Trump’s dork philosopher

Summary

Today, Explained: Trump’s Dork Philosopher

Episode Release Date: July 15, 2025
Hosts: Sean Rameswaram, Noel King
Produced by: Vox
Part of the Vox Media Podcast Network

---

Introduction to Curtis Yarvin's Influence

In this episode of Today, Explained, hosts Noel King and Zach Beacham delve deep into the enigmatic figure of Curtis Yarvin, an online far-right philosopher whose provocative ideas have begun to permeate the MAGA movement and even influence key figures within the Trump administration. The discussion is anchored by insights from Ava Kaufman, a staff writer at The New Yorker, who has extensively covered Yarvin’s ideologies.

Curtis Yarvin and His Philosophical Underpinnings

Noel King introduces Curtis Yarvin as a "very online far-right philosopher whose ideas include the fascinating, the esoteric, the absurd, the racist and so on" (00:19), emphasizing the multifaceted and often controversial nature of his philosophies. Yarvin's influence extends beyond fringe internet circles, impacting prominent individuals such as J.D. Vance, a known admirer, and even Elon Musk, who consulted Yarvin on innovative concepts like a third-party political system.

Ava Kaufman provides a detailed analysis of Yarvin's proposals, highlighting his call for the transformation of the United States into a monarchy or a sovereign corporation (SOV Corp), where a strong CEO-leader would replace existing democratic institutions (06:30). Yarvin argues that "all people are not equal, therefore democracy doesn't" (05:00), advocating for an authoritarian restructuring of governance that mirrors Silicon Valley's corporate models.

Yarvin's Proposals and Their Real-World Resonance

The conversation shifts to specific instances where Yarvin's ideas seemingly influenced Trump’s policies. Noel King references a proposal Yarvin made in spring 2024 on Substack to expel Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and convert it into a luxury resort, a suggestion echoed by President Trump in February 2025 (02:18). When pressed, Ava Kaufman suggests that while Trump may not be reading Yarvin directly, his advisors and young officials influenced by Yarvin's writings are implementing similar radical ideas.

Zach Beacham adds a critical perspective, noting, "Reality has started to seep into this crackpot world, and the mixture is remarkable" (03:58). This fusion of extremist philosophy with tangible political action underscores the potential dangers of Yarvin's influence growing within powerful circles.

The Decline of Post-Liberal Intellectualism

The discussion transitions to the broader intellectual landscape, particularly focusing on the decline of post-liberalism—a movement critical of liberal democracy. Zach Beacham reflects on his 2019 concerns about the "Anti Liberal Moment", where anti-liberal arguments were gaining intellectual traction (17:25). However, he observes a shift where influential intellectuals like David Brooks are turning away from post-liberal ideas, suggesting a "broad movement ... rediscovering the virtues of liberal democracy" (20:00).

Ava Kaufman recounts the disillusionment within the post-liberal movement, highlighting how policies influenced by Yarvin's ideology, such as the harsh conditions in Florida's Alligator Alcatraz immigration detention center, are causing intellectuals to reconsider their stance. Detailed accounts from inmates describing "prisoners tightly packed together" and "food that has worms in it" (21:00) illustrate the real-world ramifications of these policies, further alienating former supporters.

Internal Cracks and the Future of the Alliance

Noel King probes the internal dynamics of the post-liberal movement, questioning how figures like Sohrab Omari—previously aligned with post-liberalism—are now advocating for the preservation of American democracy (21:16). Zach Beacham explains that the rise of the "barbarian right", encompassing more overtly racist and extremist groups, is fracturing the movement's appeal among intellectually respectable conservatives. He asserts, "These are not ideologies that are gonna win the future of the American intellectual scene" (24:13).

Trump Administration’s Impact on Post-Liberalism

The discussion returns to the Trump administration's role in either fostering or undermining post-liberal ideologies. Zach Beacham highlights that while the administration currently holds some influence, its growing unpopularity and association with extreme policies could "discredit post liberalism in the way that the second Bush administration discredited neoconservatism" (25:09). This potential decline suggests that while post-liberalism may hold some political power in the short term, its long-term viability is questionable.

