Blue Pill or Red Pill

Today, we bring you Will Saletan of Slate – after having struggled mightily against the ...

By
39

Today, we bring you Will Saletan of Slate – after having struggled mightily against the malevolent whims of technology in order to get it ready. Not since Episode 11 has an installment of The Remnant so risked the sanity – nay, the very essence – of all participants involved. Luckily, the conversation more than makes up for these struggles. Jonah asks Will what it’s like to be a genuinely liberal guy in an industry space that has moved largely past actual liberalism, and then Will turns the tables on Jonah and asks him what it’s like to be genuinely conservative in an era of dwindling conservatism. Afterwards, stick around for SCOTUS punditry and what could be described as a worrying amount of Hegel-talk (for awareness: a worrying amount of Hegel-talk is any Hegel-talk).

Show Notes:

–SlateWill’s page at

–New River Media

–Dallas retcons itself

–Candidate Trump reacts to the crowd while announcing travel ban

–“The 5-5-5 Plan”

–“What I Learned From Amy Coney Barrett,” by Laura Wolk

–Fukuyama’s piece on social capital

–LiquidIV.com, use promo code DINGO at checkout for 25% off anything you order

–Keeps.com/Dingo to receive your first month of treatment for free

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

By
Comments (39)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Dan

    Just paused in the middle of this discussion (which is wonderful) to say (as a Liberal): I very much miss the respectable Reagan/Bush I/Bush II Burkean conservatives, and if Biden wins, I devoutly hope they'll be able to emerge from their bunkers and take back the GOP from the Qanon crowd and the Trump wagon people. I miss conversations like this.

    Collapse
  2. Jay Webber

    I just wanted to say that this was the most enjoyable podcast I have heard in ages. Mutual respect for someone with different opinions and an openness to hearing those opinions is the only way we can move forward as a country.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Jonah, that was fabulous. I found some of Will’s points absurd to the point of funny (for example on comparing filling vacant court seats to packing and the right’s alleged need for “more Catholics”) but it was enlightening over all. I was glad to be reminded how sincere and smart people, such as Will, can square a broadly rational and reasonable world view with positions such as the above which I find batty. Of course, people of good will on the other side of issues gain from similar reminders about conservatives. It is vital for both the left and right to keep seeing the wisdom and goodness of folks we disagree with...without having to give up principles we think the country needs. I was glad to see you politely push back, allowing Will to also do so. I am glad Will is optimistic about pushback restraining the wildest aspects of wokeness over time. I am less optimistic, but think calling such things out is the best hope. Thanks for a great conversation.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Trela

    Thank you for enduring the technical difficulties and making this conversation happen. It is this kind of dialogue between intelligent people who disagree that gives me hope for this country. This is why I subscribe to The Dispatch.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rev Snow

    In several Remnant episodes now, Jonah has recounted what GOP office holders confide to him in private, and how it shapes his analysis and expectations. He reports they have private views (in greater agreement with Jonah) that are different from their public views (which are more supportive of President Trump).

    While we can conclude these politicians are less than fully sincere, I don't know why we should assume they are speaking the truth in private while posturing insincerely in public. Wouldn't any politician in private audience with someone bend their expressions in ways agreeable to them? How can we know they aren't just pandering to Jonah when he comes to see them?

    Collapse
  6. Tedsisson

    Excellent episode with a great guest. Loved listening to intelligent disagreement.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    All the descriptions of Trump I just heard are relevant. In 2016, as today, the choice was terrible. My conclusion in 2016: Hillary was component in that she knew what she was doing. So, she would have proposed policies or accepted policies her party proposed that would be anathema to me. Trump is obviously incompetent, but his (adopted?) party, for the most part, is not, so their policies would be acceptable to me. Do you really think Trump wanted to confront China? Get out of the Iran deal? Move the embassy to Jerusalem? Lower taxes? Chose those Judges/Justices? I think none of these policies (and more) came from Trump. Had Trump learned to temper his comportment (an impossibility?), the potential landslide would be 180 degrees different!

    That the Republican base will continue to be ‘Trump-like’ is frightening. How Republicans can return to normal is a paramount issue. What was not mentioned is the Democratic Base. They have not been normal for some time. Wouldn’t we be better off if both parties could move toward the center?

    I listened to last week’s Trey Gowdy podcast with guest, Ben Sasse. The Senator opined our current political morass began in the 1960’s when civics was omitted from many curricula. That makes sense to me, but there is no doubt allowing voters to nominate party candidates avoids in depth vetting. Hence, we get the candidates we’ve gotten.

    About the Garland bruhaha: Assuming they were correct, I learned yesterday watching the Barrett hearing, that in the final year of an Administration about 10% of SC nominees were approved when the parties of the Senate and President where not the same. In 2016 President Obama, as was his Constitutional right, nominated Merrick Garland for the SC. The Republican Senate, as was their Constitutional right, did not assent. That there was no hearing (circus?), or floor vote is not material.

    Excellent discussion. More, please.

    Collapse
  8. Matthew McIntyre

    That was incredibly annoying to listen to. I generally like when Jonah brings on smart people that are left of center, but Saletan was mostly interested in making partisan hits and not being very intellectually honest about democratic hypocrisy and the responsibility The left shares for our political dysfunction.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CJ Jenkins

      Oh, hi, Matt.

      I just pulled this up to go after Will for his ridiculous comments on the court.

