3547 - The Rise of the New Right and MAGA w/ Laura K. Field

Summary

---

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3547 — The Rise of the New Right and MAGA with Laura K. Field

Date: December 17, 2025

Guest: Laura K. Field, political theorist, author of Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the intellectual history and evolving coalitions behind the "New Right" and the broader MAGA movement. Host Sam Seder and the Majority Report team are joined by Laura K. Field to break down these forces as detailed in her new book. Together, they examine how right-wing intellectual currents, think tanks, culture warriors, and online influencers have congealed to fuel the Trumpian political project in America. The conversation explores the philosophical roots, current strategies, and dangerous trajectories of this movement, alongside its recent fissures and threats it poses to American democracy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. News Round-Up and Political Context

• Trump’s Escalation in Venezuela: Announcing a blockade, mixing war posturing with resource grabs.
• House GOP Defections: Four Republicans work with Democrats via a rare, successful discharge petition to extend ACA subsidies—pointing to fractures in the GOP.

  “Since 1935, less than 4% [of discharge petitions] have gotten enough signatures.” (B, 04:06)

• Trump Attacks on Institutions: Plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research, labeling it “climate alarmist.”
• White House Turmoil: Trump’s Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, comes under fire for attacking others in the administration.
• Republican Health Care Cynicism: Replay of GOP's empty promises on ACA replacement, highlighted by Rep. Jim McGovern’s rundown of years of “nothing happened” quotes from Trump.

  “People are sick and tired of the empty rhetoric... They’re sick and tired of you saying you have a plan.” (Rep. McGovern, 10:03)

2. The GOP’s Healthcare Credibility Crisis (07:55–15:56)

• History of Failed GOP Plans: Multiple, unfounded promises to repeal and replace Obamacare.

• Chip Roy’s Critique: Even far-right Rep. Chip Roy acknowledges the GOP offers “milquetoast garbage,” exposing deep internal dissatisfaction.

  “At some point, people will look at this body and say, maybe we should get rid of all 435 members of the House and all 100 members of the Senate and start over because Congress is literally failing the American people.” (Chip Roy, 13:01)

• Sam Seder’s Analysis: GOP rhetoric is merely anti-corporate posturing. If the Democrats offered a bold alternative (e.g., Medicare for All), they could expose Republican emptiness on this issue.

---

[24:13] Main Interview: Laura K. Field on the Intellectual Roots of MAGA

Opening Framing

Laura K. Field joins to discuss her book and offer a vivisection of the MAGA New Right’s intellectual and ideological currents.

The Four Pillars of the New Right:

1. The Claremonters:

   • Origin in Straussian (Leo Strauss) philosophy, through Harry Jaffa to the Claremont Institute.
   • Core Features:
     • Obsessive defense of the (mythologized) American founding and Declaration principles.
     • Anti-historical change, anti-administrative state, anti-New Deal, and anti-Civil Rights.
     • Increasing nativism and rejection of equality over time.
   • Key Figure: Michael Anton (“Flight 93 Election” analogy: Trump as America’s last hope, requiring “counter-revolutionary” energy).

     “Their fervor is super, super intense... There’s a kind of masculinist fervor to it.” (Sam, 34:34; Laura, 35:08)

2. Postliberals:

   • Mainly socially conservative Catholics—think Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermeule.
   • Core Features:
     • Open rejection of not just progressivism, but “liberalism” as the philosophical basis of individual rights, pluralism, and democracy (not just capital-L “Liberal” politics).
     • Critique of the “disintegrative” effects of individualism and desire to reconstitute society along “common good” lines via state power.
     • Mixes some anti-neoliberal, anti-market rhetoric and policies (e.g., some support for child tax credits), but with authoritarian, traditionalist social aims.
   • Sam’s Analysis: For all their anti-individualism, the “community” they seek is usually just pre-civil rights era racial and patriarchal hierarchy.

     “When they’re talking about the collective, what they’re really talking about is a hierarchy that is either a racial or a patriarchy.” (Sam, 40:29)

3. National Conservatives (“NatCons”):

   • Big tent combining social and economic conservatism, populist rhetoric, and explicit nationalism.
   • Core Features:
     • Organizers, unifiers—host national conferences merging Heritage Foundation, Claremont, and New Right types.
     • Led by figures like Yoram Hazony, advocating for a “homogenous nation”—heavy implication of ethno-nationalism.
     • Migration and anti-multiculturalism central to their agenda.
   • Rhetorical Shift: Initially denouncing explicit racism, but drifted to welcoming openly racist voices.

     “They started off saying, we don’t want any racists here at our conference, and then gradually the doors kind of open.” (Laura, 49:06)

4. The Hard Right Underbelly:

   • Online “manosphere,” YouTube vigilantes, self-styled philosophers (Bronze Age Pervert, Curtis Yarvin, etc.), deeply misogynist, often with advanced degrees.
   • Key Characteristics:
     • Meme-driven, pseudo-intellectual, blending fascist, Nietzschean, and reactionary ideas.
     • Appeal is partly aesthetic and emotional—offering “answers,” meaning, humor, and community, especially to young men feeling economic or social displacement.
   • Cultural Critique: These figures gather those aggrieved by modernity, loss of status, or economic opportunity.

     “There is this quality... all of this Übermensch stuff... makes it much easier for me as a guy who is uncomfortable within the world to know my place, get my place, have it there.” (Sam, 61:05)

---

[58:00+] CLASS, GENDER, AND THE FAILURE OF LIBERAL ALTERNATIVES

1. Economic Anxiety & Masculinity

• Emma Vigeland (co-host): Roots of fascist recruitment lie in economic precarity and unmet social expectations—liberal (or Democratic Party) narratives fail to provide meaning or community, especially for men.

  “Liberals... aren’t capable of providing that right now because you need more of a left-wing, clearer vision. The right is providing that... answers of communities that focus on masculinity and tying masculinity to economic empowerment.” (Emma, 65:39)

2. Cultural Loss & Zero-Sum Dynamics

• Sam Seder:
  • Part of the appeal is about relative loss—if once-white men were “centered” in every piece of cultural media, increased multicultural representation feels, psychologically, like loss.
  • U.S. society hasn’t equipped people for a “soft landing” in a multipolar, pluralist culture.

    “There’s a certain zero sum quality about this... When people start moving in and everybody’s more, you know, trying to be tied for first place, you’re going to feel a loss.” (Sam, 68:11)

3. Education’s Role and Conservative Inroads

• Laura K. Field:
  • Conservative culture warriors have capitalized on universities’ underinvestment in liberal arts and classics, creating a vacuum filled by Jordan Peterson types and right-wing “book clubs.”
  • She warns of the lost opportunity for broad-based liberal education, complicated both substantively (young people lack broad exposure) and rhetorically (right-wing claims of exclusion provide powerful grievance fuel).

    “I know that a great books program is not going to save the world... but it’s robbing young people of these moments... to understand history in its complexity.” (Laura, 75:46)

  • Red states are funding alternative, conservative civic centers teaching “classics,” while there’s no blue-state counter.

---

[77:53+] Chris Rufo and the Weaponization of “Ideas First” Politics

• Chris Rufo (Claremont, now Manhattan Institute): Purposely launched “Critical Race Theory” as a faux-boogeyman, building movement power out of a lie.

  “We’re going to distort the truth to make, to score political points, to change policy... he was testing the limits of what you... If you build it, they will come.” (Laura, 78:35)

---

[79:07+] MAGA and Fascism: Where’s the Line?

• Laura K. Field:
  • She avoids slapping the “fascism” label in academic work, but admits the reality is hard to deny. The street-level violence and administrative aggression (against immigrants, for example) are “obviously” fascist tactics.
  • The movement is radical, not the same as Republican neighbors, but still dangerous and deeply unpopular outside the base.

---

[81:26+] Fissures and the Future of MAGA

• Current Divisions:
  • Most splits are pragmatic or about power, not deep ideological rifts (some at Heritage Foundation over antisemitism, for example).
  • Intellectuals mostly cohere; tensions mostly erupt among grifters/personalities or on policy margins (e.g., Ukraine, economics).
  • JD Vance stands out as a figure trying to straddle all factions but appears “weak” for failing to challenge any corner of the movement.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Claremont Institute and Dogmatic Founding Fetishism:

  “They still have this mission, but I think it’s been corrupted… by dogmatic attachment to those principles, such that they can’t stand the administrative state, the New Deal, the civil rights movement in effect… corrupted by a kind of nativism and insularity.”
  — Laura K. Field [32:26]

• On “Aristo-Populism” and Post-Liberals:

  “They want to use the levers of power once we take over the state to impose those moral principles on the rest of society.”
  — Laura K. Field [42:10]

• On the “Hard Right Underbelly”:

  “They’re kind of taking off, you know, in these, these sort of dark places… They’re funny. You cannot deny that Bronze Age Mindset is in some ways a funny book and a smart book. Even though… it’s also just like rancid.”
  — Laura K. Field [55:10]

• On Masculinity, Economic Loss, and Cultural Displacement:

  “We as a society have not provided… a solution as to how to make this a soft landing… Other people are saying, ‘you gotta go back up to the top because there is no soft landing.’”
  — Sam Seder [68:11]

• On Rufo’s Strategy:

  “He was the one who said, who famously was on Twitter saying, like, when we say CRT, we’re going to basically make everybody… we’re going to just be propagandists, he basically admitted, and twist… And, you know, very sadly that worked.”
  — Laura K. Field [78:35]

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:08–04:26: News round-up and House GOP mutations
• 07:41–15:56: GOP healthcare failures, Chip Roy’s critique, ACA/Medicare for All debate
• 24:13–59:00: In-depth interview with Laura K. Field: intellectual roots of the New Right – Claremonters, Postliberals, NatCons, Hard Right
• 58:00–77:53: Class/gender/cultural malaise, “losers” and “winners,” educational vacuum
• 77:53–79:07: Chris Rufo, CRT panic as political strategy
• 79:07–81:26: Is MAGA fascist? Are there internal limits?
• 81:26–84:30: Movement fissures, future of the GOP and MAGA
• Notable soundbites and episode close follow

---

Episode Tone:
Wry, academically rigorous but accessible; critical and irreverent but generous in posing left strategies. Laura Field delivers sober analysis mixed with concern, while Sam and team blend accessible analogies, sharp questioning, and humor throughout.

