A Return to Smoke-Filled Cars

Another weekend, another Ruminant – this time with Jonah talking about the intellectual backdrop of ...

By

Another weekend, another Ruminant – this time with Jonah talking about the intellectual backdrop of conservatism, and what early conservative (and progressive) ideologies might have to say about today’s coronavirus response. Join Jonah in a cloud of cigar smoke inside his own car to talk about the New Deal, Trump’s call to LIBERATE [INSERT STATE HERE], and more.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (27)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    BrandonAlleman

    Transcripts for podcasts? I can hook you up with a stenographer who works remotely doing mostly live closed captioning.

    Collapse
  2. Fudrock

    My thanks to JG for another great podcast, and to the whole team at The Dispatch, frankly for so much fantastic content. As someone who considers himself a centrist (though admittedly, I've found myself on a leftward tack in recent years, based primarily on some key issues, but the elevation and enabling of Trump, who I view as uniquely unfit for the office, has made this a semi-permanent perch, but I am not ready to join a socialist utopia), it so refreshing to hear cleanly-distilled conservative perspectives that are intellectually honest, fair-minded when addressing your ideological opposition, and beholden to facts. I don't always agree, of course, but I imagine much of that comes from the distinctions between a person that has deep and formative associations with the idea set of AEI/The Chicago School and a person that doesn't. I'm also not a member of the commentariat, so I am not subject to the same pressures as you.

    Oddly, enough, if this episode convinced me of anything, it's that I lack a clearly-defined ideological center or purpose, and that I prefer it that way. Conveniently, the only thing that would adhere to is a deep skepticism of Grand Narratives of all stripes, which I think for all of their clarity of purpose, are better judged for what they leave out, or who they leave behind (I lump the Chicago School in here). I'm content in understanding that no one has a monopoly on good ideas, and that no side is stricken of them either, and that the "truth," whether as a policy prescription or an idea, is a nebulous blob floating somewhere in the middle that must be synthesized from that which surrounds it (does that make me a technocrat?). I do have a general sense that on the right there's a tendency to infer that a person's station is life is always their own fault, and on the left, a person's station is never their own fault, both absurd on their face.

    I can't sound off with the confidence of JG and the rest of the team, for the certitude of another commenter, Jordan Henderson, who deftly quoted John Adams, about the intentions of the founders. What I can say with confidence is that our system of government as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights was the fruit of months of deliberate debate and compromise by wise men of solemn purpose, and they created a remarkably durable system that is structured to secure compromise from disparate factions (hence incrementalism), but it only as good as the people that inhabit it. Sadly, we fail it as much as it fails us, and it exists in a horrible feedback loop; Trump's ascendance strikes me as a symptom of this. The apathy and ignorance of large swaths of the electorate kneecaps our democracy in very pernicious ways, and a broad spectrum of the media, the economic landscape of which has been indelibly altered by the cratering of print by the internet and the always-on but rarely interesting content of cable news, exploit ignorance (and engender apathy), both for ideological and economic reasons, and political actors and pundits further exploit the media, and by proxy, the electorate, and on and on. Not new, frankly, but the prescription of the founders remains the same, and we must rise to it. I wish more outlets on both sides of the spectrum had your courage and conviction, and your dedication to fact-based journalism. If more outlets operated like the Dispatch, our democracy would be in much better shape. Thank you for your contribution to the discourse; I will continue to listen and read avidly.

    P.S. I'll go ahead and realize your MAGA critics' worst assertions, as an ostensible liberal on this forum: Go ahead and dunk on Trump as much as you want. He's grossly incompetent and an affront to the office. In my daily quest for balance, I find the arguments and equivocations that I see in the the mainstream media of the right for Trump's behavior and that of his administration make me feel like I am taking crazy pills. You are probably choir preaching as much as the rest of us, but yours is a unique position to speak truth to institutional idiocy, as respected members of the institution. Criticisms from the media on left are rote and predictable, and thus toothless, and they choose there battles with no strategic sensibility. So keep it up. I'll return the favor when there's a Democrat in the White House. Until then, I'll be joining the Any Functioning Adult 2020 campaign.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    C C Writer

    Viscount pron. VYE-count (the s is silent)

    "The fourth rank in the peerage, the viscount is ranked below duke, marquess and earl, but above baron.

