Ghastly Groupishness

Yascha Mounk makes his second appearance on The Remnant, this time to discuss his new ...

By

Yascha Mounk makes his second appearance on The Remnant, this time to discuss his new book, The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure. In a conversation tailor-made for holders of the Remnant bingo card, Yascha and Jonah discuss the dangers of tribalism and populism, America’s crisis of community, and what patriotism should look like. They also examine America’s shifting demographics and take a deep dive into the nuances of liberal philosophy.

Show Notes:

– Yascha’s web page

– The Great Experiment

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (56)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    Mr. Mounk says that because America's racial history is so deeply embedded "we can't just stop talking about this." That seems like what Mr. Goldberg tends to call a "stolen base". 𝘞𝘩𝘺 can't we? It seems obvious that he means we 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 stop talking about it, but that begs the question, as Mr. Goldberg had suggested that we could be better off if we 𝘥𝘪𝘥 stop talking about it -- at least at our current length and volume.

    Collapse
  2. Dylan Paul

    I'm thinking the pet idea about society resting on our personal investment in communities/institutions have outgrown their usefulness at this surface level of diagnosis, being monotonously repeated as monocausal explanation(!). Delving deeper might involve reflecting deeper? Jonah always jokes about his own introversion, "the great indoors," being a secular Jew with only some vaguely hinted at theism. Yascha and fellow champions of this diagnosis like Charles Murray seem similarly "individualistic." But it's no alienation - you all find sufficient community and responsibility in the small-scale networks of family, neighbors, friends, and the workplace. At-least enough to find no need for those formal communities you all champion in the realm of theory. I can relate well enough, being an unchurched Christian having no emotional or theological draw to any established order which deifies itself. Why should the rest of the world be any different from us?

    Collapse
  3. Richard Kennedy

    Up with Yascha. Can you work out a trade for a player to be named later (Saletan) for Saletan? Otherwise, I want to thank you for being Heritage Foundation light. Definitely keep that going.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    That was a really interesting discussion. It took a little while to get used to Mr. Mounk's accent, but it was worth it.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Christopher Hall

    I found this conversation to be very useful. I also listened to an interesting conversation between Ezra Klein and Patrick Deneen. I would be very interested to hear how Jonah’s approach to Deneen would differ.

    Collapse
  6. There Is No Ben, Only Zuul

    This was a great discussion, but I have one issue to raise. You finally have a German-speaker on the podcast and do not have a lightening round for whether there are German words for the all of the things you've brought up in other Remnants. Yauscha would know!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Balducci

      Major oversight. You also could have run through the correct pronunciation of all the German names you cite regularly.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Interesting interview! This is a good follow up to Yuval, including when Yascha offers a pushback to Yuval’s communitarianism.

    I’ll note that when Jonah said “and vice versa” to Yuval’s comment about one side of the hot dog debate discriminating against the other, we learned some important information about where the two of them come down on opposite sides of that debate…

    For the record, I like the fact that you have a lot of AEI guests, including some of the lesser-known ones.

    Collapse
  8. Kmsinatra

    I like the AEI guests! I was actually hoping to suggest another one....Zack Cooper (https://www.aei.org/profile/zack-cooper/). I listen to him on the Net Assessment Podcast and I think he is really good

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      What is Zack’s focus?

      Collapse
      1. Kmsinatra

        US defense policy and China/Asia. Every week on the podcast one of them picks a recent article and talk about it. It is part of War on the Rocks

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          Thanks. Sounds interesting. I’ll add it to my podcast list.

          Collapse
          1. Kmsinatra

            Let me know if you like/dislike

            Collapse
  9. Michael.Terrien

    There's been lot of imprecise talk about the "great replacement" theory since the Buffalo murders and I'm struggling to figure out exactly what people object to about it. As I hear the theory being described, I find myself thinking, "yea, it's true, but so what?" not "what a batsh*t crazy theory." Here are some things I think I think that are consistent with how I understand the theory.

    1) The United States has in fact become substantially less "white" over my lifetime. See e.g., https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-census-data-shows-the-nation-is-diversifying-even-faster-than-predicted/

    I understand that there are all sorts of complications in how we define "white" especially where latinos/hispanics are concerned, but I could list references all day for what seems to be the consensus that we're getting less "white," however that's precisely defined. Am I wrong in believing this?

    2) I'm prepared to believe that, under the influence of ideas like the "emerging democratic majority" - which I've heard a lot about from my lefty friends in the last 15 years - Democrats have become a lot more committed to less restrictive immigration policies, at least in part because they've convinced themselves that they'll be importing Democrats. Am I wrong in believing this?

    As I heard Mounk describe it, these two elements are all there is to the "great replacement" theory. Yet he describes it as a conspiracy theory, even though its elements seem to me to be true.