---

Recommended For: Anyone seeking an insightful, deep understanding of how MAGA’s “New Right” descended from decades of right-wing intellectualism and how it now shapes the American political project—moving far beyond Trump’s personality or day-to-day scandals.

---

Further Reading:

• Laura K. Field, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right (linked in episode notes)

---

Transcript

[A]

It is Wednesday, December 17, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Laura K. Field, political theorist, author of Furious the Making of the Maga New Right. Also on the program today, Trump announces a blockade of Venezuela in his quest for war, or just all of Venezuela's oil. Also on the program today, four Republicans defect in the House and sign a discharge petition to bring the ACA extensions bill to the floor. Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth decides Americans are not allowed to see the second strike of the video of the boat in the Caribbean on September 2.

[B]

The most transparent administration in history is what we've been told. Huh?

[A]

You're just. You wouldn't understand it. Australian Bondi Beach, Hanukkah celebration. Killers of 15 tied to ISIS charged with terrorism. One died. Trump regime to dismantle the national center for Atmospheric Research because it so called promotes, I should say they say it promoted climate alarmism.

[B]

It's now only studying chemtrails, I guess.

[C]

Was it justified climate alarmism?

[A]

Nope. Sorry. I'm going to be dead in five years.

[C]

I don't care.

[A]

To offset the Trump slump, Trump now contemplating stimulus checks for Americans and Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles in hot water for slamming just about everyone in the White House. Former special counsel Jack Smith and closed door deposition with the House Judiciary Committee. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. It is hump day.

[B]

How I can't win. I can't win. I'm not enthusiastic enough. Okay. Oh, are you sad today? I put some gump behind it.

[C]

Emma, you hadn't lost until you said that.

[A]

Yeah. You were doing great. I just. You just did it with a dramatic flair and I was just letting you have the stage and then.

[B]

That's not. You know what you're doing. You know what you're doing.

[A]

I think now's a good time to say your haircut looks very nice. Thank you so much for noticing your haircut.

[B]

I did.

[A]

Good job.

[B]

Brian wins.

[A]

That's what it was.

[B]

Literally the first person, I think, first.

[A]

Time I just noticed you had a haircut. And I was like trying to suss that out, but I didn't. That I wasn't sure. Okay. Well, it's hump day and I think there's a certain giddiness. It is. This is the last Wednesday of 2025.

[B]

Yes. That we'll be doing live rip hump day 2025.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Reincarnated as hump day 2026.

[A]

Let's get into this. We got a lot to get to. It was just recently, I mean, literally in the past hour, it appears that the dischar, they got enough votes. And to be clear, the way that the House works is that generally, I mean, I feel like I can count on one hand the number of discharge petitions that I've even talked about over the course of the past 15 years.

[B]

I wrote this down, that the Bulwark had a write up about this, that there have only been two. Just they've succeeded just twice in the 21st century. And then in terms of success rates since 1935, less than 4% have gotten enough signatures and now you have like.

[A]

A handful almost happen on a daily basis.

[B]

Exactly, yeah.

[A]

And to be clear, what a discharge petition is, is that the way that the House of Representatives set up the speaker of the House basically dictates what bills are going to get to the floor of the House. And that is generally maintained because the members of the party of the Speakers of the House, of the speaker of the House, they don't. They go along what the speaker says because they feel like, well, I mean, not just because they agree with them, but I imagine also you mess with the speaker, you're going to lose your position on a committee. You're going to, you're just not providing party unity. And the crack up is so great amongst the right right now. And this will be something good to talk about with Laura K. Field, at least from an intellectual standpoint to the extent that there is intellect going on there and there is some in some quarters, but the crack up ranges from, you know, down to their, like, podcasters, into their lawmakers, into the, the executive branch in the White House with Susie Wiles. I mean, it's all coming at them very quickly right now. And this is the second instance in as many weeks I feel like that there's been a discharge petition. The Epstein files, of course, was a discharge petition. That is where you have the majority of members of the House. And if it's all the Democrats voting, that means that there has to be defectors from the Republican side. And that's the case with this one as well. Vote to bring a bill to the floor. Now, that doesn't mean that the bill is going to pass automatically. Some people will say, like, I just think this needs a hearing, etc. Etc. But more often than not, if you're going to buck your leadership, you're doing it for a reason. And that is because you feel the political pressure. And the four Republicans who defected, three of them are in purple districts in Pennsylvania and one, Mike Lawler in a blue district in New York state. And so they're worried about what's going to happen in a week. And to be clear, it's going to happen in a week regardless. The discharge petition says you need 30 days. The bill must be brought up within 30 days. Now, Mike Johnson could bring the bill to the floor today or tomorrow or any day in between if he wanted to. He may because they're not going to get much credit for their vote to extend the ACA subsidies a month after it's clear that they're not there anymore. Yeah, the Senate is very unlikely to pick up this bill, although it's possible, but unlikely. So this is part of the Republican crack up that's happening. But first, let's go to Jim McGovern from Congressman from which district? Brian doesn't say a number here. Someone get right on that bus. Sorry, he is from Massachusetts. Oh yeah, I know he's from Massachusetts, but he's from the heart of the commonwealth, the Worcester county area and Worcester.

[C]

Second Congressional.

[A]

Second in the second. It really should be the first. But how do you not know your own congressional. Yes, there you go for not putting it on the the on the sheet. Here is Jim McGovern.

[D]

But the truth is they've always said they have a plan, but they've never had a plan. Let me just go through a list of things here. In February of 2016, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said, we're going to replace Obamacare with something so much better. Nothing followed. On February 27 of 2017, the President said we have a really terrific, I believe, health care plan coming out. Never did. May 10, 2018, Donald Trump said, but wait till you see the plans that we have coming out literally over the next four weeks.

[E]

What?

[D]

We have a great health care plan coming out. Nothing happened. At a press gaggle near Air Force One In May of 2019, he said, we're coming up with a great health care plan. We're going to have a fantastic health care plan. It's coming out in the next four weeks. Nothing ever materialized. June 16, 2019 President said we're going to produce a phenomenal health care plan and we already have the concept of a plan and it will be so much better health care. Yeah, well, we'll be announcing it in about two months, maybe less. Nothing happened. Fox News interview the president said we're signing in a Health care plan within two weeks. A full and complete health care plan. Nothing happened July 2020. The President said, well, we're going to be doing a health care plan. We're going to be doing a very inclusive health care plan. I'll be signing it sometime very soon. It might be, it might be Sunday, but very, very soon. Nothing happened. August 3, 2020. The President said, we're going to be introducing a tremendous health care plans sometime prior, hopefully prior to the end of the month. It's just about completed. Nothing. September 2015, 2020, you know you're going to, the President says you're going to have a new health care. We have, we have a whole bunch of alternatives to Obamacare that are 50% less expensive and are actually better. Nothing never, never happened. September 10, 2024 ABC News Presidential debate. He says, I have concepts of a plan. You'll be hearing about it in the not too distant Future. Nothing happened December 8, 2024. He said, you know, we have concepts of a plan that will be much better. You'll see it very soon.

[A]

Concepts produce nothing. That's my favorite.

[D]

In May of 2025 at a White House event. He says, so we're going to be maybe coming up with something. I think this gives the Republicans a chance to actually do a health care that's much better than Obamacare. Nothing. People are sick and tired of the empty rhetoric. There's the sick and tired of you saying you have a plan.

[A]

People get the gist of that. There is no plan. They've been saying for years. And remember by the time Donald Trump came in, the Republicans had already tried to overthrow, overturn Obamacare. I don't know, a dozen times.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Wait, maybe they had voted 50 times. We looked that up. I think it was 50 times now that is in 2016.

[B]

And famously the closest that they got was the moment where John McCain, soon before his passing ended up being the deciding vote that kept it.

[A]

So I mean they've been in let.

[B]

Alone like the, the way that they challenged it and had success with the mandate at the Supreme Court weakening it as well. This has been all out assault from the Republican apparatus on the Affordable Care act with zero plan to replace it with anything.

[C]

At least 70 Republican led efforts to repeal, modified.

[A]

It was, there was seven 70 votes that took place in the last like four years of the Obama administration following 2014. So it must have been just like those two years. They had 70 votes. They did nothing but vote against it and they still never came up with an alternative plan. In fact, like let's put it this way, when Chip Roy becomes the voice of reason on anything, you know you have a problem. Here he is talking about the, the Republican bill to bar state Medicaid programs from providing. This is supposedly the House Rules Committee on barring Medicaid from providing gender affirming care. But he's talking more broadly about the Republicans lack of a health care plan.

[E]

And now we're sitting here and we're listening to nonsense about health care. Or my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sit here saying, well, you guys aren't doing anything about the massive expensive cost of health care. Why do you think it's expensive? Because you literally cut a deal with insurance companies to run health care. You think that's gonna run wild? Yeah, that's why they have 2000% profit increases. And the American people can't afford to go to the doctor of their choice while we enrich insurance companies. And yet Republicans will complain about it and then they'll offer milk, toast, garbage like we're offering this week and then go home at Christmas and say, look at what we're doing. We're campaigning on reducing health care. Well, congratia friggin lations. At some point people will look at this body and say maybe we should get rid of all 435 members of the House and all 100 members of the Senate and start over because Congress is literally failing the American people. I yield back.

[A]

Now it sounds to me that what he's calling for is a single payer system. Yeah, because listen, either you're going to enrich insurance companies, if, let's put it this way, insurance companies exist, therefore they will be enriched. They serve no purpose in our health care delivery system other than to enrich themselves. They serve no other purpose. We have one third of the country is already dealing with no private insurers. They get it through Medicaid or they get it through Medicare. You do not need private health insurance. CEOs, board of directors, shareholders, they do not need to exist to deliver health care. And the only reason why they do exist is because and to enrich themselves.

[B]

The breathless cynicism though of the Republican Party to actually try to gesture towards some sort of like anti corporatist, anti insurance company posture. The only way that they are able to get away with this kind of crap is when you have a party that, an opposition party that is this weak and is focused on defending the Affordable Care act instead of saying we should build towards something like, like what you're saying, you could wash away this completely empty rhetoric, this posturing like they're populous. If the party got behind an actual solution because it's right there in front of them, the Republicans already have a credibility problem on the issue of health care. Poll after poll for the past two decades or so show that people trust broadly Democrats more on the issue of health care than they do with Republicans. But the fact that they can get away with cheap points like this is because you have way too many members of the party that's still in bed with the insurance industry and is. The Medicare for All caucus is growing. Hopefully we can add three senators, Peggy Flanagan Platner and Abdul Al Said, who would be behind Medicare for All. But this is the time to draw a distinction because that is just a lie. They're lying about what their position is. Their position is still maintain the entire infrastructure for private health insurance, but get rid of the subsidies that make it cheaper for people to buy. That's the Republican plan.

