Podcast
The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
Hosted by The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie · EN
Want to know what comes next in politics, culture, and libertarian ideas? Reason’s Nick Gillespie hosts relentlessly interesting interviews with the activists, artists, authors, entrepreneurs, newsmakers, and politicians who are defining the 21st century.
40episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
What 1976 Got Right About America
2w ago01:07:59Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Matt Welch, editor at large at Reason and co-host of The Fifth Column podcast. Welch joins Nick Gillespie for a look back at the summer of 1976 and what it can tell us about America nearly 50 years later. They discuss the surprising reality of the bicentennial, why many observers expected it to be a failure, and how local celebrations ultimately made it a success. They also examine the cultural impact of Roots, the enduring appeal of The Bad News Bears, and what both works revealed about race, identity, family, and American life in the 1970s. Along the way, they revisit the 1976 Montreal Olympics, the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the uniquely messy spirit of the era. Finally, Welch and Gillespie discuss what the bicentennial got right about patriotism, why America works best as a creedal nation, and whether the country's strength lies in its ability to embrace multiple stories rather than a single national narrative. 0:00—The realities of the bicentennial 11:25—America 250 19:15—The Bad News Bears 35:28—The cultural impact of Roots 53:10—The 1976 Montreal Olympics 57:53—Bruce Jenner 1:03:42—Does America need a single narrative? The post What 1976 Got Right About America appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Why So Many People Feel Lost
3w ago00:58:05Tap to summarizeHuman beings are "creatures of matter who long to matter," says novelist and philosopher Rebecca Goldstein, whose new book is The Mattering Instinct: How Our Deepest Longing Drives Us and Divides Us. She talks with Nick Gillespie about how all humans struggle to figure out how to lead lives that justify our existence, both in the eyes of others and ourselves, and she describes remarkable cases of people who rescued children discarded during China's one-child policy era, atheists who led leper colonies so the afflicted could die with dignity, and former neo-Nazis who seek to reform racist skinheads. A MacArthur "genius" award winner who has taught at Harvard University, New York University, and Rutgers University, among other places, Goldstein has published highly acclaimed novels such as The Mind-Body Problem and 36 Arguments for the Existence of God, and nonfiction works including Plato at the Googleplex and Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity. The Mattering Instinct investigates what happens when inherited authorities—church, state, family, tribe—lose their power to dictate meaning and individuals must fend for themselves, typically employing strategies she calls transcendence, competition, social belonging, and heroic striving. She invokes Friedrich Hayek's "knowledge problem" to illuminate the dispersed and dynamic qualities of how we all create "mattering projects"—lives worth living—in a world that offers us more and more choice across virtually all areas of activity. Drawing deeply on the philosophical roots of individualism and liberalism, Goldstein offers a moral psychology of freedom, a way to think about individual dignity, pluralism, and self-authorship without devolving into either nihilism or top-down moralism. 0:00—What is the mattering instinct? 4:30—Age, class, and the crisis of meaning 8:46—How do history and technology affect mattering? 10:59—Secularism and mattering 15:00—The four archetypes 27:14—Pursuit of flourishing 32:43—Psychology of freedom 35:43—Frank Meeink 42:50—Lou Xiaoying 51:29—Existential angst The post Why So Many People Feel Lost appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Was Lincoln More Radical Than We Remember?
