of your book, but the Catholic church’s response to the Adolf Hitler regime, kind of does, I think, well let’s maybe talk about that a little bit in sort of the aftermath of that.ZUBOVICH: Yeah. The I mean, it’s an extremely controversial and complicated nuanced subject. We’re getting more and more information about it now that the Vatican archives from this era opened. And so there’s much more nuanced takes on what, Pius XII was trying to achieve.And there’s a lot of debate among historians, and I’m not an expert on this stuff, so I’ll leave it to them to sort it out. But what you could see from the American vantage point is that most, the vast majority of American Catholics to take another example–Catholic institutions, I should say–when they were looking at the Civil War in Spain and the ascendancy of Franco in during the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s, almost every single one came down on the side of Franco. And so, Catholic institutions were not afraid to side with fascist or proto fascist forces in Europe in the 1930s.I think the only magazine that didn’t take Franco’s side is Commonweal Magazine, which is sort of today known as a liberal journal. They had a debate about it. They weren’t sure kind of which side they wanted to take. But I think every other Catholic publication in the thirties took Franco’s side.And so, this was a community whose [00:52:00] elites, whose clergy were very much, had a very complicated and distant relationship from liberalism. These were not promoters of liberal values. They had kind of their own project that they were that they were promoting, which wasn’t fascist, I should say that clearly. But could sort of sway between liberalism and fascism as the winds turn essentially.SHEFFIELD: Yeah, and I think that’s an important point to make though, because especially for 21st century Americans and people who are not, may not be religious themselves, there’s this tendency to label everything that is reactionary or far-right as fascism. And that there may be some commonalities with that with the historic term, things that were called fascism. But the reality is that these are ideas that are a lot older than Benito Mussolini, and Franco, and Adolph Hitler. So you have to understand that if you’re going to try to counter it, I believe.ZUBOVICH: There’s a certain kind of conservatism by which I don’t mean like, libertarian economics, right? Or like William F. Buckley or Ronald Reagan. I mean, like a rootedness in tradition that Catholic institutions are really good at promoting. Evangelicals are not particularly good at this, partly because I think they’ve, really like imbibed the spirit of American individualism and freedom and libertarian economics.But Catholics are really good institution builders. And, their elites are really good at kind of reproducing, right? Like a really rooted conservatism. And so, in, in some way, I think that the history of Catholic institution in the United States, one of the most important roles they serve is being a kind of bastion of conservatism.One that oftentimes is not favored or, one that doesn’t, have a lot of sympathy from the laity. [00:54:00] Most churchgoers, most Catholic churchgoers in the United States today are to the left on many issues when compared to, say the Catholic Bishop’s Council or something like that.So I should make it clear that I’m not talking about all Catholics, right. But there is a way in which, you know Catholic institutions and Catholic elites are create the institutional setting that can kind of reproduce generation upon generation of, conservative values in the kind of Burkeian sense of conservatism in a way that other religious groups are not particularly good at doing.SHEFFIELD: Yeah. Well, and actually to that end the. The, this liberal protestant establishment that we’re talking about here, it also failed to reproduce. And, and we’ve talked about how that they, in the political sense they were able to create things that, that lived after they, they themselves, like DOIs and these other people, Truman and FDR, I think you could say were in this group that, they were able to create international and national institutions that, that outlived them.But in terms of their, theological influence or their congregational influence, that just drastically declined since then. And let’s talk about why you believe that happened and some of the key moments for that.ZUBOVICH: Yeah. So when you say, they fail to reproduce themselves, I mean, I think you’re right in a certain sense, but we have to ask,SHEFFIELD: I mean Yeah, they’re still there, obviously, so Yeah.It’s just that their dominance has not been preserved religiously.ZUBOVICH: Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. Part of the kind of reproduction of what question has to do with– like part of my objection to that would be, oh, they still constitute 13% of the American population. They’re still really important and producing presidents, or near presidents. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama come out of this tradition. Groups like the UCC, the United Church of Christ is really important in the Black Lives Matter movement.And I can give examples of the ways in which they are prominent. [00:56:00] But the other way I think in the liberal Protestants continue to be prominent in the United States is not through their churches and demographics, but through the values they promoted. The language of human rights is still here with us.Even though the community that, helped promote this language has shrunk quite a bit. And so I do think that they’re better at reproducing their values, ideas, and politics and worse at reproducing their institutions and churches. Liberal ecumenical Protestants were at their height in the 1950s and 1960s, and they got involved in a number of politically controversial movements.We talked about the Cold War in which, you know, and the ways in which the Cold War kind of, made the kind of left-leaning folks in this community kind of come under attack. That was sort of one, one example of this. They were, closely aligned with the Civil Rights movement, which again, especially within their own community, was very unpopular.They took a stand early on against the Vietnam War, right. And as they were doing all this stuff, taking clear stances on politically controversial issues that put them out