[A]

We'll be talking more about this, I think, as the months and years go on. It's going to be a conversation. It's going to be an increasing conversation in 2026 because the Democrats are going to take the House back at the least, and then there's going to be an expectation that you do something. It's not going to be enough to say, like, we still have. We got the subsidies. Yeah.

[C]

Save Obamacare. It's like it's not 2016 anymore.

[F]

Right.

[A]

Do you. We got a couple words from our sponsors. Laura K. Field, political theorist and author of Furious Minds, the Making of the Maga New Right, will be joining us in a bit. And we got to talk about Chip Roy as a secret socialist with her. But before we do, do you have an idea you cannot shake? I feel like, Brian, you. You have a bunch of, like, ideas of what you want to sell. Maybe it's craft that everybody tells you to sell. I know craft. Oh, craft. Oh, well, listen, I don't want to. We don't need to go that explicit with what you've been doing. But I know you got that. That cookbook. Make 2026 the year you launch your business, Brian. The year you transform into an entrepreneur, a founder, a boss. One powerful move puts your future firmly in your hands. Starting a business with Shopify. With Shopify. 2026 is when you finally make it happen. Shopify gives you everything you need to sell online and in person. Can you believe that Shopify, like, set out to do this just to shame Brian. Millions of entrepreneurs have already made this leap from household Names to first time business owners just getting started. I've told this story many times. I was afraid of doing a merch store because I thought it would be a huge pain in the butt and I didn't want to have to deal with like how are we going to get new product up there? I mean like for instance, we got the, the max left beanies. How are we going to get them up on time? What about the whistles? How are we going to get them up on time? Well, Shopify made it super easy. It's basically, it's all turnkey. Shopify gives you all the tools to easily build your dream store from. Choose from hundreds of beautiful templates that you can customize to match your brand setup is fast. With Shopify's built AI tools that write product descriptions and headlines and help you edit product photos. Marketing that's built into you. Create email and social campaigns that reach customers wherever they scroll. It's on all our social media and it integrates with in real life sales. As you grow, Shopify grows with you. Handle more orders, expand to new markets. Do it all from the Same dashboard in 2026. Stop waiting and selling with shop. Start selling with shop. Sign up. Oh, I'll give you one of these. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com majority. Go to shopify.com majority that shopify.com/majority here. Your first this new year with Shopify by your side also sponsoring the program today. 2026 is going to go like 2025 for me in terms of de plastic. Find my house. I just saw a report on what happens with all the plastic jugs that we recycle. They basically go to. I think it's like Thailand or Vietnam. People have to go through it. They end up getting sick from the way that it's, that it's recycled. The bottom line is less plastic, use less plastic microplastics in our water, less huge jugs of plastic. Take it home from the supermarket and this is the way you do it. Switch to Blue Land like I have across all my cleaning products now we spend a lot of time cooking and hosting. Over the holidays. Blue lamb products meet the highest standard of clean. They're effective yet gentle on the people and on people and the planet. Blue Land was named an EPA Safer Choice partner of the year. They've got cleaning sprays, they got toilet bowl cleaners, dishwasher tablets, laundry detergent tablets, hand soap, even like dishwashing liquid. We don't, we actually don't use liquid it's a powder. But all of their systems are basically like refillable. You buy to the extent you buy anything that's plastic, it's a one time purchase you and then you get tablets that you refill with and you save space in your home, in your apartment and your stuff is much healthier and easier. Blueland's hand soap getting a festive upgrade during the season. Cozy scents like Wintry pine, Toasted vanilla winter berry. It's a nice gift. Of course I like the fragrance free because that's the way I am. Blueland Dishwater Tablets Dishwasher tablets are proven to perform on baked on burnt on stains. No rinse aid is needed. Blueland laundry tablets lift the toughest stains from grass stains to food stains. Blueland toilet tablets work on a range of stains including rust, mineral deposits, limescale and hard water. Stock up on sustainable cleaning products for yourself. To give up or to give a beautiful sustainable gift to your friends and family this holiday season go to bluelands.com blueland.com Majority save up to 30% during Blueland's holiday sale don't wait. They only do this once a year. 30% off of Blueland's holiday sale by going to blueland.com majority blueland.com majority for 30% off the beauty of Blue Land is you buying a lot of refills. The tablets, they don't take up much space. This is a great time to do it when you get 30% off. That's the way I roll. I mean I'm going to be loading up during their holiday sale. I got plenty but I like to keep it in storage. Also a great gift is still time to give this gift. Ladies and gentlemen, you forgot to get a gift. You realize you don't want to go outside. It's too cold. Here it is. Perfect personalized gift. It is Aura Frames. It is a digital frame that looks great, has a really easy to use Apple. They give you unlimited video and and picture storage and you can put anything on there for people. I'm laughing because Brian's already going to send can I say this or is he going to find out listening? Okay, Brian's going to put liberal memes on the, on the, on the frame so it's going to have to deal with that. But for people who aren't using it as a weapon, it's a great gift. I gave one to my girlfriend's parents. They've got a big family, bunch of kids. They ended up buying three more frames. Everybody's got the app. They ended up giving the frames as gift this year. Wow. To people. You can personalize your gift. You can add a message before it arrives. You can fill it up with videos and photos before it arrives. Super easy to share the videos from your phone. You can't wrap togetherness, but you can frame it for a limited time. Save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get 35 off of Aura's best selling matte carver matte frames named number one by Wirecutter by using the promo code Majority at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com promo code majority. This deal is exclusive to listeners and this frame sells out fast. So order yours now in time to get it for the holidays. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. Remember, with the Aura frames, you can literally put the photos and the videos on there without ever seeing the box. So you can send it to them and you can load it up on the app. We'll put all this info in the podcast and YouTube descriptions. Quick break. We come back Laura Field, political theorist and author of Furious Minds the Making of the MAGA New Right.

[D]

We are back.

[A]

Sam Seder, Emma Viglan on the Majority Report. It is a pleasure to welcome to the program Laura K. Field, political theorist and author of Furious Minds, the Making of the MAGA New Right. Laura, thanks so much for joining us. This is a sort of an intellectual history, I guess, book you could call it, or a almost like a, an autopsy.

[F]

Or maybe I wish it was an autopsy.

[A]

Maybe not so much when they a vivisection. Is that what it is? It's a vivisection of the intellectual undergirding of what we know as the MAGA movement today. Let's start with just and I want to get to the sort of the four different sort of elements that you talk about that make up what we know as maga the Claremonters, the Post liberals, the national conservatives or natcons and the hard right underbelly, as you call it. But before we get there, let's start with Leo Strauss. I first really sort of dug into this. I GUESS it was 20 years ago when I interviewed a guy, James Mann, I think it was, who wrote the Rise of the Vulcan when he was talking about the Straussians in the Bush White House. But, but tell us about Leo Strauss and where follow through where, where Leo Strauss takes us into at least one of those four groups.

[F]

Sure thing. Yeah. Thank you. And thank you so much for having me. So Leo Strauss was a German Emigre, Jewish German emigre from. From Germany who left Germany in interwar period. He was a wonderful political philosopher who sort of studied the great tradition of great books. And my connection is I was. I studied with a bunch of Straussian sort of these conservative intellectuals. Many of them are conservatives. He didn't identify as a conservative and, and he's known for sort of different things, but mainly sort of recovering the. What is called the esoteric tradition in political philosophy, which is this idea that, that many of these older books, these canonical texts were written in this multi layered way to either avoid persecution on the part of the writer or to sort of include some hidden messages. Right. Or talk to different types of readers in different ways or just to prevent sort of dogmatism. So as a pedagogical practice. So. But he was very influential. He's had some very famous students, including like Alan Bloom in the. And many neoconservatives work had some connection to Leo Strauss. He's also had a lot of liberal students. So I think some of that stuff got a little conspiratorial just because he's a person who had an immense influence. And then his students went in all kinds of directions. But there's a kind of tidy connection between Leo Strauss and then one of his most famous students, Harry Jaffa, who was a Lincoln scholar, who sort of took the Straussian method and that applied it to American history in an interesting way. And he's quite well respected. But several students of Leo, of Harry Jaffa, excuse me, founded the Claremont Institute in Claremont, California, which is not. Not affiliated with the Claremont schools. And there these students of Jaffa. Jaffa idolized Abraham Lincoln and the founders. And these students of Jaffa, I think, went even further than Harry Jaffa did in this kind of dogmatic, jingoistic understanding of the founding that sort of allows for no. No historical change away from their ideal of the founding principles and have been critiquing the administrative state for decades now and sort of have just stood opposed to any kind of critique of the founding. So they lost their minds over the 1619 project, for example. So these students have been at the real forefront of a defense of Trumpism intellectually. And so my book starts with what I call the Claremonters, that that's this one section because they sort of led the charge in defending Trumpism from an intellectual perspective. My book is very squarely focused on one slice of maga and that's okay. The ideologues.

[A]

One of the things that I recall about the Straussians was just this Notion of. There was something that was what I perceived as anti democratic in the sense that there was a. I don't know.

[F]

Yeah.

[A]

An aristocratic or impulse or just a notion of like, you know, which we've seen in a lot of other traditions too. Like even the, the, the progressives of the early 20th century had the same sort of, like, we understand things that you plebs don't.

[F]

Yeah, that you don't. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

And so how much of that, like, that certainly was there with the neocons? I mean, as far as I remember, like. Oh, yeah, like the sort of. The Rumsfeld and the. But how much of that went into. Because that serves. Like everybody seems to have taken that gene and just gone with it in a different way.

[F]

Yeah, yeah. That's, I think, a very fair critique. Not just of the Straussians, though. I think you're right. There's a kind of sensibility to it or a flavor to it that's super elitist. And so that's partly how this sort of esotericism takes off in these groups of young people studying Straussian political philosophy. I mean, I kind of experienced some of that too, where you feel like you're being initiated into the secret teachings. And that's really seductive. Right. And so that there's something anti Democratic in it. There's a lot that's anti Democratic in it. And then that's all. There's anti Democratic threads just throughout the Right. And throughout, you know, right wing intellectualism as well that sort of get layered on. But the people I'm writing about, so there's. Some of them would consider themselves Straussians, others don't. But I think the elitism and this kind of idea that they have this super insight that they, they know what the people know what the people need better than the rest of us. I mean, the, the best example of this is Patrick Deneens, who's got this theory that he calls now Aristo populism. Right. So it's like.