4w ago00:52:44Tap to summarizeAt the start of his presidency in 1861, Abraham Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment that would have kept the federal government from banning slavery in states where it already existed. In just a few short years, he helped secure passage of the 13th Amendment, which ended slavery throughout the United States and all its territories. Today's guest is Senior Editor Damon Root, whose new book Emancipation War delves into one of the most fascinating chapters of American history. Root and host Nick Gillespie also discuss the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, Root's previous book on Frederick Douglass, and how the Supreme Court is likely to rule in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case that will be decided in the next few weeks. Root writes a twice-weekly newsletter for Reason on legal issues, called Injustice System. Sign up for it here. Previous appearances: "Damon Root: Why Frederick Douglass Loved the Constitution (and You Should Too)," December 8, 2020 "Willett, Bolick, Sykes: Three Great Picks to Replace Anthony Kennedy," June 27, 2018 "The Libertarianism of Frederick Douglass," February 8, 2018 "Obamacare at the Supreme Court: Damon Root on King v. Burwell," March 3, 2015 "Battle for the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism vs. Restraint," November 5, 2014 "3 Supreme Court Decisions to Watch," January 24, 2012 0:00–Lincoln wanted to preserve slavery in 1861 8:38–The Northwest Ordinance and precedents for banning slavery 11:27–Frederick Douglas and slavery in the U.S. Constitution 14:07–Salmon Chase 18:40–Lincoln's generals who emancipated slaves 23:37–How Lincoln evolved on slavery 29:47–The Civil Rights Act of 1866 37:13–The 13th Amendment, citizenship, and national identity 39:30–Reconstruction 45:00–The Supreme Court 49:57–Birthright citizenship The post Was Lincoln More Radical Than We Remember? appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →How Moral Panic Creates Black Markets
May 2701:20:48Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Nobel Prize-winning economist Alvin E. Roth, the author of Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work. He talks with Nick Gillespie about why some voluntary transactions provoke moral outrage even when no one is being directly harmed. Roth explains why black markets often emerge when governments try to ban activities with persistent demand, why both markets and prohibitions require social support to function, and how unintended consequences can make moralistic policies backfire. They discuss the war on drugs, prostitution, surrogacy, same-sex marriage, price gouging, and why Iran remains the only country in the world with a legal market for kidney donors. They also explore Roth's work designing kidney exchange networks and school choice systems, how digital technology and private transactions make certain bans harder to enforce, and why harm reduction may work better than prohibition in areas ranging from drug policy to sex work. 0:00—Repugnant transactions and organ sales 9:30—Blood plasma, coercion, and class bias 16:46—School choice reform 22:59—Same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraception 29:59—The war on drugs and moral economics 38:55—Roth's theoretical origin story 43:45—Uber, AI, and technological efficiencies 51:26—Price gouging and consumer resentment 54:27—Pornography, prostitution, and privacy 1:05:21—Has America become more economically moral? 1:12:15—Biden's economic agenda and Trump's tariffs 1:17:04—Winning a Nobel Prize Producer: Paul Alexander Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser The post How Moral Panic Creates Black Markets appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Why Populism Leads to Decline
May 2000:49:27Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Johan Norberg, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Peak Human: What We Can Learn From the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages. He talks with Nick Gillespie about the historical patterns behind flourishing civilizations, from the Roman Republic to modern America. Norberg argues that societies thrive when they remain open to trade, immigration, experimentation, and new ideas, but begin to decay when fear and nostalgia push them toward protectionism, centralization, and tribal politics. They also discuss the resurgence of populism in the United States and Europe, why tariffs and anti-globalization politics keep returning throughout history, and whether America is becoming more risk-averse and nativist. Norberg explains why he believes optimism and innovation can still win, explores the promise of artificial intelligence, and reflects on whether China is entering a new golden age or repeating the mistakes that led past civilizations into decline. 0:00—Why open societies thrive 3:07—The Roman Republic 10:05—America as a creedal nation 11:57—The rise of nativism 16:15—The dangers of nostalgia 20:31—What sparks renaissance? 26:40—Are older societies more risk averse? 28:33—Populism and Viktor Orbán's defeat 32:04—Left-wing populism 34:10—Javier Milei 35:42—Tariffs and free trade 40:28—Is China in a golden age? The post Why Populism Leads to Decline appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →The Global War on Free Speech
May 1501:02:27Tap to summarizeJacob Mchangama and Jeff Kosseff are co-authors of The Future of Free Speech, a new book examining what they describe as a global "free speech recession." In this episode, Mchangama and Kosseff talk with Nick Gillespie about why democracies are increasingly embracing speech restrictions once associated with authoritarian regimes, how fears about misinformation and child safety are reshaping internet policy, and why both the political left and right have grown more skeptical of free expression. They discuss the rise of government pressure on social media companies, the future of anonymous speech and Section 230 protections, and why they believe counter-speech, transparency, and decentralized online platforms offer a better alternative to censorship. This interview was taped in front of a live audience at an event in New York City. 0:00—What is the free speech recession? 7:36—Speech after the collapse of communism 15:06—How important is technology for escaping censorship? 22:38—EU hate speech laws 27:55—Sullivan v. Times decision 30:19—Afroman's legal victory 34:53—Is there a crackdown on political speech in America? 39:22—Jawboning 42:44—Social media censorship 51:40—Solutions to reverse the free speech recession The post The Global War on Free Speech appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →John Fetterman: 'I'm a Very Pro-Capitalist Democrat'