Conclusion: The Shifting Intellectual Landscape

The episode wraps up with a reflection on the changing intellectual currents in American politics. Zach Beacham emphasizes the distinction between political dominance and intellectual influence, noting that the decline in post-liberalism's intellectual appeal does not necessarily equate to its immediate political demise. However, the trend signifies a move away from ideologies that lack substantial intellectual grounding, potentially paving the way for a resurgence of values centered on liberal democracy.

Noel King concludes by highlighting the significance of these shifts, reaffirming the episode's exploration of Curtis Yarvin's influence and the broader implications for American political and intellectual life.

---

Notable Quotes

• Noel King: "Curtis Yarvin is a very online far right philosopher whose ideas include the fascinating, the esoteric, the absurd, the racist and so on." (00:19)

• Ava Kaufman: "All people are not equal, therefore democracy doesn't. It's a lie to assume it does." (05:00)

• Zach Beacham: "Reality has started to seep into this crackpot world, and the mixture is remarkable." (03:58)

• Ava Kaufman: "He wants someone who has absolute authority. And sometimes he calls this a king, sometimes he calls it a CEO monarch." (06:30)

• Zach Beacham: "These are not ideologies that are gonna win the future of the American intellectual scene." (24:13)

• Ava Kaufman: "If you could massively transform the government into essentially a corporation, you'd have a much more efficient system." (05:51)

---

Key Takeaways

1. Curtis Yarvin's Influence: Yarvin's far-right philosophies are influencing the MAGA movement and key figures within the Trump administration, advocating for a radical restructuring of American governance.

2. Post-Liberalism Decline: Intellectuals are increasingly rejecting post-liberal ideas due to the practical failures and ethical violations observed in policies influenced by such ideologies.

3. Internal Fractures: The rise of more extreme factions within the right-wing movement is diluting the appeal of intellectually grounded post-liberalism, leading to a fragmented and less influential movement.

4. Political vs. Intellectual Dominance: While post-liberalism may hold some political sway in the short term, its long-term influence is waning within the intellectual sphere, potentially limiting its future impact on American politics.

5. Implications for Democracy: The episode underscores a critical juncture for American democracy, highlighting the need for vigilant intellectual discourse to preserve democratic values against authoritarian and reactionary ideologies.

---

Final Thoughts

"Trump’s Dork Philosopher" offers a compelling examination of how fringe philosophical ideas can infiltrate mainstream politics and the consequential shifts within intellectual movements. By unpacking Curtis Yarvin's ideologies and their tangible impacts, the episode provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the current political landscape and the ongoing struggle to uphold liberal democratic principles in the face of extremist challenges.

Transcript

[Noel King]

It's today explained what's going on my boys and in some cases gals. Recently one of you emailed us with this request.

[Zach Beacham]

You've got mail. Hello, I am an avid listener and.

[Ava Kaufman]

I strongly believe you should cover the story of Curtis Yarvin. It's important to explore who he is.

[Noel King]

And how he has influenced the MAGA.

[Zach Beacham]

And the Tech Bros Movement.

[Noel King]

Curtis Yarvin is a very online far right philosopher whose ideas include the fascinating, the esoteric, the absurd, the racist and so on. Six months into the Trump administration, there's evidence that he is influencing the MAGA movement and Even President Trump. J.D. vance knows him and likes him. Elon consulted him about this third party idea. Yarvin can take some credit for inspiring Doge and as you'll hear ahead, one of Trump's most controversial doesn't even begin to cover it. Ideas may have come from Yarvin or someone who reads his substack. I can almost guarantee you that Trump does not Everything's computer that's coming up.

[Zach Beacham]

Sally from Finance loves fly fishing. She used to spend her weekend surrounded by receipts. Then she switched her company to Ramp. Now spend is all under control, all in one place. Her team submits their expenses with a text and she can close the books without all the busy work. So Sally's weekends are all her own, surrounded by fish, not receipts. Switch your business to ramp.com and love finance again. Support for this show comes from Salesforce.

[Ava Kaufman]

Today every team has more work to.