[A]

Yeah, but let's. I want to get to that because I don't want to jump too far ahead. I want to go through this development because.

[B]

And Sam, before you ask this, bring your mic a little closer, Laura, just because I know some. If you talk directly into that one, it should be a little easier. Just want to make sure we can hear you. You sound good otherwise, but go on.

[A]

Okay, so. Okay, so you can take the, The Straussians and it'll take you into Claremont and via Jaffa, who, who. I guess Jaffa was the one who I believe it was Gabe Goldwaters. That line about in defense of their extremism is no vice in defense of liberty. So essentially, like, you know, as long as you think you're right, I mean, this is what this is like always. This is the Straussian part in my mind is like they're all convinced, if you come from that tradition, you're convinced that you are right and that, that takes multiple. Can take multiple different forms. You know, whether it's a certain, like race essentialism or whether it's like a religious nationalism. As long as you feel like you're the one who understands things and you have the secret, it could take many flavors. And so Goldwater famously says this, there is no such thing as being too extreme if you're in pursuit of liberty. But of course, you know, everyone thinks.

[F]

They know the right.

[A]

Yeah, everybody thinks they know what the liberty is in that situation. Okay, so let's go to. We've talked about the. Just tell us about the Claremonters, you know, just in and of itself. And then we'll go to the post liberals and the Nat cons and I guess we get to the Dean and the post liberals.

[F]

Okay, got it. Yeah. So the. So today the Claremonters, they're still obsessed with the American founding as they understand it. And the irony here is that Jaffa was quite an egalitarian and sort of a Declarationist. So, you know, always vaunting the Declaration of, of Independence and especially the principle of equality, especially relative to his conservative sort of followers or his conservative enemies on the right that today. So they still have this mission, but I think it's kind of been corrupted.

[B]

By.

[F]

First the kind of dogmatic attachment to those principles, such that they can't stand the administrative state, they can't stand the New Deal, they can't stand the civil rights movement in effect, because all of those changes they see as these alarming departures from that original model. So everything's this alarming transformation and it's also been corrupted by, I think, a kind of nativism and insularity. So this, this. And. And sometimes they're explicit about, about how they've turned their back on the Jaffa esque commitment to equality in the, in the Declaration of Independence and are attached to a kind of nativism and sort of. So, but the main person here to look to for this is a fellow named Michael Anton, who wrote this first defense of Trump, the Flight 93 election, the premise of which was that if you were to elect Hillary Clinton, this was in 2016, it would be Certain death to the American Republic. So what you needed to do is just like the brave passengers on the Flight 93 on September 11, he needed to charge the cockpit. And that's what it meant to vote for Trump, to elect Trump, because at least then you had some chance of sort of redirecting things and saving America. So that's the kind of alarmist, catastrophizing outlook that he articulated. It's partly. And that energy has continued on the New Right. And he's been a real leader. I mean, he wrote the new National Security Strategy Report, or he was one. He was one of the main authors. So you have this kind of devastating catastrophism, right? And this idea that it's always just. We're just on the brink of total destruction. And it's also. His understanding is that conservatism was never enough and that the old conservative establishment was not able to. To conserve anything. And so now counter revolutionary measures are necessary. And that's basically the mood at the Claremont Institute.

[A]

So in the parlance of someone who is not an academic, I would say, like, they're about as bad crap crazy as it gets in terms of, like, you know, calling themselves an institute. And their fervor is super, super intense. Like, whenever, you know, I have come across, like, the Claremont Institute, I'm like, oh, my God, like, what is going on there? And so it's super intense in a more sort of like, colloquial.

[F]

Yeah, that's exactly right. It's kind of. There's a kind of masculinist fervor to it. It's not sort of in the depth. You know, it's not the. The worst of these people. And there's a. I think the sad thing is that they've got this inheritance from Harry Jaffa that was kind of serious, and they've got this. They've got this publication called the Claremont Review of Books that publishes some serious. Some serious articles for the last few decades. I mean, I've got friends who have published in there. There's a lot of interesting stuff, but then that. And that's. And they still publish some interesting stuff, even though, I mean. But the institution has also lost a lot of its reputation. And then they publish this other online magazine called the American Mind that's just like absolute filth, as far as I'm concerned. Crazy. And so there's this kind of dance they're doing where there's still kind of a veneer of respectability, and yet there's this. There's some really awful Stuff happening.

[A]

All right, well, let's move over to the post liberals. And I have to say, like, you can see throughout all of these, there's, like, strands of each within each other. These are not so discreet. Like, this is. The Venn diagram would have a lot of like, sort of like crossover here, because I think you could argue in many respects, like, there, the Claremont Institute is post liberal in the sense that they're like, we got to throw over this existing order of.

[F]

Yeah.

[A]

And we should say we're not talking liberal in the capital L version. We're talking in the small L version, I guess, where we're talking more like the idea of. Well, explain, you know.

[F]

Well, I mean, that's. Let's. Let me say a little bit about that, because I think you're right in general that there's a kind of. The. The Claremonters would say that they are counter revolutionary and they. They want to bring us back probably to something like a Republican small government tradition. But they probably would also be okay with some. They would say they're okay with some small liberal principles.

[A]

All right, well, explain people to people. Like, when we're talking about. In terms of legal principles, we're talking.

[F]

About like, just like liberal democracy writ large, so rule of individual rights and liberties, checks and balances. Right.

[A]

And they would allow for some of that.

[F]

They would. Well, they might even. They'd say that the constitutional order was organized with those things in mind. They are. They. This is what. They're sort of different tiers. Right. There's the upper echelons of the place, and then there's the gutter stuff. And so they'd say upper echelons will be like that. We are the true defenders of those things. And then the people on the bottom are like, actually, we're not. They get pretty racist. So it's mixed bag. But with the post liberals, which is this other group which is mainly made up of socially conservative Catholics, and they self identify as post liberals. And their critique of the current sort of regime or the current situation in America reaches back to the American founding. Many of them say the American founding was kind of a mistake because it was liberal. So their critique is more radical. They see liberalism with, again, small Ls, and we're not talking about, well, partisanship in the, you know, in, like, liberals versus conservatives. Not quite, though.

[A]

There's, you know, there's some crossover there, too.

[F]

Sure. But they would see most sort of small C conservatives as liberals in the classical sense. Right. So their critique is very radical of the whole establishment and of the American founding. Because someone like Patrick Deneen, who wrote this book, why liberalism failed in 2018, which was sort of Obama put on his reading list, he says, you know, liberal democracy is flawed from the beginning, and it's got this sort of rancid individualism that means that the more it succeeds, the more it fails, because liberal individualism eats away at the ties that bind. It has a disintegrative effect on our social bonds, on community, on family. And so. And what. What happens then is because the. Because you. And we can see there's some truth to this, right? We do have just, you know, people struggle with loneliness. There's individual, you know, individualism has its problems. But. But then he says, so what you kind of can expect with liberalism is that eventually a strong man is going to be brought in to fix these problems. Liberals can't tell. You know, there's just all these problems with liberalism. And so the post liberals, that's their.

[A]

Starting point, isn't the liberalism that they're talking about. Because when I think of this, I think of Peter Thiel, who, like, I don't know, a year ago, famously said, like, you know, or had the idea that, you know, the problem with liberalism is that you end up giving women the vote and then you end up getting socialism, or that we are tired of the liberal order. And he's looking, you know, we're in 1921 right now, or 1921, 1931, I can't remember which, which date he said, but basically arguing like, we're tired of liberalism. We're ready for that strongman. I mean, it seems to me when they're talking about that individualism, what they're talking about is the emancipatory movements of women, of black people, of brown people, anybody who's been marginalized in society up until, I don't know, the 1930s or 40s or 50s or 60s, and starting to get their individual rights without being. Because when they're talking about the collective, what they're really talking about is a hierarchy that is either a racial or a patriarchy. Right?

[F]

Yeah. No, I'm in total agreement. I mean, I think that someone like Patrick Deneen would. Would, you know, very. Would. Would deny that completely and say. He would say, of course, there have been some good things about liberalism, but historically, his critique tracks very well to what you're describing as the emancipatory, you know, transformation of our society in this, you know, a pretty wonderful, you know, shift in who has some status in our society. And So I think he's in a real bind there. I will say he's also the post liberals. I mean, if we're to do the. Do them the most justice we can, I think they, they do they for them. And it's not just Deneen. It's people like Sohrab Amari, Adrian Vermeule at Harvard. There are some, some pretty serious people in this camp and some important policy people who, they care about the economics of liberalism. And part of their criticism is of sort of what we would call neoliberal economics. And so I think that that's an important kind of distinction between them and the Claremonters. And they're sort of the most serious in terms of sort of putting forward some policy proposals that I think sometimes people on the left might really appreciate. The trouble is they also want to conjoin this with like the abandonment of the separation of church and state. And they've got this sort of Aristo populist ideas that say what we are seeking is the common good and we get to define that and we then get to use the levers of power once we take over the state to impose those moral principles on the rest of society.

[B]

Well, there is a growing. I just think it's important to say liberalism too, and neoliberalism. Liberal economics failing. Right. The. But Trump came on the scene in part due critiquing free trade, critiquing Hillary Clinton and nafta. And then even Biden, despite not being like a radical leftist, understood that there had to be like direct intervention in the market, particularly in the wake of COVID to kind of get the economy moving. Both of these visions are recognizing the failures of liberal economics and are both advocating for a more direct, more direct state intervention in the economy and in society and a stronger state. The one on the left is a more collectivist vision, hopefully, and there should be. I wish there were more Democrats that subscribe to it. But on the right, as you're saying, they'll say collectivist, but it's about the hierarchy of the group that they're advocating for. And instead of a vision of like democracy, which can be compatible with a left wing vision, it's the strongman, the autocrat that does that.

[F]

Yeah, that's. I think that's quite. That's exactly how I think about it.

[A]

I did a thing on CNN a week or two ago with a. Some type of Christian conservative. As we walking off, we were talking about. I was talking about Mamdani and he was saying like, yeah, I really want. I said you know, I don't understand. I can't remember how we got to. Onto this conversation, but I was saying, yeah, Mom, Donnie, like the, the, the, the universal child care is going to be amazing in turn because he was saying, I really want families to be able to like not feel the pressure and have more kids. That's what it was. He was saying like we have more kids. And I said, well then you must really like the free child care. And he's like, well, I want to see wages go up so that we don't have to have both parents working. And it took like two minutes to realize like he didn't want free childcare, which would take the stress off of people because that would mean that mom could go and work.

