Saving Elephants | Millennials defending & expressing conservative values: Recent Episodes
Josh Lewis
The Saving Elephants Podcast features engaging conversations about conservative values with a mercifully modern twist. Tired of political shock-talk and rank punditry on your radio and TV? Curious about what conservative thinkers of yesteryear had to say but don't have time to read some terribly long, boring book they wrote? Want to learn why conservatism still holds value for Millennials today? Join us as we re-ignite conservatism for Millennials!
Sure, the major news networks had all the "experts", but how many of them opined on what Buckley, Burke, or Kirk would think of the election results? Listen to Saving Elephants' livestream on election night as results come in from another stellar panel of cross-partisan contributors: Josh Lewis, Eric Kohn, Justin Stapley, Calvin Moore, Kent Straith, Mike Taylor, John Giokaris, Elizabeth Doll, and Steve Phelps.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis flies this election day episode solo to offer his thoughts on how your vote is more likely to impact yourself than it is the races, having grace for those who choose to vote differently than we do, and why conservatives should take courage in a profoundly discouraging time.
Special Election Night Livestream
You’re already staying up late to watch the election results. Why not watch them with another august cross-partisan panel brought to you by Saving Elephants? Join us, beginning 9PM CST, as we analyze the results in real time. Sure, the national networks have professional pundits, but how likely are any of them to seriously discuss what Burke, Kirk, or Buckley would think about our political developments?
Here’s the link for YouTube and another for Facebook where we’ll be livestreaming.
The most [assuredly not] important election of our lifetime is a little more than two weeks away. The candidates are in the home stretch as each of them make their final pitch to the dwindling undecided voter. Join another venerable group of panelists as we share our thoughts on the state of the race and our hopes and fears with a coming Harris or another Trump administration.
Panelists include: Brooke Medina, Eric Kohn, Mike Taylor, and Nate Honorè
Saving Elephants meticulously avoids many cringeworthy tropes in today’s “conservative” media and opts instead for deeper conversations on the conservative worldview and what it can offer Millennials. As such, there is much low-hanging-fruit among the fruitier parts of the Left that isn’t as vigorously explored as it is in the aforementioned “conservative” media. But that doesn’t mean these topics are off limits—just that they’re to be approached with conviction and clarity.
Josh Lewis welcomes Kimberly Ross back to the podcast for a wide-ranging discussion on what it means to be a woman, the place of feminism in conservatism, how both the Left and Right get the differences in the sexes wrong, and whether Andrew Tate is the “conservative’s” answer to Che Guevara.
About Kimberly Ross
Kimberly Ross is a freelance conservative writer. Her work regularly appears in The Washington Examiner, both online and the print magazine, and The Mirror magazine, a monthly publication from Aid to the Church in Need. She is a freelance columnist at The Freemen News-Letter and co-host of The Right Thoughts podcast. Her archive of published work can be found at RedState, Arc Digital, The Bulwark, Rare, and USA Today.
As a mother of two and self-described "first wave feminist", she is most passionate about the rights of children, women, and the issue of abortion. She considers herself an independent conservative (not to be confused with conservative independent) and is beholden to no politician.
Kimberly has a B.A. in history with graduate work in political science. You can follow Kimberly on Twitter @SouthernKeeks
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Senator JD Vance square off for the first—and likely only—vice presidential debate that’s sure to leave pundits chattering, social media accounts fighting, and late economists spinning in their graves. The debate begins at 9PM ET. Join us immediately following the debate for another livestream roundtable to restore some inkling of sanity back to this election.
Panelists include Scott Howard, Jeffery Tyler Syck, and John Giokaris.
In a world where both political parties are moving away from free market oriented policy solutions, a robust defense of our international allies, and traditional social norms, where does the conservative go from here?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by special returning guests Cal Davenport, Erik Kohn, and Justin Stapley for a roundtable discussion on what the future holds for the conservative movement.
This episode first dropped as a livestream on the new Saving Elephants YouTube channel., featuring full-length episodes, exclusive shorts, and even live events! Check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/@savingelephants
From Eastern Europe to the Middle East to Southeast Asia to so many other places, the world's on fire. Yet neither presidential candidate is offering us a compelling vision to navigate this brave new world. Join another august assembly of panelists as we discuss what a sensible foreign policy might look like.
You can also watch this episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve3XCgOkHQc&t=3446s
The Declaration of Independence audaciously declares certain “truths” to be “self-evident”. And, in so doing, offered a justification for not only a break with Great Britain and Revolutionary War, but the foundation upon which a new nation could be built. But how uniformly were these “truths” held and understood by the Founding Fathers? Were they disparate views that were ultimately incoherent or inconsistent? Did the divergent cultures of the American North and South have fundamentally different ideas of what they conceived of America to be? Were the Founders simply protecting their material interests and reaching for any argument at hand that seemed useful to that end?
Who was most responsible for the ideas of the American founding? John Locke? Scottish Enlightenment thinkers? Egalitarianism? Modernity? Scientific rationalism? Christian teachings? Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is historian Hans Eicholz who argues it was actually a harmonization of many of these different, but not incompatible, sentiments that lead to the founding of America.
About Hans Eicholz
Hans Eicholz is a historian and Senior Fellow at Liberty Fund. Much of his work has been in the history of economic thought, looking initially at the influence of market ideas in the American founding period, but also extending up through the 19th century.
Hans is the author of Harmonizing Sentiments: The Declaration of Independence and the Jeffersonian Idea of Self-Government (2001; Second Edition, 2024), and a contributor to The Constitutionalism of American States (2008).
The stakes were high in the first debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Did anyone, other than the American people, emerge the loser? Were any pets harmed during the debate? Did some semblance of substance somehow slip through? Saving Elephants presents another livestream cross-partisan panel to debate the debate, featuring:
Elizabeth Doll
Mike Taylor
Cal Davenport
John Giokaris
In this era of polarization and partisan bickering, Americans of all political persuasions are calling for the nation to come together. National unity is certainly in high demand and highly praised. But what is unity? As Yuval Levin argues in his latest book, American Covenant, “unity doesn’t mean agreement…disagreement does not foreclose the possibility of unity. A more unified society would not always disagree less, but it would disagree better—that is, more constructively and with an eye to how different priorities and goals can be accommodated. That we have lost some of our knack for unity in America does not mean that we have forgotten how to agree but that we have forgotten how to disagree…Unity does not mean thinking alike; unity means acting together.”
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is Yuval Levin himself who contends that the American Constitution is ideally designed to address our need for unity. And becoming better acquainted with the intentions and insights of those who put our system of government together could bring us together the durable and cohesive unity we lack today.
About Yuval Levin
Yuval Levin is a political analyst, public intellectual, academic, and journalist. He is the founding editor of National Affairs, director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a contributing editor of National Review, and co-founder and a senior editor of The New Atlantis. He also holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy.
Yuval served as a member of the White House domestic policy staff under President George W. Bush. He was also executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics and a congressional staffer at the member, committee, and leadership levels.
Yuval’s essays and articles have appeared in numerous publications, among them, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary. He is the author of many books which include American Covenant, A Time to Build, and The Great Debate. Yuval discussed the last two books when he was previously on the podcast in Episode 73 – Formative Institutions with Yuval Levin
It's the last night of the Democratic National Convention and who better to offer commentary on Kamala Harris' speech than a cross-partisan panel? Join us for a livestream discussion scheduled to take place shortly after Kamala's speech.
The great fusionist project of ordered liberty advocated by Frank Meyer, William F. Buckley, and M. Stanton Evans is defended and affirmed today by a group calling themselves Freedom Conservatives, or FreeCons. And as most groups of conservatives are wont to do, they have drafted a Statement of Principles outlining what they hope to affirm. Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is a proud signatory on this statement and welcomes in this episode one of the two originators of the Statement, Avik Roy, for a wide-ranging discussion on fusionism, how FreeCons may compare and contrast with NatCons, the need for conservatism to grapple with issues of equality, and much more.
About Avik Roy
Excerpts from https://bipartisanpolicy.org/person/avik-roy/
Avik Roy is the President of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP.org), a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that conducts original research on expanding opportunity to those who least have it. Roy’s work has been praised widely on both the right and the left. National Review has called him one of the nation’s “sharpest policy minds,” while the New York Times’ Paul Krugman described him as man of “personal and moral courage.”
Roy has advised three presidential candidates on policy, including Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney. Roy also serves as the Opinion Editor at Forbes, where he writes on politics and policy, and manages The Apothecary, the influential Forbes blog on health care policy and entitlement reform. [He] is the author of How Medicaid Fails the Poor, published by Encounter Books in 2013, and Transcending Obamacare: A Patient-Centered Plan for Near-Universal Coverage and Permanent Fiscal Solvency, a second edition of which was published in 2016 by FREOPP. He serves on the advisory board of the National Institute for Health Care Management, is a Senior Advisor to the Bipartisan Policy Center, and co-chaired the Fixing Veterans Health Care Policy Taskforce.