[Zach Beacham]

Do than resources available, but digital labor is here to help.

[Ava Kaufman]

Agent Force the powerful AI from Salesforce.

[Zach Beacham]

Provides a limitless workforce of AI agents for every department.

[Ava Kaufman]

Built into your existing workflows and your trusted customer data, AgentForce can analyze, decide and execute tasks autonomously, letting you and your employees save time and money to focus on the bigger picture, like moving your business forward.

[Zach Beacham]

Agentforce what AI was meant to be?

[Ava Kaufman]

Learn more at salesforce.com agentforce.

[Noel King]

This is.

[Ava Kaufman]

Today, explained.

[Noel King]

Ava Kaufman, staff writer at the New Yorker, recently spent some time with Curtis Yarvin for her piece titled Curtis Yarvin's Plot Against America. There was a detail in your profile that I thought was really fascinating. In the spring of 2024, Curtis Yarvin writes on Substack. Let's expel Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and turn it into a luxury resort. Then in February of this year, about a year later, President Trump makes this suggestion aloud.

[Zach Beacham]

I don't want to be cute. I don't want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle east this could be something that could be so bad, this could be so magnificent.

[Noel King]

That got all the attention, not surprisingly. But what are we to glean from that? Is Donald Trump reading Curtis Yarvin's substack?

[Ava Kaufman]

I think Curtis was as surprised as anyone to see his proposal being taken up almost verbatim in this speech that, as Trump's advisors later said, caught them by surprise as well. As far as he understands it, when kind of pressed, his ideas are kind of self evident. Anyone who kind of sees the world as he does would of course come up with the same idea of kind of, you know, fully taking over a country, dispelling its inhabitants and linking it to the blockchain and giving people a kind of meme coin.

[Zach Beacham]

I realize that it seems improbable that we would both have the same crackpot idea. No, it is extremely probable because the President and I inhabit the same reality. We are both looking up and noticing that the sky is blue. Most people live in a crackpot world.

[Noel King]

Where the sky is green and our.

[Zach Beacham]

Present Middle east policy is sane. Reality has started to seep into this crackpot world, and the mixture is remarkable.

[Ava Kaufman]

And, you know, Trump isn't reading Yarvin directly, but a lot of his advisors, maybe not his top advisors, but young people eager and working in the administration, I think Curtis calls them kind of lone wolves, are. And, you know, if you think that, you know, might makes right, the idea of a mass expulsion in this way might seem, you know, entirely plausible for both Yarvin and for Trump.

[Noel King]

So why is that? What is the appeal when there are so many guys online writing substacks? Why this one?

[Ava Kaufman]

There is this kind of very simple story that he's offering people and, you know, he's part of this, you know, tradition of reactionary thought, which is at heart, always a kind of simple story. If we can go back to the past, kind of, things will be better. Curtis's version of the story kind of goes like this. All people are not equal, therefore democracy doesn't. It's a lie to assume it does. And if real people aren't equal in capability, you know, why should they have political power? The world is kind of run by unelected bureaucrats and cultural elites.

[Zach Beacham]

Those who believe that our society should be ruled by prestige, by prestigious institutions, by civil society, are very, very against authority. But what you notice is that actually those institutions are quite unaccountable.

[Noel King]

Nobod, nobody elected Anthony Fauci.

[Ava Kaufman]

And if we could kind of replace this system with the systems we see in Silicon Valley, that are bringing us things like the iPhone and Tesla cars and the cybertruck. We'd have a much more efficient system and a much more kind of competitive system.

[Zach Beacham]

You've probably heard of a man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Noel King]

Americans of all stripes basically revere fdr.

[Zach Beacham]

And FDR ran the New Deal like a startup.

[Ava Kaufman]

And so what we need, in contrast to the kind of sclerotic bureaucracy that we've been living under and been oppressed by, especially if we're bright young engineers who want solutions and not deliberation, is this kind of strong CEO leader.

[Noel King]

Yarvin believes that the United States should be a monarchy. This is like the thing that if you've heard Curtis Yarvin's name, this is what you know about him. He thinks we should have a king. What does he mean by that?