[F]

I know. So that's exactly what you have to keep an eye on. I mean, I think some of these people are pretty sincere and I mean I was at an event.

[A]

Sincere.

[F]

No, no, but let me, let me just say some of these guys are sincere in the sense, sense that I was at a conference a few weeks ago and somebody, the editor of Compact magazine, Matthew Schmitz, was asked who's the most post liberal president we've seen or politician. And he said Joe Biden. And that's because of the infrastructure bill. Right. And some of these things, and some of these people are for a child tax credit, but I think most of them are much more for like the Viktor Orban model. Right. Where it's like exactly what you're describing. They want women at home and I think women should have the choice and so should fathers. So you know, there is some overlap there, but they don't want, I don't think they are accepting of gay marriage. And so, you know, the people getting these benefits in their world will be traditional families. Right. And maybe not even single mothers. I mean it's very conservative in that, in that old, you know, social conservative sense. And they want to empower the state perhaps to do some of these social programs that I would be all for. But they also want to use it to do things like, you know, claw back marriage equality and do all kinds of other incentives to, to kind of shift back the demographic.

[A]

Is J.D. vance of that ilk, like, I mean like it seems like the Opus Day people like the Peter Thiel, like the hardcore, like there's a, there's a new strain of, of like trad wife and like are all like seem to be in that sort of like hardcore Catholic. I mean we, you know, like.

[F]

It'S pretty messy. Yes. I think J.D. vance has identified with the post liberal groups. I saw him at the book launch for Patrick Deneen's next book called Regime Change. But he's kind of got his fingerprints all over the New Right. I mean, all of these different categories that I talk about. He's spoken. The Claremont people love him. Thiel's connected to the Claremont people as well as the natcons as well as JD Van Clearly. And he's spoken at the National Conservative Conferences. I think I see it as a real coup for the New Right that they have elevated J.D. vance so high. I think he's really their boy and they're thrilled by everything he does.

[A]

So let's talk about the NAT cons. Like, where are the NAT cons in this? Are they sort of the. I mean, they're.

[F]

I think of them as like the. They're the organizers and sort of. They're this sort of big tent, messy. They'll welcome everybody. Sometimes the post liberals don't go to those organized. There's some schisms there. There's a few disagreements, partly about economics, partly about foreign affairs, but they basically.

[A]

Are like Roberts, the sort of like besieged head of the Heritage Foundation. Is he a natcon?

[F]

He has definitely spoken at natcon and he gave a very telling. I mean, the story I tell in the book is that the group sort of emerged under the first Trump administration, but then they really consolidated power in the second administrator, excuse me, under Biden. And there was this moment, I think it was in 2022, when Kevin Roberts, Kevin Roberts had been made president of the Heritage foundation early the year prior. And then he went to the natcon conference and he said to them, I'm here as a representative basically of like, Conservatism Inc. This, you know, vaunted organization. And I'm here to say we are joining you. You are not. We're not here to support you. We're here to join you and recognize that you have led the way. So it was kind of this moment where the right just got on board with the radical agenda of these intellectuals and signaled that we are sort of departing from our old model. And the natcons, I mean, the natcons in general are driven by nationalism, and that means sort of old fashioned capital and nationalism, not just patriotism. It's a sort of turn against the kind of creedal Americanism that says we are united by ideas and principles, not by the color of our skin. So the natcon leader, Yoram Hazoni, is this Israeli American scholar who defends nationalism, saying what you need in politics is a relatively homogenous nation. Homogenous in terms of culture, language, history, religion. He doesn't say ethnicity, but you can easily see how that tips into a kind of ethno nationalism. And certainly they've been. That's been the big question with the natcon since the beginnings of their movement. And I do track in my book how they started off saying, we don't want any racists here at our conference. And then gradually the doors kind of open. Happened to some pretty realize, like actually.

[A]

Well, that's the whole.

[F]

You're okay. I mean, maybe not you, but Darren Beatty. Yeah. You come and give us a speech. And there's a few people like that Amy Wax there. There's a long list.

[A]

And they're also like Christian nationalists too, have fallen here, Right.

[F]

For the most part, many of them are. And Hazoni, despite being Jewish, has said Christian nationalism is the only way to defeat Woke Neo. The religion of woke up Neo marks.

[A]

Well, Christian nationalism for the United States, Israel gets. Israel gets Jewish nationalism for Israel.

[F]

Absolutely. And that's, I mean, part of the funny thing here is they talk. Yoram Hazoni quotes John Stuart Mill when he talks about the diversity of nation states. So he says, I'm not opposed to diversity. I just don't want any diversity internally.

[E]

Right.

[A]

Well, that's also Nick Fuentes. His argument about, you know, races is like, I know I don't hate them. I just don't want them near me.

[B]

Me. It's why Richard Spencer, despite being a white nationalist Nazi, supports the state of Israel because they believe that these demographics should have their own enclaves. Once again, the rejection of liberalism, or like, you know, about conservative rejection of liberalism being about imposing a hierarchy is really important to point out. And I wonder how you feel this new kind of intellectual movement on the right fits into the idea of migration and the more that we're gonna be.

[F]

Seeing.

[B]

Due to climate change, potentially billions of people, but millions and millions of people being displaced due to the conditions that are being created by climate change. And how liberalism as a concept that also includes potentially more liberal border policies and things like that have influenced this movement's like, rejection of multiculturalism.

[F]

Well, it's their big boogeyman, right, is immigration. And it's been a big sort of linchpin of their policy ideas from the very beginning. Michael Anton defined Trumpism as economic nationalism, secure borders, and America first foreign policy. And he's really been at the foreground of trying to shut down the borders and end birthright citizenship and all of this. And I mean, I think it's so tricky because obviously some of the American people are right there with Michael Anton and they're able to fear monger on this issue and kind of override, I think, the facts on the ground about the contributions that people make to our country and just the importance of these norms of liberal internationalism that allow asylum seekers and residents, refugees to, to move around the world. And so, and a lot of it is like our politics have failed over the last 20 years to give people a decent life and have a path to citizenship. And I don't blame the, I don't blame the Democrats for that as much as the Republicans because I think that there hasn't it. But my, I don't, I don't study this carefully. I think there have been some really good faith efforts to do that. The. And some of the old Republicans used to also at least give pay lip service to that. So, I mean, the country has failed on that issue. And so, and I don't know, I mean, it is hard because things have gone. Things are so vicious right now. Right. And so heartbreaking and cruel that it's hard to want to pay. It's hard to want to talk reasonably about the issue. Right. And to, I think for liberals, because it's hard to even acknowledge that there might be an immigration issue because it's. Because of what they're doing. I mean, so I think it's really a mess. And I mean, to me it's just.

[A]

So what you're saying is, you guys.

[F]

Take me somewhere else.

[A]

It's hard. What's hard? To talk about it in the context of a policy prescription when you're fighting against like, yeah. Fascistic forces.

[F]

Yeah. And the last thing you want to do is, is give any credence to their bigotry and, and just, just the absolute horror show of what's unfolding. I mean, yes, I think that's the.

[A]

Case with, with frankly, a lot of things in the, in this context. All right, well, let's talk about the hard right underbelly, because this is like, you write about it as an intellectual movement and we see it in the context of, we sort of see all of this in the context of like our, our YouTube world and PODC, frankly. But this is the most sort of like YouTube in, I think of the, of the four.

[B]

Oh, YouTube.

[A]

Well, I mean, you're right about the Bronze Age pervert. I mean, so it's like a. That's the guy's moniker. I mean, that's, you know, you're not going to get into the Claremont Institute calling yourself that, but at least for another couple years, I would say probably.

[F]

But tell us, not unconnected, right? I mean, they write.

[D]

No.

[F]

Yeah.

[A]

I think more and more. They're, they're, they're really congealing. Well, that's the point. Right? That's maga.

[F]

Yeah. Yeah. That's what. And I do sort of. I mean, I didn't expect to be ever in my life writing about people like Bronze Age pervert and raw egg nationalist. And there are others, Michael Millerman, Darren Beatty, all of whom have PhDs. Right. And some of whom have PhDs in Straussian political philosophy. They've written dissertations on Nietzsche and Leo Strauss. And that's, that's a world I'm very familiar with. And so, and so I couldn't not include them and partly because they've gained a ton of traction and influence, not just on YouTube but, you know, on Twitter. And they're selling, you know, a lot of books and they're writing sort of semi serious, semi grotesque books that are fascist, that are extremely misogynist, and that's kind of. They're kind of taking off, you know, in these, these sort of dark places.

[A]

Well, are they? I mean, I want you to explain them, but, but I. In terms of like a chicken and egg in 2016, 2015. One of our former producers here, Matt Bender, was like, when he was filling in on, On Mondays from. He's like, I want to do this stuff about Gamergate and men's rights activists. And I'm like, dude, that's not politics. And. But I'm like, well, but go ahead. And you know, then like six months later, they're all at the White House podium giving the white power sign. So, like, did they come first? Did the intellectuals who. That you're writing about these, these guys who are the PhDs who are still like, sort of like a fascistic and misogynist and whatnot, did they just simply follow, like, where the Gamergate people were and the men's rights activists and the Cernoviches and the Fuentes and the Spencers and whatnot?