      The job of the court is not to be restrained. It is to uphold the law. The notion of having a "balanced" or "restrained" court is asinine. It's a complete acceptance of the idea of the court as a superlegislature.

      The only standard that should factor into judicial nominees is whether they'll do their damn job. Perhaps Garland was a political moderate; *that doesn't matter.* He would have been, at best, a moderate legislator from the bench. He would not have done his job, just like Breyer and Sotomayor explicitly refuse to do their job as a matter of principle.

      This is the one area of politics in which the entire debate is stupid because one side's entire argument is simply that the court should be another arena for them to exercise power.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Cornelius O’Brien

        The job of the executive is to "uphold the law", i.e., to faithfully execute the laws. The job of the judiciary is to apply the law and, in the US Supreme Court, it is generally to declare what the law is. Judicial restraint is a solid conservative concept that applies in several ways. For instance, where an appeal exposes problems in statutory law that must be fixed by the legislature speaking more precisely, the court should not try to fix it for them by guessing what they meant to say. Or, with respect to decisions to grant or deny certiorari, judicial restraint might counsel declining to hear an appeal until the same question is answered by other circuit courts in a manner that may serve to define the issue and facilitate more deliberate consideration when the issue becomes ripe for the Court to review.

        Collapse
      2. Joe1776

        CJ
        You mention a bit of the nuance I thought he lacks.

        I think if the court does its job and read the constitution they will by and large be more restrained on many issues.

        But you are right that just asking for "restraint" is not the goal. If congress passes a law abridging free speech restraint is not how the courts should do their job. I think Will would agree there.

        But I think Will should not be called "ridiculous" for the views he expressed in the podcast. I think what he said was a fruitful ground to tease out what we both want.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          CJ Jenkins

          With the current state of our laws, a court that does its job with the constitution will not be restrained even a little bit, unless by "restrained" you mean "stays within the confines of the law."

          Hell, there's a strong case that most of our current federal bureaucracy is unconstitutional by the non-delegation doctrine.

          Collapse
          1. Joe1776

            Good point that I agree with.

            I think if the court followed the constitution it would be much more restrained as to intervening in state laws and affairs.

            But you are right it might have to be more active in dealing with federal over-reach. On the whole would it be more restrained or less? Maybe you are right it would be less I am not sure how to quantify it.

            I just think Will gave us conservatives something substantial to work with rather than just dismiss as "ridiculous." This could easily lead into a logical discussion of the separation of powers and how federalism could be helpful for everyone.

            I think Jonah did fine by shifting to questions of "equality." This is something that we really need to sort out a bit.

            I think there are really 3 different views of equality that I got from someone commenting here at the dispatch.

            1) equality under law
            2) equality of opportunity
            3) equality of outcome

            I think 2 is a better goal than 3. But I think 1 is the most important. And if you try to achieve 2 or 3 then you will often have to sacrifice 1.

            But even if you can do 2 or 3 without violating 1 I would also say that a government that tries to fully achieve either will have other problems.

            I think 1 is essential 2 is a worthy goal but we should understand that trying to achieve it in full will excessively violate principles of individual freedom and autonomy. And IMO 3 shouldn't be a goal at all. Our goal should be the best outcomes for everyone.


            https://bigthink.com/big-think-books/steven-pinker-enlightenment-now-inequality-happiness

            Collapse
    2. Joe1776

      It can be annoying to listen to the other side. But I found the conversation refreshing. I was glad he seemed to be on board with judges that do not try to expand their power. I think his understanding lacks some nuance but it is a start of a conversation that I think can be fruitful.

      I also wonder if it wouldn't be worth trying a publication that enforced diversity of view point. Start out with even numbers of contributors that will vote for each president. And if the numbers switch to one president then you must only hire people who are voting for the other until it is even again.

      I am just tired of people saying they are republican (or "nonpartisan") when I know they will vote for Biden. Yes we all think we can overcome our biases even though we know everyone around us can't. Just get an even line up.

      And yes Trump is not perfect republican and Biden is not a perfect democrat. But Biden is much more democrat than Trump, and Trump is much more republican than Biden.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Adicesa14

      An honest conversation about political hypocrisy would be non-partisan!

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Rick Harlan

    Jonah: "some people have drunk the Kool-Aid ... " (etc.)
    Me: say Matt Gaetz, SAY MATT GAETZ!!
    Jonah: "... Matt Gaetz comes to mind"

    But I may eat these words. I'm in a battleground state, and with three more weeks of Trump spreading, um, his message, we could all be wearing gas masks unironically.

    Collapse
  10. ROBERT

    Wow! That was a fantastic discussion- educational and enlightening. It felt like a real debate of legitimate points of view instead of the standard shouting past each other. Please have Mr Saletan back soon.
    In fact I propose a Dispatch Live debate between you two. But if you do that, then I also propose a crowdfunding initiative to purchase Mr Saletan an entire case of Liquid IV ahead of time! In all fairness he should come in well hydrated so that he does not become delusional during the event. The Liquid IV ad is your best and most entertaining so far. What an excellent segue!!

    Collapse
    1. Joe1776

      I liked the podcast too but I am glad it was more of a discussion than some sort of debate. I think in discussions people can be more real about what they want from government rather than trying to win a single point.

      Collapse
      1. ROBERT

        Now that you say that, I agree. I do prefer more of what we had on the podcast.

        Collapse
Load More