[Ava Kaufman]

He wants someone who has absolute authority. And sometimes he calls this a king, sometimes he calls it a CEO monarch. He knows other people don't like the word strongman, but essentially what he's calling for is a strong man.

[Zach Beacham]

I think you can learn a lot from Napoleon. His military strategy was perhaps a little aggressive, but Napoleon is perhaps the monarch who's most reminiscent of a. A 21st century Silicon Valley CEO. In some ways. Napoleon is really a startup guy.

[Ava Kaufman]

And this would be someone who could abolish the courts and the rule of law, who could transform the government into essentially a corporation. He calls it a SOV Corp, short for sovereign corporation. And who could get rid of the existing system almost completely. The idea is not to just kind of become the CEO of America 2.0, but to really kind of fire all civil servants, to scrap the universities we already have and replace them with antiversities, to demolish scientific institutions and to restart from scratch. And this is because, in Yarvin's view, all of these systems are so unsalvageable, so corrupt, and so broken that nothing less than what he says, you know, a total reboot. You know, reboot should be an. And scare quotes is adequate.

[Zach Beacham]

You know, a lot of conservatives sort of have these illusions that these institutions in some ways can be reformed or salvageable, or you're just like, how do.

[Noel King]

We get the Marxists out of Harvard?

[Zach Beacham]

Or something like that, which is basically sort of like, okay, you just invaded Germany. How do we get the Nazis out of the ss?

[Noel King]

His theory on leadership is more or less clear, even if you don't agree with it, even if you're like, no, we don't need a king in this country. But his theory on subjects is less Clear. Like, he's repeatedly said that black people's lives were better under slavery. There's a part in your piece where he talks about how church blacks should rule over ghetto blacks. This is, like, bizarre stuff. But also, there's kind of a. I don't know, there's kind of suggestion that he does have a theory of leadership, but he does not actually care very much about people.

[Ava Kaufman]

I think that's spot on. I found that human subjects, and even the idea of a kind of human beings, I guess, is actually a better way to put it, were largely absent in his work. It often felt like they were kind of sheep to be herded or idiots to be corrected or marionettes to kind of be controlled. And when you think about that, that aligns well with the theory in which, you know, you think this kind of benevolent strongman will be able to kind of take care of everyone. If you're not really thinking of people as people, perhaps that theory makes a lot more sense.

[Noel King]

There's a real kind of, who is this for? Baked into this, the whole deal for Americans is the American dream, right? We have an idea of what ordinary Americans, all Americans, should be able to achieve. And he's like, I just want to the people who lead us. Which makes it even weirder to me that this somehow crossed over into the political mainstream. What. What happened?

[Ava Kaufman]

Yarvin has this blog. What he also has is a startup, and he starts to commercialize it around 2012, 2013. And at that time, he, you know, is pitching and meeting with, you know, some of the most powerful investors in Silicon Valley, some of whom have been reading his blog, like Peter Thiel, who first reads it seems like around 2008, maybe earlier, and they meet up around 2009. Another fan and early reader is Balaji Srinivasan, who goes on to become a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz. There's J.D. vance, who, according to one source, was reading Yarvin's blog when he was kind of swimming in the very online soup as an undergraduate.

[Noel King]

President Trump's been in office for six months. He's had time to get done a lot of the things that these young people in his orbit and more influential people like JD Vance want him to get done. So how do you think Curtis Yarvin feels about the way that things are going with the second Trump administration?

[Ava Kaufman]

So Yarvin is. Is very quick to emphasize just kind of how disappointed he actually is with Trump, huh? Yarvin really wants to separate himself from what Doge and the Trump administration are doing, which he sees as kind of incomplete and imperfect because it's nothing like a complete radical full takeover of power. It hasn't gone far enough. I think he'd give the administration a kind of C minus and has said things to the extent of, yes, it's 1% of a revolution, but 1% of a revolution is worse than no revolution at all because you're just going to provoke backlash if you don't go all the way and you're just going to encourage the resistance and you're not going to have quashed the resistance. And so for him, anything less than this kind of full reboot, to use his word is inadequate, is disappointing, is something he even kind of holds in contempt.