[F]

Some of it is that. I mean, I was surprised. The more, the more I did the research, the more I discovered that the, that some of these guys. And the best example is Michael Anton, who, again, he's not necessarily on the. He's not necessarily in the gutter with these guys, but he's friends with many of them, is my impression. And he was involved in the, the pickup artist community, at least to the extent where he was constantly posting about it and, or writing about it. He'd published an academic paper called Socrates as Pickup Artist. And so they were kind of immersed in that. Some of these guys in that world, I mean, you wouldn't, you can't make this stuff up, right? So he's got this. I mean, it's crazy. So, so you, so you, you have that and you have someone like Bronze Age pervert or Costa Na lamaria was his name, who was, you know, studying at Yale and had this kind of dual life where he was also writing this book, Bronze Age Mindset, while he was trying to continue his academic career. I mean, the academic career ended before that stuff released, exploded. And so, you know, I think they were just immersed in that stuff and obviously very sympathetic to a lot of it. And some of it, I mean, if you think about Duke, a lot of that, it was Gamergate that started it. There was also this lacrosse case where the Duke lacrosse team was accused of rape. And that was really important to someone like Stephen Miller. And I think in that case, you know, these guys were right. They were onto something. And so they've got these kind of half baked. Some of it's totally half baked, a lot of it's really vicious. But they've got this sort of way of framing things that's really catchy. They've got these phrases like gynocracy, the longhouse, the cathedral, right? Curtis Yarvin is another one of these guys. And so. And they're funny. You know, you cannot, I don't think you can deny that Bronze Age mindset is in some ways a funny book and a smart book. Even though, I mean, it's also just like rancid like, I think. But, but there's so there's this strange melange, right? Which is very typical of fascist thinking also, right. There's this kind of high great man stuff, like we got to build the new man, the mensch, the. There's this really high flute and stuff. And I mean, I, I've written. My dissertation was about Nietzsche. Like, I love that stuff. I can get into it. And part of what I was trying to do with the book was show how you could be drawn to some of this, why it's appealing, you know, And I think it doesn't. Doesn't take much to see that once you're kind of emotional, once you. I mean, I don't recommend this, right? But you start reading this stuff, you can at least see the humor there. And it does say something about our Sort of humorless society sometimes, right? When that these guys are really, I think, thirsting for something. I mean, I'm not justifying it. I'm just saying I think.

[A]

And this is where. Why you see like sort of on the perimeter of this stuff and maybe not even so much on the perimeter of it, but like, you know, Gavin McGinnis and folks like that. And then even as far as like, you know, sort of like the Tate and. And the sort of like mothership comedians are all sort of like on the sort of perimeter of this stuff. And some are a little bit more in. So this is like a mill you. That all these things sort of come together and. But is part of it. Like, you know, when I was reading about like the. The dime square stuff, which I, you know, was aware of prior and you know, red scare, I don't think is quite. Was ever really quite as left as they. They sort of like postured. I think it was just they were riding a podcast wave that was more about like, you know, what was happening. But the thing that has always occurred to me about that ilk of people was losers who, you know, with all due respect to everybody, but who. But as defined, but as defined by their own sense of being of aggrievement. Like, not necessarily, you know, like a sense of feeling like I'm. I'm not. I'm not part of the cool kids. And this is an opportunity for me to be a cool kid. Like, when I see like, you know, like, whether it's Curtis Yarvin, you know, like he's wearing the leather coat and it's almost like, dude, this is a stage that you're supposed to go through when you thought you were a motorcycle guy back like when you were 17, but he couldn't probably in, in. In high school. And I'm not speaking to someone who was like that. I. I was not surprised. Surprise. Also wearing a leather coat or being one of the cool kids. I wore a sweater vest in high school.

[B]

That was pretty cool.

[A]

But, but, but, but there is, There is this quality, it seems to me that all of this Ubermensch stuff, all of this sort of like reasserting relying on a hierarchy that is given from God or from, you know, some higher power or just the sense of the way that things should be makes it much easier for me as a guy who is uncomfortable within the world to sort of like, know my place, get my place, have it there. I'm just sliding into this. I don't have to, you know, like, there is a that to me, seems like. Because if, you know, you look from whether it's like Mike Lindell and Steve Bannon and all the Breitbart thing, I mean, Andrew Breitbart, the sense of being aggrieved by Hollywood was his fundamental building block for everything. And Ben Shapiro, I mean, all these people have been rejected in some manner by what they thought was cool, and this is the way they'd struck back and they built all these things. I mean, Gamergate came out of Breitbart and Bannon and Milo Yannianopoulos. And now, like, you know, Fuente, I mean, you see all the lineage there at its heart. There's this sense of, like, aggrievement and sense that, like, I should be in a better position than I am. And now I've created a theoretical. A theoretical framework where it's going to be much easier for me to step into.

[F]

Yeah. I mean, I am pro. Describing these people as losers, but. And I do. And I think partly what we need to do is like, like point that out and mock them. But I also, I guess to be a little. Maybe I don't think this is controversial, but I think that we've got to address. And I don't mean that across the board. Right. Because I'm trying to be careful in the book. And generous. Right. I think we have to also be generous. And I guess it's fine to say that about many of the people who are doing some of the worst work, like Christopher Ruffo and like, like go off. But I think we have to be careful because there's something happening here where a lot of people are being drawn to it who I don't think are losers. Right. And I think deserve some generosity. And we're not being. And I think as a culture and as liberals, we're not very good at talking to them. And part of what I try to articulate, I mean, I'm a political theorist by training, but I'm not. I'm not like a liberal theorist insofar as, like, I haven't studied John Rawls very careful, carefully. And I haven't done. I mean, I wrote about Rousseau and Nietzsche and those. And I love Plato. Right. So I love a lot of this sort of old stuff. And. But what One of the problems with liberalism, and I'm a good liberal, right. Like, I love liberal democracy, but one of the problems with liberal, from, like, a social cultural perspective is that it doesn't tell us how to live our lives. That's also one of the great things about liberalism, right? We get, we get choice, we get our right to choose. We get to decide what sort of culture we want to be part of when we're adults, right? We get to kind of, you know, design our own, our own life. And, and that's the whole point of liberal democracy. It's not going to kind of hand down one religion, one sort of comprehensive doctrine by which to live. The problem, though, is that there's a kind of, it leaves a kind of vacuum, right, where liberals don't often know how to talk about the good, right? And, and one of the strange things happening on the right, part of it's just this fascism, like, great man talk, but part of it's that they're using this language of moral values, of ends and purposes. Christopher Rufo constantly talks about the good, the true and the beautiful, right? And they're providing answers to young people about how to live. They're saying, liberalism is not going to tell you, but we sure as hell care, right? We've got, we've got a gym for you to join. We've got, you know, podcasts for you to listen to. A lot of these people have, have very popular YouTube channels that, where they do book clubs about, you know, Homer and Leo Strauss. And so, you know, that that's, that stuff is captivating. I can see how a lot of young men are drawn to that, especially because. And I love the, I love universities. I think there's tons of great work being done. I am not anti woke, I'm not anti crt, but there is. The universities don't often provide or don't, I don't think, provide enough opportunity for young people to read these great books, to study the traditions of America, to study American history, and I mean woke and anti woke history, right? There's just not that kind of liberal arts education. And conservatives have been griping about this for decades. There is a lot going on in higher ed, right? And I don't need to, I don't want to sort of beat that horse to death, but there are some real problems here and they are exploiting them right to these very nefarious.

[B]

The elephant in the room here, in my view, is capitalism and where we're at right now with incoming wealth inequality, when you have, we can talk about young men and then have empathy for them in this way, where we as women are taught a lot of things about how we should behave socially, but men are taught things like, you're there to be a provider, you are there to make money, you're there to Build out your family, the American dream, et cetera. And increasingly, due to the levels of income and wealth inequality that we have in this country, that is impossible for people. So they're gonna look for sense of a sense of purpose or community or self actualization outside of that. And liberals, I don't think really are capable of providing that right now because you need more of a left wing, clearer vision. The right is providing that. And you see this throughout fascist movements in history, especially when the economy is poor. You have like answers of communities that focus on masculinity and tying masculinity to economic empowerment and social empowerment and defining what that masculinity is in a very specific and usually eventually harmful contexts. And that's like what this is doing here. And we shouldn't, to your point, turn our nose at it without having an alternative turn up.

[F]

Yeah, I totally agree. I mean there's a kind of thwarted, I think that the economic struggles and the inequality are a massive part of it. And I think the Democratic Party often doesn't to seem, seem able to even like admit that. Right. It seems like with Biden, I mean, I think that the prices and stuff, they, they didn't seem to even admit that that was a problem. And, and so you get with these young men, I think you get not only the economic struggle and like there's not really a there. At least they feel like there's nowhere for them to go, even though I think it's a little overstated on their part and I do get tired of the grievances but, but you know, they don't have that opportunity and they certainly feel like they don't have that any kind of honorable way forward in their life. And so they feel thwarted. And I think that's a real thing. I think young women feel that way too. I mean, there's a lot of anger to go around but, but it's a real thing and it's being. Yeah, so I think it's a, it's a, it's a problem that, that you know, people on the left and the right and the center need to, and independence need to really confront and just be honest about, in my view.

[B]

And.

[A]

Yeah, well, I think, I mean, I think the idea is that, I think, you know, at least from our perspective in this corner, that it's the, you need at least some iteration of a leftist ideology to address these things because of the crisis we're in now and the rolling one there is both from an economic standpoint, but also from like a social cachet. The experience of white men, boys, whatnot, is there is a real loss of social cachet regardless of where they are, on where they are relative to class. Because it's, there's a certain zero sum quality about this. It's like, you know, if, if you've been sitting atop of a hierarchy where everybody else is tied for second place and you're in first place in the way that society reflects you, when people start moving in and everybody's more, you know, trying to be tied for first place, you're going to feel a loss because really what's happening is you're going down to second place with everybody else or however you want to describe it. And so there is a sense of loss. And we as a society have not provided a, we've provided a justification for why that's the case, but we haven't provided a solution as to how to like, make this a soft landing. And to the extent that it's necessary to provide that it's to prevent other people are saying like, you know, you got to go back up to the top because there is no soft landing. That's what we're competing against.

[F]

Yeah. And just on a kind of like cultural level, we have to, I think, you know, find better ways to talk about this so that it's not a zero, so that people don't see it as zero sum game. I mean, there's got to be a way to think about our culture and think about different ways to flourish, different, you know, ways for people to get ahead that don't. I mean, there's just so many things to do in life. Right. It's not, it's not just a constant competition to be in one place or another. I mean, finances are a different thing. Right. And economics is kind of a zero something. But I don't, I don't, I don't pretend to be an economist, but I mean, and just in terms of like all the life paths that are available to people, we have to find a, I think an economic system and a just, I think partly just a way to articulate possibilities. Right. That, that, that are pluralist and that don't, don't just involve some people winning, other people losing. And, and, and that doesn't have so much to do with identity.

[A]

Yeah, I agree. I'm not, I'm, I'm a little bit zero sumi on this.

[F]

Yeah. And I think it's, I think that's, I think that's probably right in terms of economics, I think about so much about higher education because that's the world I'm familiar with.

[A]

I'm not even talking about economics, though. I'm just, you know, like, I've used this example many times, but when I was growing up, every TV show, every commercial, I was centered in it in some form or another.