of touch with the vast majority of churchgoers, right? There were consequences to this. On the one hand, there were lots of young people in these liberal Protestant churches who took these ideas seriously, right?Anti-war activism, anti-poverty activism, anti-racist activism. And they started practicing these things. And what they oftentimes found is that they could express those ideas and those values better in non-religious institutions compared with, their home churches, right? And so one of the things that starts happening in the 1960s is that young folks start leaving liberal ecumenical churches.Some of them return, but many don’t. [00:58:00] Many choose to live out their theological values in contexts outside of the church, right? Outside of the community in which they grew up. So that’s one thing that starts happening. The other thing is you get this kind of rebellion of the laity conservatives who are continuing to attend these churches start withholding funds and donations leading to kind of financial crises. They’re the ones that stick around as the young people are leaving.And so liberal mainline churches in some ways kind of become more conservative after the sixties as they start shrinking, they start shrinking and aging. But the majority of mainline quote unquote denominations in the most recent elections, I think the majority of them voted for Donald Trump, not Joe Biden even though the leadership of these communities is, kind of in the Democratic camp for the most part.So essentially, the dynamics set forth by the political commitments that liberal ecumenical Protestants make in the mid-20th century, on the one hand, promote these values beyond the church community while also leading to the shrinking and aging of their denomination.So it’s a complicated legacy, right? And how you feel about this legacy really has to do with what you think is more important, right? Is the more important legacy that these churches are shrinking, that fewer and fewer people are remaining committed Christians. Is that the important thing?Are you bothered by the fact that many of these folks are becoming Nones, N-O-N-E-S. Not nuns. People who don’t affiliate with any religious tradition. Is that the most important legacy?Or is the more important legacy, the kind of promotion of social justice and liberal values in the public sphere? In the human rights movement, in the anti-racist movements and the laws and regulations that, help poor folks. If that’s where you think the real commitment of Christianity lies, then you’re likely to take a more positive view. So [01:00:00] it’s really a perspectival question, right? Like, which of these two things do you think is of greater value? What do you find more important?SHEFFIELD: Hmm, yeah. Well, and what is kind of interesting is that while the growth in the None has definitely happened in–we have seen a decline in so-called mainline denominations.Historically, what is kind of interesting is that the mainline in the very recent years actually has seen a slight uptick depending on the survey that you’re looking at. And that probably is, and it seems to be, at least in part, that there is some dissatisfaction among younger evangelicals with the tradition that they have.And so that tradition has seen a large drop off because and that’s what it’s kind of interesting looking at that in terms of affiliations that for the longest time that, in the nineties and early two thousands, the evangelicals and the more fundamentalist Christians were, they were crowing about how they were the only ones who were going to be left in Christianity and now the Southern Baptist Convention, for instance, has had massively declining numbers year after year, after year.ZUBOVICH: Yep. About 20 years ago, you would’ve heard a lot of talk about how secularization theory is a bunch of bunk, that the people who predicted that the United States was going to become secular were really just focused on liberal Protestants. But here are these, thriving megachurches and thriving evangelical communities that are actually doing quite well.And so that would’ve been the position you would’ve heard about 20 years ago. But from our own vantage point today, it’s becoming much clearer that the evangelical community didn’t avoid secularization, they delayed it.Essentially, they got an extra 20, 30 years, something along those lines. But groups like the Southern Baptists and the others are experiencing what the mainline [01:02:00] experienced beginning in the 1960s. It was just delayed.To your point about liberal Protestants, one of the ways in which they kind of sustained themselves and sustained their numbers, say in the thirties or forties, if you were, upwardly mobile in the United States and you grew up as a Pentecostal or one of the Methodist sects or something like that, and you were kind of upwardly mobile, at some point you might switch from a more fundamentalist or evangelical church to a mainline one as you kind of rose through the ranks of society as you kind of raised your cultural or class status.By the sixties, what happened was that the evangelical movement created a kind of politics of respectability for evangelical denominations. And so you could be, by the seventies, eighties, nineties, a good Christian businessman or a politician without having to change your affiliation, right? You can kind of remain with your own denominational tradition even as you were upwardly mobile.And so the evangelical movement was really good after World War II in creating a space where people can be upwardly mobile and respectable without needing to become members of mainline churches. And this essentially cut off one of the sources that was kind of replenishing the numbers of mainline Protestantism and is one of the reasons why we get this kind of a shrinking of the mainline.So what you’re describing more recently, maybe a slight uptick in the numbers of folks who are switching from evangelical to mainline churches, if that is in fact happening, actually seems to sort of follow a historical pattern. Interestingly enough, it kind of hearkens back to a phenomenon that had existed earlier.SHEFFIELD: And we’ll see to what extent that continues, if it does or not. But it is, I mean, it is notable also though that a lot of that seems like almost all the growth when you look at demographic studies on religious switching, that