[Noel King]

What is the future of this alliance, do you think, if Curtis Yarvin is looking at this and saying, Trump, you haven't gone far enough? Like, do we get J.D. vance in four years going further? I don't know. I'm speculating. You tell me.

[Ava Kaufman]

That's definitely what Curtis hopes for. I mean, in his initial prediction or wish list, he actually wanted Biden to win again so that people could see just how broken the system was. And then for Vance to take power in 2028 and, you know, to kind of rule with his far more with greater finesse, I guess, than Trump might. And that Trump does. I know he's really clear about what he wants and that if anyone else took the time to think about this, if people really said, you know, okay, I've grown up with just assuming democracy is good. It has all these positive connotations in the way it's talked about. You know, what if democracy is actually bad, they would end up on a similar path than he does. I think a lot of people get on board with his ideas because they find diagnosis perhaps to be accurate, if not the prescriptions. You know, it's another question entirely.

[Noel King]

The New Yorker's Ava Kaufman coming up. Are you a little bit sick of all the anti democratic nonsense? What if it's on the wane?

[Zach Beacham]

Foreign.

[Noel King]

Comes from indeed. So you need to hire someone fast, but you're afraid your job listing will get lost in the open seas of the Internet. Indeed says they can help you navigate those choppy waters and lead you to the perfect candidate. Indeed says their Sponsored jobs help you stand out. According to data from Indeed, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than none sponsored jobs plus with Indeed sponsored jobs, I'm told there are no monthly subscriptions, no long term contracts, and you only pay for results you might be wondering how fast Indeed is. Really. Well, according to them, in the minute that I've been Talking to you, 23 hires were made on Indeed Worldwide. There's no need to wait any longer. You can speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your job more visibility@ Indeed.com today explained. You can go to Indeed.com todayexplained right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com todayexplained terms and conditions do apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. Support for today's show comes from Vanta. If your mind can be blown by compliance automation, let Vanta blow your mind, says Vanta. Vanta is a trust management platform that says they help businesses automate security and compliance. Demonstrating trust to customers and prospects is critical to closing deals. I wouldn't know that's according to Vanta, but it can also be costly and complicated. Vanta says they help companies of all sizes, large, small, medium get compliant fast and stay that way with industry leading AI automation and that continuous monitoring you do know so well. So whether you're a startup tackling your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta says their trust management platform makes it quicker, easier and more scalable. Vanta also says they help you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, which could help you win those bigger deals sooner. You can visit vanta.com explain to sign up for a free demo today. That's V A N T a dot com Explain Support for TODAY Explained comes from upwork. Upwork believes that building a business comes with a lot of roadblocks, both financial and logistical. I would not know. I've not built a business. But Upwork wants to help you make things easier. Upwork says it is a hiring platform designed for the modern playbook you can find. You can hire, you can pay expert freelancers on upwork, and they say they deliver results from day one. It's built for businesses that are on tight budgets and fast timelines. There are no subscriptions, they say, or upfront fees and you only pay when you hire. If you've never tried, Upwork says upwork now might be the perfect time because they're giving our listeners a 200 credit. After spending $1,000 in the first 30 days, $200 you can put toward hiring and paying your next freelancer. Perhaps you need design help, AI automation, admin support, marketing, whatever. So much More you can go to upwork.comsave right now. That's upwork.comsave to get a 200 doll credit towards hiring and paying your next freelancer to help grow your business. That's up W-O-R k.com s a v e upwork.com Save this offer is only valid June 24th through August 5th, 2025.

[Zach Beacham]

This is Today explained.

[Noel King]

I'm Noel King with Vox's Zach Beacham. Zach has been concerned about anti liberalism for years. And we're not talking about liberalism like left wing politics. We're talking about liberalism, the political philosophy that centers individual rights and freedoms.