[F]

Oh, I see. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. Either about my mom or is about my future wife or. And now I'm looking at Cialis commercials and it's a black guy.

[F]

Yeah. And there's only so much bandwidth and that's. And we gotta. But yeah, and that's where I'm like, but I think we have to talk to young white men and say, you know, their win is not your loss. It's actually good for you. Right. I mean, it's good for you that more people are celebrated. Our country is stronger because of that. Right. I mean, it's hard to. Not sound cliche, but it's true. I mean, my young. I've got two white kids, little boys, and they're not harmed by these new, you know, different ads with black kids in them.

[B]

Well, that's what's important, is making the case for multiculturalism. And again, I know that you're in the theory space, but we're critical of the Democratic Party for this very reason, like ceding the terror, multiculturalism should be a part. And this country being a nation of immigrants and all of that should be at the center of people's civic minds once again. But we have a vacuum that isn't being filled. And when you talk about higher education that, like the hollowing out that you're talking about, so they only have YouTube alternatives with reading groups that have essentially misogynists that are telling you what your diet should be. That's on purpose. Right. I mean, the disbelief, the eschewing of liberal education or like, even liberal arts, where you would get a variety of different perspectives. Rufo, to bring him back into the conversation, is so aggressive on that point, because when you choke off those alternatives, it's also financial for people's access to higher education. Yeah, but, but. And then you wage war on the liberal arts. That, that, that benefits them disproportionately.

[F]

Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. I think that's. In a way, I don't. I think that the universities have been hollowed out because of. Of, I mean, capitalism in a lot of ways. Right. They've lost their capacity to sort of govern themselves and to protect the liberal arts and humanities. And someone like Rufo comes along and says, this is the. This. And, and this is again, Since Alan Bloom, this is, this goes. And like William F. Buckley, this goes back a long ways. They're saying they're not. That the universities have been overtaken by these, these minorities, these critical perspectives. And they would say they've been hollowed out by. And taken over by identitarian indoctrination. And I just want to say I don't think that's right. I don't think his historical account of how this happened or why it happened. I celebrate, you know, the critical studies, feminine gender studies, all this stuff is. And like, yeah, you got to understand black history. That all. I think this stuff is great. It's been good for most people, you know, for many people. But I do think that the, I think the academy has failed to unite, to kind of square the circle or at least like allow there to also be. To protect things like history, right. To just. And including the history of the American founders who were white, the great books. When I was studying them and was drawn to them, so many of my professors did just think of that as a dead white male tradition. And that's. It's, it's extremely, it's anti intellectual. It's, it's turning your back on an amazing history of literature. And so there's been no. I mean, there are some institutions that do a great job protecting the humanities, having a kind of a core education that's not, you know, that's not against critical theory, but that embraces, you know, that brings really genuinely diverse perspectives, but also allows there to be a kind of formative, positive dimension to education and allows young people to ask big meaning of life questions. So I can, I could go on about this, but I think there's something that's really important here about higher education that liberals have failed.

[A]

Do you think that I want to go back to Rufo a little bit in just a second, but just to address what you said, do you think that it is the absence of that type of education you're talking about or the rolling back of that type of education you're talking about is substantively problematic or like rhetorically problematic in the sense that it gives weapons to those who want to enhance the grievance.

[F]

I mean, in my actual opinion, I think it's both because it's robbing young people of an opportunity. And I mean, I know that a great books program is not going to save the world, right? But, but it's robbing young people of these moments and when you're young to explore the meaning of life, to study great literature, to actually understand History in its complexity. Not the, like, President Trump version of it, not the Claremont Institute version of it, but the 1619 project in conversation with more sort of orthodox versions of American history. And I don't mean orthodox. I mean. Right. Like there's, there's so much there to learn and grapple with. And I don't think our young people really are invited to do that as much as they should be. And it opens this huge opportunity and vacuum. I mean, you think my go to person here is Jordan Peterson, right? This crazy Canadian guy who wrote a book called 12 Rules for Life that seems to have actually helped young men figure themselves out. I mean, he's totally crazy.

[A]

Now.

[F]

I don't recommend the book. I think it's gets, like, almost as bad as some, you know, some of the worst. Like, it's, it's, it's. But it's amazing. What an, what an incredible phenomenon. Right? And, and it's a real shame that it's that guy writing that book instead of a whole bunch of young people flocking to serious programs in the classics, in American history, in comparative literature, and, and I think we've failed as a society to not, to not fund those public universities where those things could happen. And I just want to say one more thing because I know I sound like, like I'm a little nuts, but, you know, the right wing, the red state, the Republicans have taken some action here. They've started these civic centers in all these red states, which are basically conservative, you know, institutions trying to, like, balance things out. And I've got friends who have been hired by these places. I'm not fully against them, but, you know, it's not, it's kind of a shame that you've got these hyper partisan initiatives, is that. And that I don't think blue, you know, liberals, it's all very disperse, but I don't see any blue state response to these issues.

[A]

Right. And these guys, meanwhile, it's like a Prageru Claremont project together or something like that, we should say. You mentioned Chris Rufo. Rufo is the one who, he is a product of Claremont. He's now, I think, at the Manhattan Institute. He's, he's a, he was from Claremont and, and heritage. I mean, he sort of like hits all the, the hits, as it were. And he was the one who said, who famously was on Twitter saying, like, when we say crt, we're going to basically make everybody. We're going to make our people believe that anything that's everything bad, they don't.

[F]

Need to Know, we're going to just be propagandists, he basically admitted and twist. We're going to distort the truth to make, to score political points, to change policy. And, and you know, very sadly that worked. Right. I mean, he was testing the limits of what you. I talk sometimes in the book about what I call ideas first politics. Right. Where it's kind of like field of dreams, like if you build it, they will come model of politics. And you know, and Christopher Ruffo was pretty effective at that. Just building this huge movement out of a lie.

[A]

Yup. All right, let me just lastly, it's sort of overarching. Where does these, the combined. Was there a version of maga? Maybe this was the first, you know, iteration of it that was. Or maybe you disagree that this version of maga, all these things together is fascistic. I don't know. But where is that? Like, where does it bump up against fascism?

[F]

Well, I mean, I think in the streets every day when you have masked men stealing our neighbors, hard working innocent people, some Americans into, you know, vehicles violently and then deporting them, I think you're in fascist terrain pretty obviously. So, I mean, I don't go on about attorney in the book. And that was partly a rhetorical decision. I'm sorry, that was a rhetorical decision. Right. I don't think it's very effective messaging, but that doesn't mean from an academic perspective that it's not true. And so, and I'm comfortable saying that at this point. And so what do we do? I mean, I still think the country is extremely diverse regionally. I think this country is very vibrant. I think this stuff is very unpopular. I, I don't. Part of what I wanted to do in the book was, yeah, show why it's alluring, you know, track the history, but also to sort of sound an alarm and say this stuff is a lot crazier than you would have expected and it's a lot more radical than your Republican neighbors tend to be, you know, and, and so again, that spirit of generosity towards your neighbors and towards Trump voters included, I mean, there's a lot to be angry about. But, but this, it doesn't have to go on this way. I don't think this movement necessarily is the future of the Republican Party. Well, it might be the future of the Republican Party, but they might not be the future of the country. And so I think one thing Trump has shown us is just how dynamic things are in politics. And so I, I think that I, I do, you know, I think I'm very worried about it. They keep surprising me by how far they're willing to go and the, you know, the measures that they're taking. And I mean, I'm really, I'm really, I'm really upset about it and sad, you know.

[A]

So I, you know, there's fissures now where. To the extent that we're starting to see fissures now.

[F]

Yeah.

[A]

Are those fissures in any way, like ideological or intellectual? I mean, definitely we're seeing the polling that suggests that people. That your average, you know, American is turned off by how aggressive, you know, the, the Nazis in the streets with the, with the, with the bandanas and, and stealing people.

[F]

Yeah.

[A]

But in terms of. Within the context of the Republican Party as a. And it's, you know, sort of the intellectual foundations, we're seeing it a little bit at Heritage Foundation. Right. Where they drew. Where some people, you know, two new people left the Heritage foundation because of Fuentes and.

[F]

Yeah.

[A]

And Tucker Carlson over anti Semitism, presumably. But is there really any fissures amongst those groups that you have outlined that make up maga or is it really more just like, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene is mad because she's no longer going to be running. She thought she was going to run for governor or.

[F]

Yeah.

[A]

Laura breaks off or Candace Owens breaks off because this is just her business. Business model.

[F]

I mean, there are important fissures in the, in the intellectual side, especially around economics, some foreign policy stuff where some people are more, you know, more willing to go along with the old. With some support Ukraine and some don't, for example. But I think more important are the other fissures. Right. Which are, which we're seeing are just like everyday political fissures. The people I write about seeing, pretty pragmatic. The Clara monsters are willing to get along with the post liberals. Some of them will destroy the regime. The rest of them are like they'll seize what's left and reorganize it. So I mean, I mean, they get along. There's the tech. I think the tech versus MAGA Silicon Valley thing is interesting. I don't think that Silicon Valley is presumably. I don't think they're quite so captured by the ideological strains. Some of them clearly are Teal Musk, maybe Andreessen, Curtis Yarvin maybe has had his moment. I think people see through that. And so they'll go where the winds blow politically is my assumption, though. I mean, that's not something I can follow super closely or have been able to. So I think the fissures are real, but far more. And with the Heritage Foundation, Robbie George left the board of the Heritage Foundation. That was a very big moment. I think he's sort of leading the way. It's way too little too late. I, in my opinion, I think it's just a joke. But, but I'm, I'm not a Republican, so I think that meant a lot to some Republicans who still hold out hope that this thing can be turned around. So that's really important. And, but more important are just like the messy, the messy fissures, the disgust with the anti Semitism, the Marjorie Taylor Green thing is important. The Epstein files are important. So I think those things really do matter. Trump's very volatile and I think it all makes, I mean my own view is that it all makes JD Vance look pretty bad because he looks so weak, not able to say anything against any of it because he needs to just play nice with all the different ugly factions.

[A]

Well, Laura, it would be, it's, hopefully we can check back within with you over the next six to, six to 12 months to sort of determine who won out, you know, who's still standing. You know, I don't know if that'll be the end or the midway point or just the beginning.

[F]

Anybody's guess, right? Crazy.

[A]

Laura K. Field, the book is Furious Minds, the Making of the MAGA New Right. We'll put a link to that. Thanks so much today. Really, really appreciate you coming.