    I understand the instinct to run away from the label, when it's being put to use by an evil guy to murder a bunch of innocent people. I certainly don't subscribe to the Buffalo shooter's conclusion that the theory justifies killing non-white people. I don't even subscribe to his view that the changing demographic realities are baleful. I believe immigrants, as a class, come to this country more committed to our institutions than many native born Americans. But it seems to me the shooter's problem was that he drew the wrong conclusions by applying a warped set of values to a set of facts, not that he got the facts wrong. Am I wrong?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Seth B

      Your first point is certainly correct. I question your second point - at least with regards to the *motives* of Democratic politicians' attitudes towards immigration. That sounds far-fetched to my ears.
      But at any rate, those two points do not exhaust "the great replacement theory".
      To begin with, consider the expression itself. Anyone using the term "replacement" in this context is nuts. To "replace" A with B implies not just adding B, but also subtracting A. That obviously isn't happening.
      Equally nuts - and equally central to the "great replacement theory" - is the idea is that American demographic shifts are being orchestrated by the Democrats (or, of course, the evil Jews!) as part of an implausible century-long plot to undermine the power of white Republicans. Democratic politicians appear unable to plan two months into the future, but we're supposed to believe that these same people are, at the same time, cunningly pursuing a century-long plot to "replace" people in the larger American population - despite the fact that such a strategy doesn't even make sense. After all, why exactly should Democrats expect immigrants and their descendants to vote - not just today, but forever more - for Democrats? And why should Republicans, for their part, believe themselves incapable of appealing to immigrants and their descendants?
      Finally, for most people, the first overtone of "replacement theory" is a memory of those goons chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville... which itself has further anti-Semitic overtones from European history in which Jews were viewed as "parasites" on their "host nations", which they sought to bring down from within.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        It’s not nefarious to suggest *some* democrats may have multiple motives when it comes to immigration. At least, it doesn’t HAVE to be. It can be. Depends who’s making the argument and how they’re making it. If I said I was motivated to work out both to get healthy and to look good, it doesn’t necessarily make me a paragon of vanity.

        You do a good job of articulating what I tried to in my first response to Michael. There is a lot more to GRT than Michael’s points 1 and 2. A whole racist conspiracy.

        What Michael was asking and I was complaining about was the blurring of lines between someone making points 1 and 2 and racists making great replacement theory. And the fact that some people don’t articulate well the distinction between observations 1 and 2 and the actual conspiracy.

        Collapse
      2. Michael.Terrien

        I gotta admit, I was not really that familiar with this theory until everybody started talking about it after Buffalo. It struck (still strikes) me as a wierd fringe obsession. So I haven't paid much attention and don't know what all it involves in different people's minds. I was sort of going off the definition that Mounk used, which was sort of bare bones. I don't doubt that a lot of adherents add a lot of that other nasty stuff you described though.

        I do think you underestimate the power of the "emerging democratic majority" thesis. For a long time I've been listening to people on the left - from lefty friends all the way up to #44 - talking about how our changing demographics were going to put the democrats in the ascendency for the foreseeable future. I agree with you that that's a misjudgement on their part, but I think a lot of THEM believed it. And in our hyper-partisan times, I don't find it implausible that many adjusted their policy views to try to take advantage of what they considered an opportunity.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          I don’t think it’s a bad thing to say, “hey if we welcome immigrants they might vote for us.” That’s in essence what many democrats are doing. But observing that fact doesn’t mean signing on with all the rest of that replacement nonsense. There’s a vast difference between saying that Democrats hope a majority minority nation will benefit them and alleging there’s a vast conspiracy against white people.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      I think you hit on something real with your comment. I’ve been a little frustrated with the blurred lines too. After the shooting, suddenly it was as if everyone who said anything about cultural dilution and immigration was endorsing the “Great Replacement theory.” You’re correct in 1 and 2. There’s a conspiratorial version of GRT (I’m going with that acronym for now) that elites are secretly orchestrating mass migration of nonwhites across the border or something like that. There’s a nonconspiratorial version that doesn’t believe there’s any mass orchestrating but still believes the cultural dilution is a bad thing. And then there’s the position that I think most people hold that: changing demographics are simply a fact and it’s commonly believed that democrats benefit from that and republicans don’t. That position is not a conspiracy theory and it doesn’t make you or me or anyone a great replacement theorist.

      Actually, I think Jonah and Yascha did a good job addressing this question at the end. Yascha has been unfairly tarnished in my view by those who read Great Replacement into his work (on either side).

      “I believe immigrants, as a class, come to this country more committed to our institutions than many native born Americans. But it seems to me the shooter's problem was that he drew the wrong conclusions by applying a warped set of values to a set of facts, not that he got the facts wrong. Am I wrong?”

      I think you’re correct. In both statements - I like immigrants and note that many immigrants are more committed to the principles of the American founding than people born here. The shooter isn’t wrong that we’re moving towards a majority minority society and that things will be different then. I think he’s wrong in believing that that’s a bad thing (and obviously he’s egregiously wrong in thinking white people are better than nonwhites and in thinking he was justified in murdering black people).

      Collapse
      1. Michael.Terrien

        Honestly I think if there's any hope of saving our institutions it will be because of immigrants who don't take them for granted because they've experienced something worse. It seems like all the energy among the native born - whether right or left - comes from people who feel entitled to the freedom and prosperity they have and have no idea how rare, fragile and precious the institutions that make those things possible are.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          I could not agree more!

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    Jonah, it wasn’t a complaint. It was an observation followed by a question. I further added that I had no issue with the quality of your podcast and your choice of guests. I simply desired a bit more variety if and when possible. (Fwiw, one of my favorite Remnant discussions was between you and Elaine Kamarck of Brookings) (Also, is there a search button I’m overlooking because I had to go to Google to find the episode so I could correctly spell her name)

    Prior to that day I had actually defended your choice to have an AEI heavy guest list as it is your show and therefore your choice. I can find that defense I previously offered if you’d like.

    And just for the record I don’t think my making the request last week for you to have Yascha Mounk on as a guest had any impact on him appearing this week. First, I highly doubt my request influenced your decision one way or another. Second, it is highly improbable that you could have booked him and lined the discussion up so quickly. Lastly, you had already mentioned you might have him on as a guest at some point.

    All that said, great discussion. My only complaint would be that it wasn’t long enough. Please have him on again soon.

    Collapse
Load More