[Zach Beacham]

That's right, yeah. In 2019, I wrote an article called the Anti Liberal Moment. And the argument here is not that liberalism was in trouble politically. I think that's something that's obvious and doesn't require, you know, an extensive discourse to point out. It's that liberalism was also in trouble intellectually is that in an area where it had long been dominant. Right. There had been a high profile spate of anti liberal arguments, arguments against, you know, liberalism's basic package of rights and freedoms and even democracy that had become increasingly prominent. And the liberals seemed kind of like they were on the back foot trying to rebut. And so I was worrying in 2019 that some of these ideas were going to end up that were anti liberal, were going to end up profoundly shaping our politics and even more so in an illiberal direction. And I think to a degree that's been borne out. But, and here's the twist. The landscape in the intellectual realm is shifting. And that's strikingly good news in that these people who seemed like they were setting the terms of the conversation in the world of ideas. Right. Specifically here I'm talking about substacks, podcasts, magazines, the stuff of American public intellectual life, not necessarily the academy, which is its own thing. They're losing the prominence that they once had. And it's not that people don't know who they are, they do, and they take their ideas seriously. It's just that they're coming up with fewer new ones. They're getting less engagement. People are quitting their camps and declaring sort of that they're rediscovering the virtues of liberal democracy. It's this very subtle trend. But once I cottoned onto it in my reporting, it became unmistakable. Now let me give you an example of what this means. It may sound trivial, but it's interesting is that David Brooks, who is, I think, a sort of a bellwether for center right opinion in the United States had previously been really interested in the ideas of people like Vance. And Patrick Deneen, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, and author of the hugely influential book why Liberalism Failed. As the young people like to say, it's time to take the red pill. We must see this jointly created invented tradition of America as a fundamentally or solely liberal nation as a recent innovation that is in fact a departure from the actual American tradition. And then this May, he wrote a column about how furious he was at them because their ideas had provided the intellectual backbone to the cruelty of the Trump administration. Trump and Vance aren't just promoting policies. They're trying to degrade America's moral character to a level more closely resembling their own. And I'm not saying as Brooks goes, so goes the nation. I'm saying that if someone like Brooks is turning away from them, that that's a sign of a broader movement in the ideas world, that ideas that were once sort of like fun to play around with and potentially interesting are starting to feel toxic because the Trump administration is showing what they look like when they're actually implemented. They look like building horrific prisons in Florida that are intentionally and openly cruel, or sending people to a Salvadoran concentration camp without any due process.

[Ava Kaufman]

Video taken from inside the facility often shows prisoners tightly packed together with their.

[Noel King]

Head shaved, reports of mosquitoes the size of elephants, no water to clean yourself.

[Zach Beacham]

And food that has worms in it.

[Ava Kaufman]

Those stomach churning details come from an inmate inside the new Florida immigration detention.

[Noel King]

Center known as as Alligator Alcatraz.

[Zach Beacham]

And these basic violations of core liberal premises are turning mainstream opinion, mainstream intellectual opinion away from taking these post liberal ideas as sort of like a fun thing to engage with and more, seeing them as kind of harbingers or handmaidens of evil. And even inside the post liberal movement, you're seeing a crackup of some of the people inside it. One really striking thing in my reporting was that Sohrab Omari, who is the sort of journalistic face of this movement, has abandoned some of its core premises. He wrote an essay last year about how he had decided that American democracy was actually worth fighting for and excoriated Catholics like him, the post liberal movement's heavily Catholic, who had rejected American democracy's core premises. And when I spoke to him, he told me that he now believed that the current system that we have is the best that's achievable in his lifetime. And for someone who once wanted to damn the liberal order to hell, his words paraphrased because he was so upset about the prospect of a drag queen story hour in Sacramento. That's, I mean, that's a massive turnaround and a sign that something is happening.

[Noel King]

And when you asked him why, why the turnaround? Did he say because Alligator Alcatraz, like, what is he upset about?