Roy’s writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and National Affairs, among other publications. He is a frequent guest on television news programs, including appearances on Fox News, Fox Business, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, CBS, PBS, and HBO.
From 2011 to 2016, Roy served as a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, where he conducted research on the Affordable Care Act, entitlement reform, universal coverage, international health systems, and FDA policy. Previously, he served as an analyst and portfolio manager at Bain Capital, J.P. Morgan, and other firms.
Roy was educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he studied molecular biology, and the Yale University School of Medicine. You can follow Roy on Twitter @Avik
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? Were his efforts at emancipation the mere cold calculations of a politician whose sole aim was to win the Civil War, or do they point to some deeper ideals of America’s first principles? Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is Lincoln historian Dr. Allen C. Guelzo for a wide-ranging conversation on how Lincoln’s efforts at ending slavery and saving the union may provide the clearest example of prudent American statesmanship in practice.
About Dr. Allen C. Guelzo
Excerpts from the James Madison Program
Dr. Allen C. Guelzo is a New York Times best-seller author, American historian and commentator on public issues. He has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, National Affairs, First Things, U.S. News & World Report, The Weekly Standard, Washington Monthly, National Review, the Daily Beast, and the Claremont Review of Books, and has been featured on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday” and “On Point,” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (2008), Meet the Press: Press Pass with David Gregory, The Civil War: The Untold Story (Great Divide Pictures, 2014), Race to the White House: Lincoln vs. Douglas (CNN, 2016), Legends and Lies: The Civil War (Fox, 2018), Reconstruction (PBS, 2019) and Brian Lamb’s “Booknotes.” In 2010, he was nominated for a Grammy Award along with David Straithern and Richard Dreyfuss for their production of the entirety of The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (BBC Audio). In 2018, he was a winner of the Bradley Prize, along with Jason Riley of The Wall Street Journal and Charles Kesler of the Claremont Institute.
He is Thomas W. Smith Distinguished Research Scholar and Director of the James Madison Program Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship. Previously, he was Senior Research Scholar in the Council of the Humanities at Princeton University, and the Director of Civil War Era Studies and the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College. During 2010-11 and again in 2017-18, he served as the WL. Garwood Visiting Professor in the James Madison Program at Princeton University. He holds the MA and PhD in History from the University of Pennsylvania.
Among his many award-winning publications, he is the author of Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, which won both the Lincoln Prize and the Abraham Lincoln Institute Prize in 2000; Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America (Simon & Schuster, 2004) which also won the Lincoln Prize and the Abraham Lincoln Institute Prize, for 2005; Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America (Simon & Schuster, 2008), on the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858; a volume of essays, Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas (Southern Illinois University Press, 2009) which won a Certificate of Merit from the Illinois State Historical Association in 2010; and Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction (in the Oxford University Press ‘Very Short Introductions’ series. In 2012, he published Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction with Oxford University Press, and in 2013 Alfred Knopf published his book on the battle of Gettysburg (for the 150thanniversary of the battle), Gettysburg: The Last Invasion, which spent eight weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. Gettysburg: The Last Invasion won the Lincoln Prize for 2014, the inaugural Guggenheim-Lehrman Prize in Military History, the Fletcher Pratt Award of the New York City Round Table, and the Richard Harwell Award of the Atlanta Civil War Round Table. His most recent publications are Redeeming the Great Emancipator (Harvard University Press, 2016) which originated as the 2012 Nathan Huggins Lectures at Harvard University, and Reconstruction: A Concise History (Oxford University Press, 2018).
He is one of Power Line’s 100 “Top Professors” in America. In 2009, he delivered the Commonwealth Fund Lecture at University College, London, on “Lincoln, Cobden and Bright: The Braid of Liberalism in the 19th-Century’s Transatlantic World.” He has been awarded the Lincoln Medal of the Union League Club of New York City, the Lincoln Award of the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia, and the Lincoln Award of the Union League of Philadelphia, in addition to the James Q. Wilson Award for Distinguished Scholarship on the Nature of a Free Society. In 2018, he was named a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute. He has been a Fellow of the Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History at Harvard University, and currently serves as a Trustee of the Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History.
Together with Patrick Allitt and Gary W. Gallagher, he team-taught The Teaching Company’s American History series, and as well as courses on Abraham Lincoln (Mr. Lincoln, 2005) on American intellectual history (The American Mind, 2006), the American Revolution (2007), and the Founders (America’s Founding Fathers, 2017). From 2006 to 2013, he served as a member of the National Council of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Dr. Guelzo’s latest book, Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment, which is discussed in this episode is available wherever books are sold.
He lives in Paoli and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, with his wife, Debra. They have three children and five grandchildren. His website is allenguelzo.com
Saving Elephants is coming to YouTube!
We’re thrilled to announce that Saving Elephants will be launching a YouTube channel in August with full-length episodes, exclusive shorts, and even live events! Further details coming soon...
In an age of rampant informalities, shoddy attire, and the kind of milieu that makes People of Walmart a possibility, conservatives stand athwart history yelling STOP! Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is the impeccably dressed Samuel Goldman to explore how conservatism informs the world of fashion, why legendary figures on the Right from Russell Kirk to Albert J Nock to Willmoore Kendall wore such questionably lavish accessories, the connective tissues between intellectual conservatism and 90s era punk rock, and much more.
About Samuel Goldman
Samuel Goldman is an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, where he is also executive director of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Institute for Religious Freedom and director of the Politics & Values Program.
Samuel is the Editor of FUSION, an online journal inspired by the belief that Western civilization is defined by intertwined threads of freedom and tradition, innovation and order, rights and duties. In addition to academic work, his writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications.
His most recent book, After Nationalism: Being American in a Divided Age was published by University of Pennsylvania Press in spring 2021. His first book God’s Country: Christian Zionism in America was published by the University of Pennsylvania Press in 2018. Samuel received his Ph.D. from Harvard and taught at Harvard and Princeton before coming to GW. You can follow Samuel on Twitter @SWGoldman
For those interested in learning more about men’s fashion, Samuel recommends the following resources:
Blogs
Put This On
Die, Workwear
Necktie Salvage
Books
Dressing the Man: Mastering the Art of Permanent Fashion
True Style: The History and Principles of Classic Menswear
The Casual Style Guide
Gentleman: A Timeless Guide to Fashion
Hollywood and the Ivy Look
Saving Elephants is coming to YouTube!
We’re thrilled to announce that Saving Elephants will be launching a YouTube channel in August with full-length episodes, exclusive shorts, and even live events! Further details coming soon...
In an age where what passes for the archetype conservative are the likes of Candace Owens, Bill Mitchell, Sean Hannity, Matt Gaetz, Tomi Lahren, and Donald Trump, it can be discouraging for those of us who take pride in the rich legacy and colorful history of thinkers on the Right to be associated with such grifters, demagogues, and charlatans.
Trying to define conservatism is challenging and trying to compile a list of individuals who best exemplify conservatism is problematic. Yet this is becoming increasingly important in a world where “conservatism” is quickly being coopted by reactionary nationalist populists who have little to nothing in common with the namesake.
In this episode Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis offers his list of conservative thinkers well worthy of your time and attention.
Disclaimer
This list is imperfect and incomplete. If I were to revisit the list next year or possibly even next week, I’m sure there are plenty of names I’d believe should supplant the names here. Some of these individuals may even be uncomfortable with the label “conservative”, though they all share aspects of the broader conservative worldview. The names below are not listed in order of preference or importance, but they are all insightful and noteworthy.
The fifty individuals discussed in this episode are noted below. If you’d like to learn more about each one you can check out the original blog post of Fifty Conservative Thinkers for a brief bio and links.
Josh’s (Incomplete) List of Fifty Conservative Thinkers Worth Your Time
Edmund Burke
Milton Friedman
Wilhelm Röpke
David Bahnsen
F.A. Hayek
John Adams
Frederick Douglass
Thomas Sowell
James Madison
Barry Goldwater
Ronald Reagan
Bradley J. Birzer
Russell Kirk
Matthew Continetti
David French
Gertrude Himmelfarb
George Nash
Stephen J. Tonsor
Roger Scruton
Jacques Ellul
Whittaker Chambers
Michael Oakeshott
Eric Voegelin
Timothy Carney
C.S. Lewis
G.K. Chesterton
Jonah Goldberg
Wendell Berry
T.S. Eliot
Ross Douthat
Mary Eberstadt
M. Stanton Evans
Irving Kristol
George Will
William F. Buckley
Kristen Soltis Anderson
Robert Nisbet
Carly Fiorina
Arthur Brooks
Marian Tupy
Charles Marohn
Patrick Deneen
Harry Jaffa
Walter Williams
Frank S. Meyer
Alexis de Tocqueville
Lord Acton
Leo Stauss
Willmoore Kendall
Yuval Levin
In February of 2004 the late Charles Krauthammer delivered the keynote address at AEI’s Annual Dinner. It was a year into the Iraqi war and several years into the War on Terror. Krauthammer’s address—entitled Democratic Realism—lauded much of the Bush administration’s approach to the war, but offered some stern warnings on how the war and rebuilding efforts might go awry. His warnings proved to be profoundly prescient as the following years led to the disillusionment of what broadly (and wrongly) became known as NeoCon foreign policy.