May 1300:48:32Tap to summarizeToday's guest is Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.), who just a decade ago looked like the future of Bernie Sanders–style populism, a tattooed Colossus clad in downscale hoodies and gym shorts who championed higher minimum wages, pot legalization, criminal justice reform, and more spending on social welfare programs. After 13 years as mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, one of the poorest towns in the state during his tenure, and a term as lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, he beat physician Mehmet Oz for an open Senate seat in 2022. But since coming to Washington, Fetterman has blazed a path in the Senate as unique and oversized as his frame, routinely criticizing members of his own party for "catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base" and accusing them of antisemitism and suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. He tells Nick Gillespie that the avowedly socialist politics of progressive Democrats like Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner (an actual "communist," declares Fetterman), Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are alienating men and moderates and spell long-term doom for his party and the country. Fetterman denounces both former President Joe Biden's failure to control the Southern border and President Donald Trump's antipathy toward legal immigration, says that entitlement reform is overdue and the national debt "is a ticking time bomb," and praises capitalism as the one system that has consistently improved living standards. He defends expansive military action against Iran and in defense of Ukraine, praises Israel for being the one functioning democracy in the Middle East, and calls for legalizing marijuana and psychedelics. 0:00—Are Democrats catering to the fringe? 4:32—Why did Fetterman support Sanders in 2016? 7:53—Immigration policy 16:15—Would Fetterman support a path to citizenship? 17:22—Drug legalization 20:12—Where has Trump failed? 21:57—Israel and Iran 26:04—Does Fetterman trust the Trump administration on Iran? 30:10—Democratic support for Israel 32:19—The limits of military intervention 38:36—The national debt 41:20—Entitlement reform 43:25—Braddock, Pennsylvania 45:50—Fetterman is a proud capitalist Producer: Paul Alexander Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser Transcript This is an AI-generated transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy. Nick Gillespie: All right. OK. This is The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie. And my guest today is John Fetterman, the outspoken Democratic senator from Pennsylvania. Senator, good to talk with you. John Fetterman: Yeah, well, thank you for the invitation to have a conversation. Yeah, absolutely. Oh, I love to have conversations with people all across the whole thing. And so, yes, it's a real pleasure. OK. Well, we met 15 years ago on the set of Bill Maher's Real Time when you were merely the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania. Let me play a quick clip from that episode. Bill Maher Clip [00:00:48 - 00:01:03] Well, we continue to be style icons in our respective worlds. Beyond that, let's talk a little bit about what has changed in your politics. You recently wrote in The Washington Post that you're not going to be changing parties. People have said that, "Oh, you know, is he going to become a Republican or an independent?" But in the Washington Post piece, you did have critical words for your own party. You recently told Fox News, of all places, that the Democrats, "are an orgy of socialism." In your own piece, you wrote that, "the Democrats seem to be catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base." What's going on with the Democratic Party that's upsetting you so much? Well, let me just step back. I mean, I assume that you had the clip that, you know, all those years ago back on Real Time. Yeah. Yeah. I know that we had that, but I mean, is it fair to say that we reconnected online and then—like friends, and just, you know, it just moved on. So, I mean, most people weren't aware of that, the dust-up way back then. And ironically, just a couple of days ago, I was on the Real Time show. So a lot has changed since when you and I first encountered each other, and I was very eager, happy to have this conversation. So, you know, where we are right now, so if you could just, what's that question again? I really want to make sure. You've told Fox News recently that the Democrats "are in an orgy of socialism." You wrote in The Washington Post that your party is "catering to its fringe and agitated parts of its base." What, you know, can you explain that a little bit more, and what do you think is driving that? I mean, I think the extremism is driving it, without a doubt. I mean, look at the primaries all across in the Senate and in the House and look at the kinds of people that have already been elected. Like, for example, the mayor in Seattle, she's an absolute socialist, if not more. And now people, "Hey, I'm leaving," and she's like, "Bye." And just describe that kind of a thing. And then, of course, New York, that's its own situation too. And I thought DeSantis had a great line saying, you know, "Mamdani is my favorite real estate agent now." And it's driving people away. People can move and they can just vote, you know, with their feet. And that explains why Florida continues to flourish. But a lot of these states like New York and other blue states. We've read that $2 trillion have migrated out of these states too. So I don't think those are the kind of people that are the problem now. And if you make billionaires…you know, the Democratic Party is the problem, except they love the billionaires that fund those kinds of causes and those kind of organizations that are actually driving apart a lot of the protesting. And that's where that energy is as well. So look at some of the views now that people are espousing. So it's moving more and more in socialism and communism. I mean, in Maine, for example, Graham Platner, avowed communist. He described himself as a communist. Antifa, that's not a slur for me. That's not GOP kinds of hit. That's his own words, how he described that. Can I ask you, what about your own personal evolution then? Because in 2016, you endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries for the Democratic Party. He's an avowed democratic socialist or a socialist at various points, he's called himself. You know, what is it that rubbed you the wrong way about socialists or communists? Well, I mean, in 2016, it was much more about the minimum wage and some other very basic kinds of things. And now that's just turned into much more standing with Cuba, standing with Venezuela, standing with the Iranian regime, and turn that into much more— becoming more increasingly anti-American, for me. So my views really haven't changed that much. Things that I supported, I was very supportive about gay rights, you know, thing. Back in 2013, even before you and I, well, it would have been a couple years later. Yeah, you know, I was officializing a gay marriage when that was illegal. And I was happy to get arrested on that. So my views really haven't changed. What's really changed is the party. And in 2024, I was campaigning for Kamala Harris there as a Democrat, very clear we were going to lose and a lot of the excesses that we've had in 2020 came back to revisit, and that really, I think, cost us that election in 2024. I'm sorry, Nick, let me say. The excess of the party back then summoned the second term of the Trump administration. Yeah. You've said that the Democratic Party has become anti-man or anti-men. Yeah. What forms does that take? And again, I mean, you can say, "OK, well, extremists in ...