[Zach Beacham]

Saurabh's story was a little bit different than Brooks is. Right. It's not that he's abandoned social conservatism, but he also was somebody who had come to believe, as many post liberals do, in fact, it's core part of the movement, that the government also needed to be more interventionist than the economy. Redistributing resources away from the wealthy towards the needy. As Catholic social doctrine says, you need to. Well, I mean, look at what the Trump administration has done in that area, right? Look at their big legislative accomplishment, which is like a giant upward redistribution of wealth. Another thing that is really important for him is that you have what he terms the barbarian right, which I believe would include Yarvin and also other people who had said explicitly racist things, you know, people who are obsessed with race and iq, that kind of thing. And those people are out competing the post liberal right, for the sort of soul of young people now in the, in the sort of right wing MAGA movement. Now that is, in some ways that's bad, right? Like these are really, really horrible ideas and it's bad that they're gaining influence, but they're also ideas that are intellectually uncompelling to really smart people.

[Noel King]

Say more. Say more.

[Zach Beacham]

I mean, I don't know. You just did a lengthy segment on Yarvin with a reporter who had done an extraordinary job exposing how shallow his ideas were, how glib and poorly thought out they were. Right? And that's to say nothing of the sort of obvious cartoonish racism of some of these Internet right wingers or someone like Nick Fuentes.

[Noel King]

When I went to Charlottesville and we.

[Zach Beacham]

Said Jews will not replace us, it.

[Noel King]

Seems like the message is finally getting out there. So I don't want touch, I don't want a relationship.

[Zach Beacham]

You know what I want? Total Aryan victory, right? Who's not an intellectual, right? That's to dignify you. He's just a gutter anti Semite, a neo Nazi. Nobody like David Brooks is gonna be taking Nick Fuentes seriously. Nobody at universities is going to be writing a consideration of Nick Fuentes ideas or debating him the way that even Yarvin got a respectful hearing with Daniel Allen. Right? And I think even that was too generous. But these are not ide that are gonna win the future of the American intellectual scene. And so that doesn't mean that, like, American politics is out of the woods, but it means the American intellectual landscape is looking different. That is to say, the most compelling right wing set of ideas challenging liberalism. Post liberalism is on the decline, and the things that are replacing it are not intellectually respectable.

[Noel King]

Is it really on the decline because J.D. vance is the vice president? David Brooks may be like, I'm no longer into it in the New York Times, J.D. vance is the vice president. Zach. Like, is that decline?

[Zach Beacham]

So this is why I want to draw a sharp distinction. I've tried to, in this conversation between politics and intellectual life. Right? So I'm talking about a decline in the intellectual realm, not in the political realm. When something's dominant politically, that doesn't mean it's dominant intellectually. Right. And I even hesitate to say that the post liberal movement is dominant politically. Like, they have people in positions of power, like fans. What are they accomplishing? Right. They're not getting their economic doctrine. It's not clear how much they're winning over people's hearts and minds. They have a degree of power and influence at the Trump administration, which is shaping policy in the directions that other forces in the Trump administration also wanted to go for the most part. But having access to power temporarily does not mean winning a durable stranglehold on the Republican Party, let alone the heart of the United States. And to really get what they want, a wholesale transformation of the political system, you either need to wield so much power in the short run that you can lock in basically an authoritarian transformation of the US State, or you persuade people in the long run. And, you know, I don't see it. In fact, I see that path increasingly being denied to them through their own actions, in fact, ironically, due to their short term proximity to power, in large part. Because if the Trump administration is as toxically unpopular as its poll numbers look, and they're looking worse and worse every second I look into it, there's a real chance that this administration ends up discrediting post liberalism in the way that the second Bush administration discredited neoconservatism. Right. And so while that doesn't mean hawkishness is dead. Right. Trump just bombed Iran. Nobody wants to be called a neocon anymore. It's a slur. Right? It's something that is seen as synonymous with the disastrous war in Iraq. And if the Trump administration ends in disaster or even just severe unpopularity, you could easily see the same thing happening with Post Liberalism.

[Noel King]

Vox's Zack Beacham. You can find his work at vox.com Miles Bryan produced today's show and Jolie Myers edited. Patrick Boyd and David Tadashore are our engineers. Senior researcher Laura Bullard played the role of listener and check the facts. I'm Noel King. It's today, explained.

[Zach Beacham]

Sam.