What had the Right missed in Krauthammer’s warnings? What foreign policy approaches has the United States historically taken, and are any of them still relevant? How might conservatism shed light on the most appropriate foreign policy we could pursue? Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is returning guest Michael Lucchese to think through the lessons learned in American foreign policy.
About Michael Lucchese
Michael Lucchese is the founder and CEO of Pipe Creek Consulting, a communications firm based in Washington, D.C., and a visiting scholar at the Liberty Fund. Previously, he was a communications aide to U.S. Senator Ben Sasse.
He received a BA in American Studies at Hillsdale College and was a Hudson Institute Political Studies fellow and an alumnus of the Röpke-Wojtyła Fellowship at Catholic University of America's Busch School of Business.
Michael is an Associate Editor at Law & Liberty and a contributing editor to Providence. His writings have also appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Examiner and National Review, Engelsberg Ideas, and Public Discourse. Michael Lucchese is from Chicago, Illinois.
Michael was a previous guest on Saving Elephants in episode 143 – The Conservative Mind at 70 with Michael Lucchese
How might music point us to the good, the true, and the beautiful? What is the purpose of music, and we are guilty of misusing it? Why are we so obsessed with Taylor Swift? Musician and conservative journalist Barney Quick joins Josh to discuss how conservatism might better inform our approach to music. Also discussed are whether or not the elephants can be saved at all, how an owning-the-libs approach misses the spirit of conservatism, and whether or not Principles First has lost its first principles.
About Barney Quick
Barney Quick is a journalist whose work appears in magazine features. He is a frequent contributor to Ordinary Times and a Senior Freelance Contributor for The Freeman News-Letter. He has been maintaining his blog, Late in the Day, since 2012. But you can find the bulk of his writings on his substack Precipice.
Barney is also a musician and jazz guitarist who could find lucrative gigs, but is well aware he’s chosen a musical life that isn’t going to pay a lot of bills.
Barney is an adjunct lecturer in jazz history and rock and roll history at his local community college.
You can follow Barney on Twitter @Penandguitar
After a stint of episodes taking deep dives into obscure topics, Josh returns to some conservative first-principles by inviting long-time friend of the podcast Cal Davenport on for a wide-ranging discussion on whether or not the fusionist consensus is truly dead, why all the energy in the Right seems to be going towards the NatCons, what’s leading to the rise of populism, how to repackage conservative ideas into digestible slogans, who belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of conservative thought, and how Edmund Burke factors into all of this. Trigger warning for the Straussian listener: this episode gets a bit Burke-y.
About Cal Davenport
Cal Davenport is a veteran podcaster and writer. He has written for The Wasington Examiner, RedState, The Resurgent and more. He has worked in Congress, for political campaigns, for think tanks, and in political consulting. Cal received his M.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from Witten/Herdecke University. You can follow Cal on Twitter @jcaldavenport
David Bahnsen returns to the podcast to discuss his latest book: Full-Time: Work and the Meaning of Life. David holds a high view of work and, in an era where self-help gurus are teaching us how to work less to achieve a work/life balance, David wants to shift the paradigm to work/rest and celebrate the productive nature of our being. Also discussed in this episode are what the church gets wrong about work, how each generation brings different challenges and advantages to work culture, universal basic income (UBI), whether the Marxist are right and work under a capitalist system is exploitation, and what the future of retirement might mean for working Americans.
About David Bahnsen
From David’s website:
David L. Bahnsen is the founder, Managing Partner, and Chief Investment Officer of The Bahnsen Group, a bi-coastal private wealth management firm with offices in Newport Beach, CA, New York City, Minneapolis, and Nashville managing over $3.5 billion in client assets. David is consistently named as one of the top financial advisors in America by Barron’s, Forbes, and the Financial Times. He is a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business and is a regular contributor to National Review and Forbes. He has written his own political viewpoint blog for over a decade.
David serves on the Board of Directors for the National Review Institute and was the Vice-President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County for eight years. He is a committed donor and activist across all spectrums of national, state, and local politics, and views the cause of Buckley and Reagan as the need of the hour.
David is passionate about opposition to crony capitalism, and has lectured and written for years about the need for pro-growth economic policy. Every part of his political worldview stems from a desire to see greater freedom as a catalyst to greater human flourishing.
He is the author of the book, Crisis of Responsibility: Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It and his most recent book, There’s No Free Lunch: 250 Economic Truths.
His ultimate passions are his lovely wife of 18+ years, Joleen, their gorgeous and brilliant children, sons Mitchell and Graham, and daughter Sadie, and the life they’ve created together in Newport Beach, California.
Fusionism—the viewpoint advocated by the likes of William F. Buckley and Frank Meyer of order and liberty mutually reinforcing each other—has been the dominant form of conservatism in the United States for a generation. In the era of Trump and the rise of nationalist populism on the Right, however, fusionism has steadily lost influence. Should conservatives double down on what’s worked in the past? Or is it time for a different approach that was advocated by some of the original critics of fusionism on the Right?
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is Jeffery Tyler Syck to argue for a conservative alternative to the fusionists and NatCons: humanist conservatism. The humanist conservative is interested in preserving the diverse daily practices of human existence, as advocated by noteworthy thinkers like Michael Oakeshott, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Peter Viereck. It’s a quitter, more moderated form of conservatism that—Syck believes—could offer an antidote to the excess of the nationalist populous radicalism ascendant on the Right.
About Jeffery Tyler Syck
From jtylersyck.com
Jeffery Tyler Syck is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Pikeville.
Tyler’s academic research focuses on the development of American democracy and the history of political ideologies. He is the editor of the forthcoming book “A Republic of Virtue: The Political Essays of John Quincy Adams” and is completing a second book manuscript entitled “The Untold Origins of American Democracy.” This second book describes how the political debates between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson forever altered the republic created by the American founders – leaving behind an increasingly majoritarian democracy. His essays and articles on politics, philosophy, and history have appeared in several public facing publications including Law and Liberty, Persuasion, and the Louisville Courier-Journal. Tyler’s academic work has recently been published in the journal Pietas.
A native of Pike County Kentucky, Tyler’s political thought and writing are strongly shaped by the culture of Appalachia. With their tightly knit communities, the mountains of Appalachia have instilled in him a love of all things local. As such his writing most often advocates for a rejuvenation of local democracy and a renaissance of rural culture.
Tyler received a Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Arts in Government from the University of Virginia. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Government and History from Morehead State University where he graduated with honors.
You can follow Tyler on Twitter @tylersyck
What is the single most important virtue for a leader to possess? What quality can make the run-of-the-mill politician into a statesman? Is it integrity, communication skills, resilience, courage, empathy, or wisdom? All of these things are important, of course, and if any are sufficiently lacking we wouldn’t call that a good leader. But what would you say is the chief virtue?
Conservative thinkers from Burke to Kirk to Kristol to Strauss and even many of the ancient and medieval thinkers from Aristotle to Plato to St. Thomas Aquainis identified a single virtue as the chief “political” virtue. A virtue so important that Edmund Burke referred to it as the god of this lower world.
What is that virtue? That’s exactly what Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis explores in this solo episode.
Mentioned in the episode: Saul Alinsky’s interview on William F. Buckley’s Firing Line.
What is the purpose of higher education? Is it primarily to prepare us for the jobs of the future? Is it to ensure the leaders of tomorrow hold the right opinions on important issues? Is it to provide a safe haven for the pursuit of Truth?
Thinkers on the Right have held differing—sometimes incompatible—views on the purpose of higher education. Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is returning guest Luke Sheahan to explore these arguments and how conservatives might respond to the rise of radicalism and wokism on college campuses.
About Luke Sheahan
From Luke’s website: Luke Sheahan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Duquesne University and a Non-Resident Scholar at the Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society (PRRUCS) at the University of Pennsylvania. He researches the intersection of First Amendment rights and political theory. Sheahan’s scholarly articles and reviews have appeared in The Political Science Reviewer, Humanitas, Anamnesis, and The Journal of Value Inquiry and he has lectured widely on religious liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. He is author of Why Associations Matter: The Case for First Amendment Pluralism. He is writing a second book tentatively titled “Pluralism and Toleration: Difference, Justice, and the Social Group.”
From 2018-2019, Sheahan was Associate Director and Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Freedom Project at Wellesley College and from 2016-2018, Sheahan was a Postdoctoral Associate and Research Fellow in the Department of Political Science at Duke University. He received a PhD and MA in political theory from the Catholic University of America and a B.S. in political science from the Honors College at Oregon State University. He is a five-time recipient of the Humane Studies Fellowship from the Institute for Humane Studies, a 2014 recipient of the Richard M. Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and a 2018 recipient of the Leonard P. Liggio Memorial Fellowship.