Transcribe →Justice Neil Gorsuch: 'Aspirations for Power Need To Be Checked'
May 400:35:13Tap to summarizeThis week, Nick Gillespie sits down at the U.S. Supreme Court with Justice Neil Gorsuch to discuss his new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence, co-authored with Janie Nitze. Gorsuch and Gillespie examine why the United States is a creedal nation built on shared ideas rather than ethnicity or religion, and why those ideas require constant effort and courage to sustain. They discuss originalism, equal justice under law, the risks of government overreach, and the growing complexity of federal and state regulation. Finally, Gorsuch considers what it will take for the American experiment to endure another 250 years, from learning history to cultivating the courage needed to defend freedom. 0:00—America's 250th anniversary 3:24—Unsung heroes of 1776 4:43—Why America is not an ethnostate 8:00—Originalism and equal justice under the law 11:29—Is America a libertarian project? 13:33—What constitutes government overreach? 14:31—Does America have too many laws? 21:41—Federal bureaucracies and state legislatures 24:03—Political polarization and the judiciary 30:54—What will allow America to have another 250 years? 34:06—How can younger people cultivate courage? Producers: Paul Alexander & Natalie Dowzicky Director of Photography: Kevin Alexander Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser Transcript This transcript has been edited for style and clarity. Nick Gillespie: This is The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie. My guest today is Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and co-author with Janie Nitze of the new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. Justice Gorsuch, thanks for talking to Reason Justice Neil Gorsuch: Oh, delighted to be here. Thank you. Let's start with Heroes of 1776, which is in time for the upcoming 250 anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The book is about ordinary men, women, and children doing something totally extraordinary, which is overthrowing a repressive and distant government in the name of freedom and liberty. What's the main lesson that you think America needs to be thinking about as we celebrate our 250th birthday? Well, I know we're going to have a lot of fireworks, and there are going to be some good barbecues and parades, but I hope maybe we take a moment too to reflect on the gift we've been given and the challenge we face. And what I mean by that is the Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal, that each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government, and that we have the right to rule ourselves. Our nation is not founded on a religion. It's not based on a common culture even, or heritage. It's based on those ideas. We're a creedal nation. And I hope we take a moment to reflect on that and to recommit ourselves to that. One more thing, one more thing. The courage it takes to defend those ideas. They were not inevitable. And the stories of the men, women, and children in the book, I hope will inspire children to realize the courage it takes to carry those ideas forward in their own time. Talk a little bit about that lack of inevitability, because the way American history gets done, especially to kids, it's like, "Well, this happened, then this happened, and, of course, here we are." How do you focus on the idea that this wasn't inevitable? Well, there are a bunch of things in the book we point to. A couple I'll start with. One, those three ideas, we point out what was Europe like at the time. It was monarchies. The notion that all people are created equal? No, there are kings and serfs. The notion that you have rights from God, from your creator? No, everything came from government. And self-rule certainly was a very dangerous proposition in the world of the declaration, right? You're right. We take it as the air we breathe. Fish in the water don't even realize. But those things were dangerous and inevitable, and they were traitors for declaring them. The British said that Americans had declared for themselves an alienable right to talk nonsense. And we walked through how the vote originally wasn't going to go through unanimously- So this is at the Continental Congress— At the Continental Congress—- —and they're deciding we can be brave, we can kind of fudge it or whatever. So there was huge debate over it. And you have to remember, only about 40% of colonists actually supported the Patriot cause. Another 20, 30% were Loyalists. And a whole bunch of people were undecided, right? Much as our own age. They were divided, right? Right. People were divided. So there was nothing inevitable about it. Absolutely nothing. And you talk about a couple of people, and maybe you can tell a story or two who actually either changed their vote or were like, "Okay, I'm going to change because this cause makes sense." There are two fun stories in the book about that. One is Caesar Rodney. So the Delaware delegation was tied. They couldn't vote definitively. So Caesar Rodney was called back from… He was on military service in Delaware. He rode 80 