people who were joining [01:04:00] these more fundamentalist denominations, they were not non-Christians.They, that they were basically sort of cannibalizing the other Christians. And now that those groups themselves have had their own secularization and disaffiliation that’s kind of eaten away a lot of their numbers, there’s not really any pool of people to draw on for the fundamentalist denominations anymore.So now things may be going back in the opposite direction as people who were born and raised in a fundamentalist tradition are saying, ‘Oh, I don’t think I believe this stuff is literally true. And I see these other people don’t believe that either. So maybe I’ll go talk to them.’ZUBOVICH: Yeah, it, I know it sounds like we’re getting really into the weeds here, but there’s a really important broader point about this that, this kind of like stuff about denominations and denominational switching. I think really points to one of the big themes that I try to highlight in my book, which is that in order to understand the religious landscape today, you have to go back and understand the history of liberal Protestantism.And I think that’s because a lot of the rise of the Christian Right and Evangelicalism happens in the context of their rivalry with the Religious Left. It’s essentially an intramural religious rivalry. By the seventies, evangelicals are essentially saying, we’re out to combat atheism and secularism, we’re rebelling against the secular state.But what I think is a better description of what they’re doing is they’re fighting back against religious liberal values, right? Not secular values, but a specific version of Christianity that they, that they’re dismissive of and dislike.I think in order to understand what’s going on today, you really have to look at the history of this kind of intra religious rivalry between liberal Protestants and conservative Protestants.SHEFFIELD: Oh, yes, absolutely.And I guess maybe let’s do, this has been a great [01:06:00] conversation but let’s maybe end with that you talk about as part of sort of the difficulties that the liberal Protestant establishment had and sort of perpetuating itself from a sectarian standpoint, you talked quite a bit about this idea of a clergy-laity gap as something that began to grow larger and larger over time. What did you mean by that?ZUBOVICH: Yeah, the clergy-laity gap is one of the central dynamics that I think helps explain the decline of liberal Protestantism and the kind of numerical terms and the creation of a religious vacuum into which the evangelicals and the Christian right steps into essentially.The liberal Protestant leadership, all these ministers and denominational executives, missionary heads, theologians, and others are promoting increasingly liberal values all throughout the mid-20th century on topics that are controversial and unpopular, right?Diminishing racism lessening poverty and economic inequality. Providing an alternative framework to the Cold War to create a more sort of peaceful, less confrontational world. These are all things that in the pews of the churches among churchgoers are deeply unpopular.And what you have emerging over time, and I think this has a really long history, but in the middle of the 20th century, especially by the Cold War, you really see the clergy-laity gap developed into a chasm, right? That the ministers and the people in the pews really don’t agree politically, right?And so what happens is that you get this sort of divide between the liberal clergy and the more conservative church going public that I think is at the heart of the story of the decline of the mainline and the ascendancy of more conservative religious [01:08:00] values.The liberal Protestant ministers, and especially the national leadership, are asking people in small towns and villages and big cities across the country to really reckon with human rights, anti-racism anti-war protesting, things like that.And church goers just don’t want to hear it. They’re deeply resistant to it. And it’s this kind of fracturing this community that essentially undermines the leadership and allows for evangelicals to kind of step in to say, our values are more in line with yours to the laity. Our version of Christianity, the kind of Billy Graham version of Christianity that doesn’t really ask you to change your mind or your values about the world.It’s essentially a version of Christianity that is telling you that what you grew up with is good enough. What you believe is what the Bible says. The Bible is not telling you to go protest the Vietnam War. It’s telling you actually the opposite. It’s telling you what you already think about the Vietnam War, just to take one example. And so, the clergy-laity gap is, I think, a central dynamic to the decline of liberal Protestantism and the ascendancy of evangelical religion in the United States.SHEFFIELD: All right. Well, there’s so many other things we could talk about here today, but I don’t want to make the conversation too long here for the audience. But it’s been a great discussion. Let me just put up the book on the screen again.So we’ve been talking today with Gene Zubovich. He is the author of Before the Religious Right, Liberal Protestants, Human Rights, and the Polarization of the United States. It’s definitely worth checking out. I recommend everybody do that. And then of course, you are on Twitter as well. And that is I’ll hop to spell it for the listeners since you’ve got your fine Russian name there. So Gene Z-U-B-O-V-I-C-H [01:10:00]. It’s been a pleasure talking with you today.ZUBOVICH: Thanks so much. It has been lots of fun.SHEFFIELD: All right, so that’s it for this program. Thanks for watching, listening or reading, and if you’re interested in more discussion about the religious left and the religious right. I recommend checking out Episode 62 of this program where I talked with historian David Hollinger about the rise of American fundamentalism and its integration into right-wing Republicanism.And as always, if you like what we’re doing here, you can go to theoryofchange.show, where you can get full access to every single episode with video, audio, and transcript. And I do appreciate everybody who is a subscriber of the show. Thank you very much for your support. I’ll see you next time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit plus.flux.community/subscribe