In 2022 the Russell Kirk Center announced the appointment of Dr. Luke C. Sheahan as the fifth editor in the history of The University Bookman, originally established by none other than Russell Kirk, seeking to redeem the time by identifying and discussing those books that diagnose the modern age and support the renewal of culture and the common good.
You can follow Luke on Twitter @lsheahan
Having published more than forty books on an astoundingly wide range of topics and holding noteworthy positions at the British Academy and the Royal Society of Literature, the University of Oxford, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the University of Buckingham, Sir Roger Scruton was the quintessential British gentleman and scholar. He was also one of the greatest conservative intellectuals of the last century and the beginning of this century who died in 2020. Fisher Derderian joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis for a woefully incomplete exploration at the legacy of Scruton, including Scruton’s contributions to American conservatism, his curious admiration of Friedrich Hegel, his spirited yet charitable critics of the thinkers of the New Left, and his inscrutable views on the Christian faith.
About Fisher Derderian
Source – Scruton.org
Fisher Derderian is the Founder and Executive Director of the Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation. He met Sir Roger as a student in the MA Philosophy Programme at the University of Buckingham and the idea for the RSLF was subsequently conceived at a tutorial with Scruton.
Fisher currently resides in Orange County with his wife, Maxine, and their three children. He serves as a member of the Arts Commission for the City of Costa Mesa. Fisher holds a BA in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from The King’s College NYC and a MA in Philosophy from the University of Buckingham. You can follow Fisher on Twitter @Fisher_D
About the Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation
Source – Scruton.org
The Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation is the centre of an international network of institutions and scholars dedicated to furthering the philosophical and cultural achievements of the West championed in Scruton’s work. Through the hosting and sponsoring of events, lectures, seminars, research and projects, the RSLF supports those dedicated to the achievements of Western philosophy, architecture, art and literature who are committed to living for ‘the vanished things’ and teaching our great inheritance to the rising generations.
The Saving Elephants podcast has welcomed a wide array of incredible guests who are on forefront of the conservative political movement. But most of the guests discuss conservatism from the perspective of a theory or set of principles or idea. Few have had the opportunity to enact political conservatism as a practice. And few ex-politicians have been as successful as former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels in advancing conservatism as a practice. While Daniels is reticent to label his approach “conservative” or identify as part of red team vs. blue team, his practices in executive offices from the governor’s mansion to serving in presidential administrations to leading a university have all displayed a strong tinge of conservative prudence and small-government grit.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis welcomes former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to the show to discuss his experiences as governor, advisor to Ronald Reagan, Director of OMB for George W. Bush, president of Purdue University. His accomplishments in these offices and no-nonsense approach towards governing has earned him recognition among many on the Right. Some leading conservatives—from George Will to Jonah Goldberg to Ross Douthat—have clearly stated he would have been their preferred presidential candidate in recent elections. While Daniels isn’t a presidential candidate then or now, his story provides a roadmap in our politically bleak wilderness for what qualities we should be looking for in a leader.
About Mitch Daniels from Purdue University
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. is the 12th president of Purdue University and the former governor of Indiana. He was elected Indiana’s 49th governor in 2004 in his first bid for any elected office, and then re-elected in 2008 with more votes than any candidate in the state's history. During his tenure, Indiana went from an $800 million deficit to its first AAA credit rating, led the nation in infrastructure building and passed sweeping education and healthcare reforms.
After a series of transformations, which included the biggest tax cut in state history, the nation’s most sweeping deregulation of the telecommunications industry and a host of other reforms aimed at strengthening the state’s economy, Indiana was rated a top five state for business climate and number one for state infrastructure and effectiveness of state government as Daniels exited office. Indiana’s business climate is now rated among the nation’s best.
At Purdue, Daniels has prioritized student affordability and reinvestment in the university’s strengths. Breaking with a 36-year trend, Purdue has held tuition unchanged from 2012 through at least the 2022-23 academic year. Simultaneously, room rates have remained steady, meal plan rates have fallen about 10%, and student borrowing has dropped 32% while investments in student success and STEM research have undergone unprecedented growth. It is less expensive to attend Purdue today than it was in 2012.
In recognition of his leadership as both a governor and a university president, Daniels was named among the Top 50 World Leaders by Fortune Magazine in 2015 and was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2019.
Prior to becoming governor, Daniels served as chief of staff to Senator Richard Lugar, senior advisor to President Ronald Reagan and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush. He also was the CEO of the Hudson Institute, a major contract research organization. During an 11-year career at Eli Lilly and Company, he held a number of top executive posts including president of Eli Lilly’s North American pharmaceutical operations.
Daniels earned a bachelor's degree from Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and a law degree from Georgetown. He is the author of three books and a contributing columnist in the Washington Post. He and his wife Cheri have four daughters and seven grandchildren.
One of the strangest political developments over the past several decades has been the devolution of the Religious Right and large swaths of politically active Evangelicals as they morphed from character counts moralists of the 1990s to MAGA Trumplicans. Regardless of the merits of where the Religious Right stands today, one could be forgiven for being perplexed at how they arrived here at all.
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is JB Shreve, creator of The End of History podcast and blog, to demystify the Religious Right’s conversion to the Church of Trump. Both JB and Josh were raised in the cultural milieu of Evangelical conservatism and have an insider’s perspective on what went so wrong on the Religious Right.
About JB Shreve
JB Shreve spent his life in the highlands of western Arkansas, where he and his wife Casie raised their three children. JB worked in international ministry between 1998 and 2008 in various roles with organizations such as Bill Glass Prison Ministries, Christian Motorcyclists Association, and Open Doors with Brother Andrew.
After securing his degrees in International Relations and Middle East Studies at the Fulbright College and King Fahd Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Arkansas, JB went to work in the corporate business sector.
In 2005, JB and his family moved to northwest Arkansas, where they joined a team to build a new church Transformation Center. JB continues in an active leadership role at Transformation Center.
JB hosts two podcasts and blogs. JB Shreve & Faithful Considerations includes devotionals and bible studies, while JB Shreve & the End of History looks at our generation's current events, history, and socio-political issues. JB has written two books: How the World Ends: Understanding the Growing Chaos published in 2019 and his latest book Politically Incorrect: Real Faith in an Era of Unreal Politics.
What does is mean to be an American? And why do we Americans obsess so much over the question of what it means to be an American? This nagging question has plagued our nation since its birth and various national “myths” have been advanced to offer some form of national identity and cohesion. At times one myth has proven stronger than the others, only to be overshadowed as historical events call its sufficiency and truth into question. So where does that leave us today in an era of collective, existential crisis?
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to explore these questions is George Washington University associate professor of political science Samuel Goldman.
About Samuel Goldman
Samuel Goldman is an associate professor of political science at George Washington University, where he is also executive director of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Institute for Religious Freedom and director of the Politics & Values Program.
Samuel is the Editor of FUSION, an online journal inspired by the belief that Western civilization is defined by intertwined threads of freedom and tradition, innovation and order, rights and duties. In addition to academic work, his writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications.
His most recent book, After Nationalism: Being American in a Divided Age was published by University of Pennsylvania Press in spring 2021. His first book God’s Country: Christian Zionism in America was published by the University of Pennsylvania Press in 2018. Samuel received his Ph.D. from Harvard and taught at Harvard and Princeton before coming to GW. You can follow Samuel on Twitter @SWGoldman
In 2021, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis joined three other veteran podcasters on a new podcast endeavor: Are We Right? Cal Davenport, Brooke Medina, and Calvin Moore, and Josh debated a wide range of topics from politics to religion to culture and invited the audience to weigh in on whether or not they’re right. While the show was tragically short-lived, a number of excellent episodes were produced and this is a re-podcast of their Christmas episode to commemorate the holiday season:
In the spirit of the season, Are We Right presents an epic Christmas-themed episode unmatched in festive gaiety since George Lucas’ The Star Wars Holiday Special. Calvin recalls fond memories of the family going to the movies at Christmastime and waxes eloquent about the proper color of Christmas lights and ranking of Christmas films. Brooke attempts in vain to engage the group in a lively debate about the merits of singing Mariah Carey Christmas songs and ruminates about the religious implications of Christmas in a manner that would make a Southern Baptist shout “Amen!”. And Josh regales the audience with a banjo solo of Angels We Have Heard on High (no, really).
You can find the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, Audible, or wherever you listen, find us on Twitter @ TheAWRPodcast, and email us at arewerightpodcast@gmail.com.
Earlier this year Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis was on AD Tippet’s podcast, Conservative Historian. This episode is a re-podcast of that conversation that covered a wide variety of conservative topics from both the past and today.