miles through the night in a thunderstorm, suffering cancer of his face. John Adams called him the oddest man he'd ever seen. He could have gone to Britain for a cure, but he was too much of a patriot. He wanted to stick around, and he broke Delaware's tied vote. Another man, Edward Rutledge, South Carolina. He had voted against independence on July 1st, the first time they voted. When the resolution was first introduced in June, they couldn't agree on whether to even proceed on it. So they tabled it for weeks. They brought it to a vote on July 1st and Rutledge voted against it. And, again, the delegates were divided. He though that night said, "I'd like to take the vote again the next day." And he realized that it was more important that we stand united in whatever decision we made than for his own personal views to prevail. He changed his vote. When you say we are a creedal nation, it's not the product of a particular religion. A lot of people in contemporary America today say, "No, that's wrong." And, in fact, there's a lot of politicians and a lot of people, influencers or people in the press who say, "No, actually all of the people who signed the declaration were of a very specific kind of ethnic stock." With one exception, we'll get into him in a second, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who's the only Catholic signer, they're all Protestants. How do you respond to people who say, "You're full of it." It's like they were all Scots, Irish and English, basically. So this is an ethno-state of some meaning. Well, I would say I'd push back on that. There's no doubt that the Revolution, the Constitution and our country have always had challenges living up to the declaration. I think of the declaration as sort of our mission statement. The Constitution, our how-to manual. But look at the mission statement. The mission statement is all of us are equal, that we all have an inalienable rights, and that we have the right to self-rule. Those ideas are perfect ideas. They exclude no one. Now, have we had to work on realizing them? We talk about this in the book, of course, but we could point to that mission statement. Lincoln in the Civil War was able to say, "How can you possibly justify slavery when you say all men are created equal?" The women in <span...
Transcribe →Andy Serkis: What Orwell Understood About Tyranny
Apr 2900:34:35Tap to summarizeToday's guest is the legendary actor and director Andy Serkis, who has played everyone from Gollum to proto-punk icon Ian Dury to King Kong to Marvel villain Ulysses Klaue. His latest project is a controversial animated adaptation of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which he directed and is out on May 1 from Angel Studios. He talks with Nick Gillespie about the new movie; what, if anything, ties together some of his signature roles; and whether technology advances or undermines art. 0:00—Why Serkis wanted to direct Animal Farm 4:30—The corrupting nature of power 7:35—Are we in a better place than we were 100 years ago? 10:34—Serkis' signature acting roles 18:31—The legacy of Ian Dury 25:42—Does technology enhance creativity 31:12—The fragility of democracy The post Andy Serkis: What Orwell Understood About Tyranny appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →Prison Doesn't Work the Way You Think
Apr 2201:08:14Tap to summarizeThis week, guest host Billy Binion is joined by Jennifer Doleac, an economist whose research focuses on crime and public safety. She is executive vice president of criminal justice at Arnold Ventures and author of the recent book The Science of Second Chances. In their conversation, Doleac delves into some of her more counterintuitive findings—many of which surprised even her. Perhaps most notably, she explains why long prison sentences do far less to deter crime than many assume. She instead makes the case that solving more cases should be a top priority, and explores why clearance rates are shockingly low. Binion and Doleac also examine the evidence behind second chances—a radioactive topic in recent years—including research showing that crime decreases when first-time defendants are offered leniency. They discuss why some well-intentioned policies have counterproductive results, what the data say about rehabilitation and reentry programs, and how policymakers can make better use of economics to align incentives and improve outcomes in the criminal justice system. Reason is hiring! Check out the two open roles on the video team now:https://reason.org/jobs/associate-producer/https://reason.org/jobs/producer/ 0:00—The relationship between economics and criminal justice 6:28—Have people become less willing to give second chances? 15:46—The far left and criminal justice reform 18:50—What isn't working in the criminal justice system? 26:01—Why are clearance rates so low? 31:35—Leniency for first-time offenders 38:48—The "ban the box" movement 47:58—Why economics is a useful framework for criminal justice 55:42—Should prisons be made more comfortable? 1:01:38—Doleac's political and economic views The post Prison Doesn't Work the Way You Think appeared first on Reason.com.
Transcribe →