    "This title had its origin in the office of the deputy or the lieutenant (vice-comes) of a count, a rank that had become hereditary in the Holy Roman Empire by the beginning of the 10th century. It was also used for the sheriff of a county." (Debretts.com)

    By the way, the earl was the king's representative to a county or shire. An earl in Britain is the same rank as a count, the title used in continental Europe. The wife of an earl is a countess--"earless" wouldn't work.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    BWG

    Appreciate the "post credits" - like stolen apples, something for nothing, a certain je ne sais quo. Oh and the rest of it was pretty good too.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Good stuff, Jonah. Your comfort in moving from current events to the history of conservatism and civilization and on to nerdy pop culture is just a delight. Your product isn’t QUITE a box of chocolates, but I smile in surprise as often as not. The rest of the time I smile in “damn straight” mode. God speed.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Collin

    I like The Ruminant, and I was not bothered by the background noise. The podcast’s discussion of the variations of Conservatism particularly drew my interested. My attention was lured by a phenomenon I’ve noticed for several years: certain conservatives define conservatism differently from writers such as Jonah. Thinkers define the ideology by its views on government, people, society as whole, etc. However, a specific set of conservatives define the dogma by how much it resembles what they see on cable news, hear on talk radio, or read in certain publications. Admittedly, a system of thought based on such similarities is a mix of tribal-gang-signaling, attitudinal predispositions, and, possibly, an actual way of thinking. However, such a method is clearly different from the way a person such as Jonah describes conservatism. Even the manner in which this group talks about the subject is different from how Jonah discusses it. When members of this group are pressed about why a person is an “establishment conservative,” a RHINO, or whatever else, these tribesman respond that way that the person in question talks or argues does not match the way talk radio, cable news, or some publication talks or argues about something. The problem is never over the substance of what is said or argued. This cohort’s only real core is, as best I can tell, a professed, deep love of the Constitution. When I ask a member of this tribe about Constitution specifically, the response I get isn’t interpretations of specific amendments but a description of what the constitution means to that person. Such an individual’s view of conservatism is not always compatible with Jonah’s, a situation that seems to be a factor in many of the tensions in the conservative movement today.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Anne W (Raw5254)

    I listening to you, I'm nodding my head because you make things so clear and easy for me to understand. So, why can't I remember all this stuff when I get in a conversation with someone else?! Thank goodness my husband bought your book.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kit Webster

    I submit that the "slippery slope" is a critical component of the usual change process in human culture, including progress and is perhaps better described as "incrementalism." I have taught a university course on corporate change. At a high level, one of the principles of change is that, in the absence of an emergency or crisis, humans resist dramatic change. As an example, you don't get women's swimwear from head-to-toe to thongs overnight. Similarly from swing or from folk music to rap. Or fiscal responsibility to unthinkable debt. One way to conceptualize culture (and politics) is to look at slippery slopes in multiple dimensions (which feed back into each other - it took the interaction of many slippery slopes to result in thongs). There are other forces at work, opposing the various slippery slopes, particularly at extremes, so that many end or morph in purpose or direction, but that is a complicated discussion for another day.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Jeff Walden

    You mentioned this dude Woodrow Wilson several times. Now, I know a Woodrow Wilson who was a US president and (at minimum) one of the greatest villains ever to occupy the office. But every time you've mentioned him in the past, the Uruk-Hai theme plays -- and it didn't play here.

    So who is Woodrow Wilson?

    Collapse
  10. Pudge

    I rarely post. I just posted. I looked at the other posts. I now feel inadequate. Can I blame the liquor?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Anne W (Raw5254)

      I know the feeling. I felt so inspired after listening, and wanted to come here to say so, but after reading a number of the comments, I'm just clicking on the hearts!

      Collapse
Load More