About AD Tippet
AD Tippet (the podcast formerly known as Belisarius Aves) is the founder and publisher of the Conservative Historian YouTube channel and podcast. “History is too important to be left to the left,” writes AD. “The Conservative Historian provides content and opinions on conservative thinking through the prism of history.” You can follow Bel on Twitter @BelAves
In 1953 a little-known political theorist Russell Kirk repurposed his doctoral dissertation as a book for publication. His book, The Conservative Mind, would quickly become a bestseller, give the nascent conservative movement its name and intellectual moorings, be reviewed and debated in respectable publications across the country, and launch its author to international fame.
Seventy years later, the book is still going strong. Now on its seventh edition and reprinted in multiple languages, The Conservative Mind is among the indispensable tomes for understanding the conservative movement. In this episode, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Michael Lucchese to explore the enduring legacy of The Conservative Mind at seventy.
About Michael Lucchese
Michael Lucchese is the founder and CEO of Pipe Creek Consulting, a communications firm based in Washington, D.C., and a visiting scholar at the Liberty Fund. Previously, he was a communications aide to U.S. Senator Ben Sasse.
He received a BA in American Studies at Hillsdale College and was a Hudson Institute Political Studies fellow and an alumnus of the Röpke-Wojtyła Fellowship at Catholic University of America's Busch School of Business.
His writing have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Examiner and National Review, Engelsberg Ideas, Public Discourse, and Law & Liberty. Michael Lucchese is from Chicago, Illinois.
The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal Celebrates the 70th Anniversary of The Conservative Mind
In celebration of the 70th anniversary of Russell Kirk’s landmark book, The Conservative Mind, the Russell Kirk Center cordially invites you to join them for a special evening event with a panel of emerging conservative thinkers: Adapting Conservatism for the Current Generation
The celebration will be held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, December 5.
Reserve Your Tickets
While Leo Strauss was famous for influencing men and women who became intellectual heavyweights in the conservative movement—names like Allan Bloom, Irving Kristol, Harvey Mansfield, Thomas Pangle barely scratch the surface—few stand as tall as Harry Jaffa. A cantankerous and quarrelsome debater to some and a beloved architect of restoring conservatism to a more American-focused and principled-based approach to others, Jaffa lived a remarkably long and productive life. His writings persuaded William F. Buckley, Jr. away from a more sympathetically Southern conservatism and, with it, the whole of the conservative movement.
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to explore the legacy of Harry Jaffa is returning guest Seth Root, who was last seen in episode 83 discussing the virtues of Straussianism.
About Seth Root
Seth Root is a self-described Claremont Institute hack who doesn't care for Edmund Burke, but we love him anyway. He was the cohost of the tragically defunct In The Trenches Podcast, a show for conversations with people that are right in the middle of the war of ideas. Seth was a fellow at Conservative Partnership Institute and an intern at the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding. He currently works for the Oregon State Senate. You can follow Seth on Twitter @SethRoot1
Everyone supports civility, in theory, when the “other side” is behaving themselves. But what is the role of civility in an era of growing political division? Is civility a weakness that can be exploited by our political opponents? Is it simply being well-mannered and exceedingly nice, or is there more to it?
Those are the very questions Alexandra Hudson set out to answer in her new book, The Soul of Civility. Alexandra joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to unpackage how civility holds the timeless answers for humanity’s timeless struggle with living alongside the “other side”.
About Alexandra Hudson
From Alexandra’s website:
Alexandra Hudson is a writer, popular speaker, and the founder of Civic Renaissance, a publication and intellectual community dedicated to beauty, goodness and truth. She was named the 2020 Novak Journalism Fellow, and contributes to Fox News, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, TIME Magazine, POLITICO Magazine, and Newsweek. She earned a master’s degree in public policy at the London School of Economics as a Rotary Scholar, and is an adjunct professor at the Indiana University Lilly School of Philanthropy. She is also the creator of a series for The Teaching Company called Storytelling and The Human Condition. She lives in Indianapolis, IN with her husband and children.
But wait, there’s more…
During the conversation Josh and Alexandra briefly discuss Edmund Burke’s take on social contract theory. This is a complex issue and there simply wasn’t adequate time to explore it fully. So, after the conversation with Alexandra, Josh shares his thoughts on how Burke’s understanding of social contract theory might rescue Lockean liberalism from being merely a tool of the Left to something conservatives can embrace themselves.
The name Edmund Burke is used quite liberally on the Saving Elephants podcast as host Josh Lewis makes no bones about being a “Burkean” conservative. But who was this Irish statesman, economist, and philosopher? What were his contributions to conservative thought? Why does Josh hold him in such high regard? And why do some conservatives argue there’s no place for Burke in conservatism?
Rather than inviting one guest to tackle these pressing questions, Josh explores the various conversations had on the podcast with past guests about Burke to help us navigate this rather complex and often misunderstood political thinker. The lineup includes:
Wes Siler
Podcast appearance: 71 – Exploring Burke with Wes Siler
Wes is the founder and Director of The Burkean Conservative, a website, social media presence, and video platform that produces content focused on educating and expanding the conservative movement on the basis of Edmund Burke's principles. You can follow The Burkean Conservative on Twitter @TheBurkeanCon.
Yuval Levin
Podcast appearance: 73 – Formative Institutions with Yuval Levin
Yuval Levin is a political analyst, public intellectual, academic, and journalist. He is the founding editor of National Affairs, director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a contributing editor of National Review, and co-founder and a senior editor of The New Atlantis. He also holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy.
Yuval served as a member of the White House domestic policy staff under President George W. Bush. He was also executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics and a congressional staffer at the member, committee, and leadership levels.
Yuval’s essays and articles have appeared in numerous publications, among them, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary. He is the author of five books, two of which are discussed in detail in the episode: A Time to Build and The Great Debate.
Jonah Goldberg
Podcast appearance: 82 – Ruminating Remnants with Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg hosts The Remnant, a podcast featuring a “Cannonball Run”-style cast of stars, has-beens, and never-weres to address the most pressing issues of the day and of all-time, mixing history, pop culture, rank-punditry, political philosophy, and, at times, shameless book-plugging, and the nudity is (almost) always tasteful. In October of 2019 Goldberg co-launched and became founding editor of the online opinion and news publication The Dispatch. He was the founding editor of National Review Online, and from 1998 until 2019 he was an editor at National Review.
A prolific writer, Goldberg writes a weekly column about politics and culture for the Los Angeles Times as well as a frequent “newsletter” The G-File. He has authored three books, the No. 1 New York Times bestseller Liberal Fascism; The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas; and Suicide of the West, which also became a New York Times bestseller.
Goldberg is also a regular contributor on news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, appearing on various television programs including Good Morning America, Nightline, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Real Time with Bill Maher, and The Daily Show. Goldberg is an occasional guest on a number of Fox News shows and a frequent panelist on Special Report with Bret Baier.
Bo Winegard
Podcast appearance: 104 – Armchair Burkeans with Bo Winegard
Bo Winegard obtained his PhD in social psychology from Florida State University, under the tutelage of Roy Baumeister. Formerly a professor at a small college in the Midwest, Bo is now an independent scholar interested in human evolution, human variation, the rise of political order, and political conservatism. He also enjoys literature, film, sports, and mediocre detective fiction.
Bo has many peer-reviewed publications on motley topics and often writes for the online media publication Quillette. He is currently working on the first of several books on human nature and political ideology.
Visit Bo’s website:
https://www.bmwinegard.com/
And his YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8mHb9VLBbrlvzRRwwGgL5w
You can also find Bo on Twitter @EPoe187
David Bahnsen
Podcast appearance: 119 – Inflating the Apocalypse with David Bahnsen
David L. Bahnsen is the founder, Managing Partner, and Chief Investment Officer of The Bahnsen Group, a bi-coastal private wealth management firm with offices in Newport Beach, CA, New York City, Minneapolis, and Nashville managing over $3.5 billion in client assets. David is consistently named as one of the top financial advisors in America by Barron’s, Forbes, and the Financial Times. He is a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business and is a regular contributor to National Review and Forbes. He has written his own political viewpoint blog for over a decade.
David serves on the Board of Directors for the National Review Institute and was the Vice-President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County for eight years. He is a committed donor and activist across all spectrums of national, state, and local politics, and views the cause of Buckley and Reagan as the need of the hour.
David is passionate about opposition to crony capitalism, and has lectured and written for years about the need for pro-growth economic policy. Every part of his political worldview stems from a desire to see greater freedom as a catalyst to greater human flourishing.
He is the author of the book, Crisis of Responsibility: Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It and his most recent book, There’s No Free Lunch: 250 Economic Truths.
His ultimate passions are his lovely wife of 18+ years, Joleen, their gorgeous and brilliant children, sons Mitchell and Graham, and daughter Sadie, and the life they’ve created together in Newport Beach, California.
Jeff Nelson
Podcast appearance: 130 – Cultivating Kirk with Jeff Nelson
Jeff Nelson co-founded the Kirk Center with Annette Kirk and is currently Vice Chairman of the Center’s Board of Trustees. He served in 1986 and again in 1989 as Dr. Kirk’s personal assistant.