[F]

Thank you so much. What a fun conversation. Thank you.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

All right folks, that's it for us. We're gonna head into the fun half. I should just say I just saw an IM where somebody on people are saying like on Twitch, people are making the. I have, have confused liberal as we were talking about it with liberal as in like the center left Democratic parties squish or you know, neoliberal economics. When she is talking about liberal here, she's talking about the individual freedoms, being open minded.

[C]

The rights of man.

[A]

Yes. Favoring reform. I mean it's capital, it's, it's lowercase l as opposed to uppercase l. But there's.

[B]

Yeah. And you can talk about liberal economics and liberalism and then also talk about liberalism in the more positive elements of it, like the more open minded, at peace. But the problem is that those contradictions are becoming impossible.

[A]

Well, but these are two different things in the same way that like you can be in favor of like I am a Democrat, capital D Democrat or I am a Democrat cap, lowercase D, which means that I believe in democracy. Versus being a member of the Democratic Party.

[B]

I thought that was clear.

[C]

What confusion did it cause for the.

[A]

Yeah, I just saw it.

[C]

Do people think they were. She was too anti liberal or pro liberal?

[A]

They, she thought they was like too like Clinton esque or like that kind of liberal. Okay, so I was just making it clear because not everybody's like familiar with these terms in the way that they're, they're used. You'll, you know, a lot of people, you misuse neoliberalism for a very, very long time and then people just stop talking about it in the same way. But I mean, I'll say I, I.

[C]

Agree with the take on critical theory. I think it's bad for the left generally to. And I'll just say like, like George Orwell is someone. There are strikes against Orwell, the list of communists that he gave that he made, like these are things to note. But I also think like people don't contextualize them properly and really like miss out on our actual intellectual history and give it over to the right wing. Like I think it is important to, that we don't leave it to Jordan Peterson to be selling out arena tours. You can put me up right? Because of how like, because people are starved of intellectual content and it can't just be like all that stuff is bad. Like there's a yearning for people to engage with sort of.

[A]

You're talking like the more classical.

[C]

Exactly.

[A]

Formulation.

[C]

I agree with what her statement about like when I was going through college, there was a sort of idea that like you don't need to engage with like, like the works of like Thomas Paine or even like Thomas Jefferson. And I think that is a problem. I think you need to understand them as slave owners and even like the, the sordid personal things. But I don't think you stop there. And I think it's a real problem that a lot of people on our side of things do stop.

[B]

It's a censoriousness. I mean we've spoken about this within the context of like even the Platner thing and how off putting that is for people. You have to have. The problem, I think sometimes is that Democrats or liberals in this instance are. What do you say? That they think you're stupid. Republicans think.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Republicans think you're lazy. Democrats think you're stupid.

[B]

Because they think that like this can't, that people can't work out this context themselves. And it results in like both narrowing the coalition and narrowing the conversation in a way that's immensely off putting to People. And that makes a guy like Jordan Peterson or whatever sound transgressive when that's not the case.

[C]

And he's the, he's the one like, like democratizing knowledge. And you have these university systems increasingly privatizing it or making their giant cost barrier to it. It's, it's, it's hard for me to.

[A]

Relate because when I went to college, literally it was still the Dunning School. Like, I mean, it was like, like I'm that old where that none of what you're talking about happened. Right?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

When I was your professors. Exactly.

[C]

Like, I mean, that's what shocked me.

[A]

There was. I mean, when I went to law school, even I took the critical legal study. There was Critical Legal Studies, which, not. Which was part of the, in part probably predates many, in many respects the CRT or CTO critical race theories. But it was like, you only get two credits for this. You get four. You get four. If you take the other class, it's like, well, wait a second, it's the same class. Like, I'm putting in the same amount of time. They literally devalued it in that way. And there it seems to me, what we probably overshot, which I think, you know, happens with any type of social movements. Like, you know, not to use a taekwondo analogy, but you've got to punch through the board and your punch lands a couple inches past the board when you break it. And then, you know, there's maybe needs to be a little bit of a course correction once you have broken that board. Now the board, I think there's. It's hard to argue that the board is shattered. The board's still there, but it's creakier. And how do you prevent the reaction to this to reglue the board? I mean, I'm.

[F]

Well, but the reaction.

[B]

But the reaction is because the soil is so fertile for that kind of reaction because of the systemic income inequality problem and the fact that higher education is. There is this barrier to entry. If you can go on YouTube and listen to 12 Rules or whatever, that's going to help impact your life or him.

[C]

Talk about Plato. Yeah, like people just googling Plato or Socrates and these fucking jokers come up. It's because, you know, if you search and I mean, I was a real man. There was an early moment in my, like, I would go to open Yale, they would have a bunch of courses. They stopped doing that. They haven't posted like free courses online for people for like a decade or so. That was a big thing in the Early Internet. But it goes against the business model. So you know, you don't do it. You don't.

[F]

Right.

[B]

And even, even in some of like the, the censoriousness that you know, I'm critiquing, like it's also a function of all this where people's feel like they're the best way that they can perform activism in this way is like via consumptive choices or kind of shaming of others individual choices. Because we just don't have enough collectivist cultural boycott infrastructure on. On the left.

[C]

I mean consumption and boycott.

[B]

The lesson to all this is join dsa.

[C]

Yeah. I mean that's the thing because like, I mean the right wing version of like Thomas Jefferson is like he was such a great guy because of his genetics and stuff like that. Like the understanding of any of these people to the extent their thought is worth, you know, engaging with is there are certain individual moments of insight. But also like Thomas Jefferson was so smart and the extent that stuff good came out of him because he was able to ride around on horseback all day because he had slaves making his wealth. But it's not. It's not.

[A]

You have to Grant also helps. Yeah. Not to have to worry about the day to day. Exactly. Because I've got a bunch of free workers.

[C]

I don't have any work to do. I can think all day. That's why he, that's why he came up with good intellectual production.

[A]

Whenever we. I don't want to get conspiratorial right before I want to plug, but right when we are about to to make the plug for members. We have been taken off of our streaming platform on both on Twitch, on YouTube, on rumble and I don't want to get alarmist here. We just have questions. Why would this happen? Who is doing this? What are they afraid of? It's very Shabbat Shalom.

[B]

I'm saying that for no reason at all.

[A]

It's very, very strange.

[B]

That's a reference to. For everybody who didn't. Who's not as online. Candace Owens Just no sound on YouTube.

[A]

It's saying, oh well, I don't know. It's very difficult. Majority points been fined by the eu. What? Yeah, just refresh. All right.

[C]

Refresh if you have no audio, refresh.

[A]

If you can't hear me.

[C]

We don't big tech. I love big tech. These guys do so good. So much good stuff. Let's make sure we bail them out. Let's make sure the government builds data centers for them. They are doing a great job.

[A]

Refresh if you can't hear us, okay. Oh, Nicola, you guys been having these problems every day. Cut Matt off from the weed.

[F]

It's not Matt.

[C]

I mean, something's been consistent every day is me being on weed for 12 years.

[A]

That's the way that we have things working. The real question is, is he not on weed?

[C]

That's the consistent variable.

[A]

If there's two. If there's out of the two producers to blame for tech issues. Start with none of this stuff happened before Brian got here.

[C]

The buck stops here.

[A]

My immediate reaction is to push my chair back and put Matt right where I sit. Work on it. This is. This is. This is what. This is what we see.

[C]

Brian injects like a fighter jet and.

[A]

Mac a. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

[C]

It's like a fighter jet in the air show.

[A]

I see a cloud, I hit eject. It's never Matt's fault.

[C]

I hope it. I hope it's consistent for the rest of the show here. But let me just plug big show left reckoning today. Coming up right after the show today, this afternoon, Graham Plattner, he gave us 45 minutes. We talk a lot about that. And we also talk about the Texas Senate primary. Again, get a little bit into Jasmine Crockett, who feels misrepresented. We do point out that we would support either against John Cornyn because some people think if you're criticizing these folks, it's. You're not being a good Democrat. So check that out right after the show today.

[A]

Why are you wearing that John Cornyn for reelection shirt?

[C]

Cornyn just bought me new parka.

[A]

Nick Cornyn was sending a message when he brought the stream down. Just behave yourself, Matt. That's.

[C]

That's all.

[F]

He.

[A]

He's sending a message shot across the bow.

[C]

These tech issues stop. I'll vote for whoever, folks.

[A]

See you in the fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's gonna be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily gonna be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're gonna look back and go like, wow, what. What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma, welcome to the program. What is up, everyone? Fun hat. No, McKe, you did it. Fun hat.

[B]

Let's go, Brandon.

[A]

Let's go, Brandon. Fun hat. Bradley, you want to say hello?

[C]

Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy.

[A]

It's all the boys today.

[F]

Fundamentally false.

[B]

No. I'm sorry. Women.

[A]

Stop talking for a second and let me finish.

[B]

Where is this coming from? Dude.

[D]

But.

[A]

Dude, you want to smoke this? 7A.

[F]

Yes.

[E]

Hi.

[A]

Me. Yes. Is this me?

[F]

Is it me?

[A]

It is you. Is this me?

[C]

Hello?

[A]

That's me. I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[B]

Sports.

[F]

We can discuss free markets. And we can discuss capitalism.

[A]

I'm going to go Skyline Libertarians.

[C]

They're so stupid.

[A]

Though common sense says.

[C]

Of course.

[B]

Gobbledygook.

[A]

We nailed him.

[B]

So what's 79? 21.

[A]

Challenge. Man. I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 857. 210. 501. One half. 3, 8, 9, 11.

[C]

For instance.

[B]

$3,400. 1900. 5, 4.

[A]

$3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.

[F]

Actually.

[B]

You're making me think less.

[A]

But let me say this. You can call it satire.

[F]

Sam goes satire on top of it all. My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do.

[A]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We seen you. All right, folks, folks, folks.

[B]

It's just the week being weeded out.

[F]

Obviously. Yeah.

[A]

Sun's out, guns out. I, I, I don't know.

[F]

But you should know.

[A]

People just don't.

[C]

Like to entertain ideas anymore.

[A]

I have a question. Who cares?

[C]

Our chat is enabled.

[A]

I love it.

[B]

I think I do love that.

[A]

Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. Two o', clock. We're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.

[B]

Outrageous.

[A]

Like, what is wrong with you?

[F]

Love you. Bye.

[A]

Love you. Bye. Bye.