Dr. Nelson is Executive Vice President of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (Wilmington, Delaware). He also served as president of the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (Merrimack, NH). He received his B.A. at the University of Detroit, an M.A. at Yale University Divinity School, and was awarded his Ph.D. in American History at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
Dr. Nelson founded ISI Books, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s now nationally recognized publishing imprint, in 1993. Under his direction, more than 110 books were published. During that time he also edited two respected journals of thought and opinion: The Intercollegiate Review and The University Bookman, and is publisher of Studies in Burke and His Time. He also is senior fellow of both the International G. K. Chesterton Institute (Toronto, ON) and the Centre for the Study of Faith and Culture in Oxford, England; and he is secretary of the Edmund Burke Society of America.
Dr. Nelson has edited two book collections: Redeeming the Time by Russell Kirk, and Perfect Sowing: Reflections of a Bookman by Henry Regnery; he co-edited an award-winning treasury of the historian John Lukacs’ writings entitled Remembered Past; and was project director of the popular national college guide, Choosing the Right College: The Whole Truth About America’s Top Schools. Dr. Nelson was featured in a New York Times front-page news article about a major reference work he co-edited, American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia; and he is series editor of The Library of Modern Thinkers. Jeff Nelson is a frequent and popular guest on radio and television talk shows across the country.
You can follow Jeff on Twitter @JeffOttoNelson
The United States and United Kingdom have enjoyed and, at times, endured a symbiotic history, culture, politics, and global relationship. Often understanding the quirks of one nation helps us better understand our own. Sarah Stook, journalist of American politics and history, joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss what Americans and Brits can learn from one another, what unique challenges face young, British conservatives, the importance of the British monarch, and whether American politics looks as off-the-rails from an outsider’s perspective as it does from those actually living in the United States.
About Sarah Stook
Sarah Stook is a freelance writer and beat reporter for Elections Daily (focused on American politics) and The Mallard (focused on politics in the United Kingdom) with an emphasis on the Republican Party, presidential elections, and the interworking of campaigns. She is a fan of historical threads, first ladies, presidents, and vintage fashion. She is a student at Lancaster University in the U.K. and is a member of the Conservative Party. You can follow Sarah on Twitter @sarah_stook
“History offers not simply a chronicle of events but, more importantly, opportunities to gain insights about the human condition from the experience of other times and places,” writes Thomas Sowell in his provocatively titled book Black Rednecks and White Liberals. “That is, it offers not merely facts but explanations.” Yet history’s capacity to benefit us is naturally limited by our natural biases. “History cannot be a reality check for visions when history is itself shaped by visions.” To learn how to extract beneficial explanations from history, therefore, we must first learn how to recognize our biases, pre-conceptions, worldviews, and visions.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by the Conservative Historian Belisarius Aves to explore the various schools of historical thought and how conservatism might instruct us to approach history.
About Belisarius Aves
Belisarius Aves (or Bel for short) is the founder and publisher of the Conservative Historian YouTube channel and podcast. “History is too important to be left to the left,” writes Bel. “The Conservative Historian provides content and opinions on conservative thinking through the prism of history.” You can follow Bel on Twitter @BelAves
Christian or not, it’s undeniable that Western civilization, and the United States in particular, has deep historical roots in Judeo-Christian teachings. Scripture has shaped much of our culture, thought, values, and politics. But while plenty of Biblical passages appear to have political implications, there’s little consensus among the general population—to say nothing of the religiously devoted—what a political worldview based on the Bible should look like.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis continues his conversation with Jonathan Cole on the topic of political theology. But this time they turn their attention to more practical applications of how specific Scriptures might inform our politics and how we might avoid the pitfalls of making our politics too religious or our religion too political.
About Jonathan Cole
From Jonathan Cole’s website:
Dr Jonathan Cole is a scholar, writer, translator and lecturer specializing in political theology—the intersection between religion and politics.
He is currently Assistant Director of Research at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture at Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australia, and host of The Political Animals Podcast: "Honest conversations about the political, theological and cultural ideas that shape who we are in the 21st century."
He has a PhD in political theology from CSU, an MA in Islamic theology and Middle Eastern politics from the Australian National University and a BA Hons in Modern Greek language and history from La Trobe University. He speaks Greek.
He spent 13 years working in a number of Australian federal government departments and agencies in Canberra, including seven years in intelligence, most recently as a Senior Terrorism Analyst at the Office of National Assessments (2010–2014).
Follow Jonathan on Facebook, Twitter, or Academia for his latest content.
“I never discuss anything else except politics and religion,” English writer, philosopher, and Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton once quipped. “There is nothing else to discuss.” For some sensible, genteel Americans, politics and religion are precisely what you don’t discuss in public and—perhaps even—in private company. Others discuss both with ease yet may have trouble thinking through what their politics might say about their religion, or how their religion ought to inform their politics.
The discipline of political theology specializes in studying the intersect between politics and religion. Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is returning guest from the land Down Under, Jonathan Cole. Jonathan briefly discusses the history of political theology before turning to how we might understand political theology and how Christianity in particular has shaped the governments of Western civilization. This is the first of a two-part conversation. Catch part 2 in the next episode.
About Jonathan Cole
From Jonathan Cole’s website:
Dr Jonathan Cole is a scholar, writer, translator and lecturer specializing in political theology—the intersection between religion and politics.
He is currently Assistant Director of Research at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture at Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australia, and host of The Political Animals Podcast: "Honest conversations about the political, theological and cultural ideas that shape who we are in the 21st century."
He has a PhD in political theology from CSU, an MA in Islamic theology and Middle Eastern politics from the Australian National University and a BA Hons in Modern Greek language and history from La Trobe University. He speaks Greek.
He spent 13 years working in a number of Australian federal government departments and agencies in Canberra, including seven years in intelligence, most recently as a Senior Terrorism Analyst at the Office of National Assessments (2010–2014).
Follow Jonathan on Facebook, Twitter, or Academia for his latest content.
Modern views on how future technology is likely to change our lives range from bloviatingly aspirational visions of utopia to musings on whether the latest advancement in AI will destroy humankind in our lifetime or merely enslave us all in Matrix-style battery capillaries. Yet debates on whether technology is a neutral tool for our benefit or a near-unstoppable force leading us to a particular destiny are nothing new. In 1964, French philosopher and sociologist Jacques Ellul wrote The Technological Society, in which he argued technology had a totalizing effect that could potentially dehumanize our world in its never-ending effort to make all things efficient and “useful”.
While he’s somewhat critical of Ellul’s determinism, this episode’s guest—Jason Thacker—gleans much wisdom from Ellul’s warnings. Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis and Jason Thacker discuss competing views of technology and how they might help us for a foundation for dealing with the technological challenges we face in our digital public square.
About Jason Thacker
From https://jasonthacker.com/
Jason Thacker serves as an assistant professor of philosophy and ethics at Boyce College in Louisville, KY. He also is a research fellow in Christian ethics and director of the research institute at The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is the author of several books including Following Jesus in the Digital Age and The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity. He also serves as the editor of The Digital Public Square: Christian Ethics in a Technological Society and co-editor of the Essentials in Christian Ethics series with B&H Academic. He is the project leader and lead drafter of Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles, and his work has been featured at Slate, Politico, The Week, USA Today, Christianity Today, World Magazine, The Gospel Coalition, and Desiring God.
He is a graduate of The University of Tennessee in Knoxville, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts in Communication Studies. He also holds a Master of Divinity from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he is currently a PhD candidate in ethics, public theology, and philosophy. He serves as an associate fellow with the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology in Cambridge, an advisor for AI and Faith, fellow in science and technology at the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Seminary, and a research fellow with the ERLC Research Institute. He is married to Dorie and they have two sons.
You can follow Jason on Twitter @jasonthacker
About The Digital Public Square
Brooke was one of the contributing writers to the recently published book The Digital Public Square. In The Digital Public Square, editor Jason Thacker has chosen top Christian voices to help the church navigate the issues of censorship, conspiracy theories, sexual ethics, hate speech, religious freedom, and tribalism. Many of the contributing writers (David French, Bonnie Kristian, Bryan Baise, and Brooke Medina) have been prior guests on the Saving Elephants show.
In the aftermath of the Civil War and prior to the first World War lies an often overlooked era in American history known as the Gilded Age. This was an extraordinarily “messy” period where it’s often difficult to identify the heroes to extol or villains to condemn. But it is also a period that has unusually similar parallels to our own times from rapid technological advancements, growing partisanship, and the unraveling of communities and traditions. We might benefit from a closer understanding of the lessons learned in this messy period.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by returning guest Avi Woolf, a fellow podcaster who has been working through an in-depth and nuanced series on the Gilded Age on his podcast Avi’s Conversational Corner. He joins Josh to help decipher the mess of this era.
About Avi Woolf
Avi Woolf is a writer, editor, translator, and podcaster whose work has been published in Arc Digital, Commentary, National Review, The Bulwark, and The Dispatch. He was chief editor of the online Medium publication Conservative Pathways, and he—in his words—"hopes to help forge a path for a conservatism which is relevant for the 21st century while not abandoning the best of past wisdom.”
Avi hosts his own podcast entitled Avi’s Conversational Corner, a podcast on culture, history, and politics in a broad perspective. You can find Avi on Twitter @AviWoolf
In this brave new digital world, opportunities for hate speech seem ubiquitous and increasingly dangerous. How should a conservative balance their values of limited-government and protection of the vulnerable in social media? How do we answer the charges of “silence is violence”, or that speech and equal violence from a legal, cultural, and moral framework?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by frequent guest Brooke Medina to grapple with the problem of hate speech. Josh shares his experiences of being harassed while (briefly) identifying as a woman on Facebook and Brooke draws from her contributing chapter in the recently published book The Digital Public Square: Christian Ethics in a Technological Society.
About Brooke Medina
Brooke Medina serves as Vice President of Communications for the John Locke Foundation, an independent, nonprofit think tank in North Carolina. There Brooke manages a team of talented communications, design, and media professionals. Brooke oversees the implementation of the organization’s strategic communications efforts and regularly engages with the press and public through written commentary, television and radio interviews, as well as public speaking engagements. In addition to these roles, Brooke is responsible for creating and implementing the foundation’s marketing strategy.
Brooke is a graduate of Regent University, holding a B.A. in Government and a minor in English. While in college, she attended both the Koch Leaders Program and Koch Communications Fellowship, programs that focus on the philosophical underpinnings of market-based management and classical liberalism. She is currently a member of the American Enterprise Institute’s Leadership Network.
Brooke’s writing has been published in outlets such as The Hill, Entrepreneur, Washington Examiner, WORLD, Daily Signal, FEE, and other publications. She is a frequent podcast guest on a variety of shows, a C. S. Lewis aficionado, and, along with Josh, part of the quartet that make up the hosts of the Are We Right? podcast.
You can follow Brooke on Twitter @Brooke_Medina_
About The Digital Public Square
Brooke was one of the contributing writers to the recently published book The Digital Public Square. In The Digital Public Square, editor Jason Thacker has chosen top Christian voices to help the church navigate the issues of censorship, conspiracy theories, sexual ethics, hate speech, religious freedom, and tribalism. Many of the contributing writers (David French, Bonnie Kristian, Bryan Baise, and Brooke Medina) have been prior guests on the Saving Elephants show.
Among the very-online, relatively young, and mostly male cohorts of the Right is a movement growing in popularity and intensity that valorizes the very excesses the Left criticizes as toxic masculinity. This movement, promulgated by the likes of Bronze Age Pervert and Mencius Moldbug and defended or even praised by a surprising array of mainstream conservative outlets, has captured the attention of many a young man yearning for a deeper sense of purpose and pursuits in an age of secular materialism and Leftist wokism.
In this episode Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by National Review Online submissions editor Jack Butler who contends that the West’s spiritual vacuum has made it possible for pre-Christian paganism to gain a foothold in the culture and that a return to an authentic faith is the only plausible means of combatting this worrisome trend.
About Jack Butler
Jack Butler is a researcher, editor, and writer who currently works as submissions editor at National Review Online. Jack is a media fellow for the Institute for Human Ecology, and a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow at the Fund for American Studies. He was the original producer of The Remnant podcast with Jonah Goldberg and host of the Young Americans podcast. Jack is an alumnus of Hillsdale College and a graduate of St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati, his hometown. He is also an avid long-distance runner. You can follow Jack on Twitter @jackbutler4815.
In 1948 Whittaker Chambers shocked the nation when, while testifying before Congress, he gave the names of individuals he claimed were working within the United States government as Communist spies for the Soviet Union. Among those named was Alger Hiss, Chamber’s close friend and former Communist comrade. The ensuing trial quickly divided the nation into competing narratives. Who was lying and who was telling the truth? Was Chambers insane or, perhaps, seeking to destroy Hiss due to some personal grievance? Was this merely a pretext to the coming Communist “purges” under the McCarthy hearings that took place a few years later? Or had Chambers alerted the nation to the fact there were Soviet spies deep within the government and the prevailing liberal elite of that era had failed completely to respond to the threat?
Sam Tanenhaus, American historian, biographer, and journalist joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to take a deep dive into the remarkable life of Whittaker Chambers, including how Chambers came to break with Communism, whether Hiss was truly guilty, the real threat of Communism of that era, what the Chambers/Hiss trial came to represent for the nation as a whole, Chamber’s association with William F. Buckley and the burgeoning conservative movement, and his lasting impact on the Right.
About Sam Tanenhaus
Sam Tanenhaus is the US Writer at Large for Prospect and the editor of both The New York Times Book Review and the Week in Review section of the Times. From 1999 to 2004 he was a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, where he wrote often on politics. His work has also appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, and many other publications. Tanenhaus’s book, Whittaker Chambers: A Biography, won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and was a finalist for both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. His books also include The Death of Conservatism and a soon-to-be-released biography of William F. Buckley Jr. and is the US Writer at Large for Prospect.
Perhaps no other individual (or person, for the benefit of the Kirkian insider) was more responsible for resuscitating intellectual conservatism back to life in the mid Twentieth century than Russell Kirk. Today, Kirk’s efforts to recover and conserve the “Permanent Things” lives on at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal. Co-founder and Vice Chair of the Russell Kirk Center, Jeff Nelson, joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to explore the legacy of Russell Kirk and its lasting impact on the conservative movement today.
About Jeff Nelson
From the Kirk Center bio:
Jeff Nelson co-founded the Kirk Center with Annette Kirk and is currently Vice Chairman of the Center’s Board of Trustees. He served in 1986 and again in 1989 as Dr. Kirk’s personal assistant.
Dr. Nelson is Executive Vice President of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (Wilmington, Delaware). He also served as president of the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts (Merrimack, NH). He received his B.A. at the University of Detroit, an M.A. at Yale University Divinity School, and was awarded his Ph.D. in American History at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
Dr. Nelson founded ISI Books, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s now nationally recognized publishing imprint, in 1993. Under his direction, more than 110 books were published. During that time he also edited two respected journals of thought and opinion: The Intercollegiate Review and The University Bookman, and is publisher of Studies in Burke and His Time. He also is senior fellow of both the International G. K. Chesterton Institute (Toronto, ON) and the Centre for the Study of Faith and Culture in Oxford, England; and he is secretary of the Edmund Burke Society of America.
Dr. Nelson has edited two book collections: Redeeming the Time by Russell Kirk, and Perfect Sowing: Reflections of a Bookman by Henry Regnery; he co-edited an award-winning treasury of the historian John Lukacs’ writings entitled Remembered Past; and was project director of the popular national college guide, Choosing the Right College: The Whole Truth About America’s Top Schools. Dr. Nelson was featured in a New York Times front-page news article about a major reference work he co-edited, American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia; and he is series editor of The Library of Modern Thinkers. Jeff Nelson is a frequent and popular guest on radio and television talk shows across the country.
You can follow Jeff on Twitter @JeffOttoNelson
About The Russell Kirk Center
The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal is located in Kirk’s ancestral village of Mecosta, Michigan. It is at its heart a residential research and study center, a community of fellow travelers that lives together in the Center’s six cottages, and gathers in the Kirk Library of some 15,000 books and in the family house, where ideas and community join in what Dr. Kirk used to describe, borrowing from Tolkien, as the Last Homely House. Like his hero Edmund Burke, Kirk is a perennial thinker, anti-materialist and a Christian humanist. At the Kirk Center and in the writing of Kirk, generations connect, community and tradition live, the politics of prudence and humility extolled, and imagination, religion, and key societal beliefs, practices, and institutions studied with a view toward cultural renewal. Inspired by Russell Kirk, the Kirk Center cherishes the Permanent Things as the best way to enliven the conservative mind and to re-enchant our world.
And so I hope listeners of this podcast will visit the Kirk Center website, kirkcenter.org. Sign up for the Center’s newsletter, Permanent Things, and find great classic Kirk content regularly curated by Cecilia Kirk Nelson. Finally, one of the premier conservative book review publications, The University Bookman, posts new book reviews each weekend and has its own weekly e-newsletter that features reviews and interesting content from other groups and podcasts, including the occasional Saving Elephants episode.
Book Recommendations
Here are four of Jeff Nelson’s book recommendations on Russell Kirk:
First, James Person’s Russell Kirk: A Critical Biography of a Conservative Mind is a wonderful introduction to Kirk and the key areas of his thought.
Second, as mentioned, Bradley Birzer’s Russell Kirk: American Conservative is a thoroughly researched standard biographical treatment that is both insightful and lively.
Third, Gerald Russello’s The Post Modern Imagination of Russell Kirk is one of the best analyses of Kirk’s thought and the role that both ideas and imagination play in it.
Finally, for a discussion and application of Kirk’s understanding of the Moral Imagination, especially as a kind of process or mode of knowledge, through the prism of great children’s literature, Vigen Guroian’s Tending the Heart of Virtue is especially good.
Our digital world is saturated in “facts” but there’s little agreement on what constitutes “truth”. If we can no longer agree on what sources of information can be reliable, is civil debate even possible? To what degree is the problem exacerbated by social media? To what degree is this simply a problem of human nature? Bonnie Kristian joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the knowledge crisis and our inability to reach consensus on what constitutes truth. Bonnie also shares her thoughts the challenges of unplugging from the digital world, whether our current woes are likely to get better in the near future, becoming better consumers of news, and dealing with people who we believe hold false views.
About Bonnie Kristian
Bonnie Kristian is a journalist and author specializing in foreign policy, religion, and politics. Her column, "The Lesser Kingdom," appears in print and online at Christianity Today and her writings have appeared at The New York Times, The Week, USA Today, CNN, Politico, Reason, and The Daily Beast. She is the author of two books: Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community and A Flexible Faith: Rethinking What It Means to Follow Jesus Today. Bonnie is also a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank.
A graduate of Bethel Seminary, she lives in Pittsburgh with her husband and twin sons. You can follow Bonnie on her Substack and on Twitter @bonniekristian
What do Russell Kirk and Martin Luther King Jr. have in common? Though they’re traditionally depicted as coming from opposing political orientations, National Ambassador for Braver Angels John Wood Jr. believes a deeper understanding of their religious convictions and societal aspirations reveals an important commonality between these two men. And this commonality points us to the restoration of tradition and community.
John Wood Jr. joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis as they explore what value Kirk and King symbolize in the conservative project of restoration. They also discuss whether Jesus can heal our political divide, the role of faith in politics, and what John’s experiences as a black conservative has taught him.
About John Wood Jr.
John Wood Jr. is the National Ambassador for Braver Angels—the largest bipartisan, grassroots organization in the United States that seeks to depolarize our politics. In 2014, Wood was the Republican nominee for California’s 43rd congressional district and ran against the formidable 17-term Maxine Waters. Wood has served as Vice-Chair of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, America’s largest county-level Republican party. He is a musical artist and a noted writer and speaker on subjects including racial and political reconciliation. You can find him on Twitter at @JohnRWoodJr
The conservative tradition embodies centuries of accumulated wisdom from some of the brightest and most inspiring thinkers you’ll find. Yet for the young conservative eager to learn more about this tradition, choosing which books to read can be a daunting task.
Most online lists of top conservative books contain familiar titles of classic tomes that inspire and challenge readers to this day. Yet far too often such lists also include authors such as Charlie Kirk, Ann Coulter, Sebastian Gorka, Dinesh D’Souza, Dan Bongino, and Mike Lindell who, while they may be gifted at inflicting liberal tears, have nothing of value to say on behalf of their supposed conservative convictions. There is so much more to conservatism than owning the libs and brandishing firearms in your social media profile picture. What’s more, many lists are inflated with works on libertarian, patriotic, religious, or cultural topics that, important though they may be, are only tangential to conservatism.
It is particularly challenging for us younger conservatives to cut through the noise on the Right today to explore the deeper, auspicious truths of our rich heritage. As such, I’ve compiled a list of 40 must-read conservative books worth your time and attention for this episode. Whether you read all, some, or only one below, you will be getting a healthy dose of conservative thought that cuts through the banality of most political discourse and gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be a conservative.
It would be an impossibility to rank these books in order of importance, relevance, insightfulness, readability, etc. As such, I have opted to list the titles alphabetically. There is no perfect place to start; just find a book that strikes your interest and dive in!
In this episode I cover the second twenty books in the list. If you want to hear the first twenty check out episode 126. Here are the books I cover in this episode:
Heaven Can Indeed Fall: The Life of Willmoore Kendall – Christopher Owen
How to be a Conservative – Roger Scruton
I, Pencil – Leonard Read
Ideas Have Consequences – Richard Weaver
In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays – Frank Meyer
Intellectuals and Society – Thomas Sowell
Natural Right and History – Leo Strauss
Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea – Irving Kristol
The Quest for Community – Robert Nisbet
Rationalism in Politics – Michael Oakeshott
The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism – Leo Strauss
Reflections on the Revolution in France – Edmund Burke
The Right – Matthew Continetti
The Road to Serfdom – F. A. Hayek
Suicide of the West – Jonah Goldberg
The Vision of the Anointed – Thomas Sowell
The Theft of a Decade – Joseph Sternberg
Them – Ben Sasse
What Is Conservatism? – Frank Meyer
Witness – Whittaker Chambers
The conservative tradition embodies centuries of accumulated wisdom from some of the brightest and most inspiring thinkers you’ll find. Yet for the young conservative eager to learn more about this tradition, choosing which books to read can be a daunting task.
Most online lists of top conservative books contain familiar titles of classic tomes that inspire and challenge readers to this day. Yet far too often such lists also include authors such as Charlie Kirk, Ann Coulter, Sebastian Gorka, Dinesh D’Souza, Dan Bongino, and Mike Lindell who, while they may be gifted at inflicting liberal tears, have nothing of value to say on behalf of their supposed conservative convictions. There is so much more to conservatism than owning the libs and brandishing firearms in your social media profile picture. What’s more, many lists are inflated with works on libertarian, patriotic, religious, or cultural topics that, important though they may be, are only tangential to conservatism.
It is particularly challenging for us younger conservatives to cut through the noise on the Right today to explore the deeper, auspicious truths of our rich heritage. As such, I’ve compiled a list of 40 must-read conservative books worth your time and attention for this episode. Whether you read all, some, or only one below, you will be getting a healthy dose of conservative thought that cuts through the banality of most political discourse and gain a deeper understanding of what it means to be a conservative.
It would be an impossibility to rank these books in order of importance, relevance, insightfulness, readability, etc. As such, I have opted to list the titles alphabetically. There is no perfect place to start; just find a book that strikes your interest and dive in!
In this episode I cover the first twenty books in the list:
A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
A Time to Build – Yuval Levin
The Abolition of Man – C. S Lewis
Basic Economics – Thomas Sowell
Black Rednecks and White Liberals – Thomas Sowell
Coming Apart – Charles Murray
The Conscience of a Conservative – Barry Goldwater
The Conservative Affirmation – Willmoore Kendall
The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 – George H. Nash
The Conservative Mind – Russell Kirk
The Constitution of Liberty – F. A. Hayek
Democracy in America – Alexis de Tocqueville
Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered – Russell Kirk
The Fatal Conceit – F.A. Hayek
The Federalist Papers – Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands – Roger Scruton
Free to Choose – Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman
God and Man at Yale – William F. Buckley Jr.
The Great Debate – Yuval Levin
The Gulag Archipelago – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
In response to America’s rapidly polarizing political divide a number of organizations have developed to try and turn down the heat. Braver Angels is the nation’s largest movement dedicated to bridging the partisan gap. Their website boasts that they are “equally balanced between conservatives and progressives at every level of leadership”. Back in episode 118, Mónica Guzmán with Braver Angels joined Josh to discuss how we might develop our sense of curiosity to bridge the partisanships. Mónica comes from the Left. In this episode Josh welcomes Elizabeth Doll with Braver Angels who hails from the Right. They discuss how an older and younger Millennial might differ in their political memories, whether conservatives ought to be reactionaries, what the Left and Right frequently misunderstand about the “other side”, and a surprisingly unexpected dive into the vernacular of progressive America.
About Elizabeth Doll
From Braver Angels:
Elizabeth Doll joined Braver Angels in March 2022 as the Director of Braver Politics after four years of volunteering with the organization and many years working in politics in the Pacific Northwest. She began political work as a teen, when, while interning on a Congressional campaign, she became passionate about improving her community through civic engagement. Since then, Elizabeth has consulted for and worked on many state and local campaigns. She and her husband live on Bainbridge Island and when not engaged in politics, she enjoys photography, hiking, and horseback riding. You can follow Elizabeth on Twitter @doll_elizabeth
Populism is on the rise today—or so we’re told. But what is populism? Is it something to be feared or should it only be concerning to those dastardly elites? Is populism a political movement of the Left or the Right? Is it only a phenomenon of the politics of today, or has populism existed in some form throughout our nation’s history? Does populism protect the individual from powerful interests or endanger our liberties? How does populism fit into the conservative tradition?
Josh is joined by Shikha Dalmia of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University to delve into these very questions. While the first half of this atypically long episode explores populism, the latter end of the conversation covers the various factions of the New Right. Factions Shikha has dubbed the Flight 93ers, the Integralists, the National Conservatives, and the Red-Pilled Anarcho Bros. While traditional conservatives can find some value in all four groups, ultimately they represent a departure from the conservative view.
About Shikha Dalmia
From Shikha’s bio at the Mercatus Center:
Shikha Dalmia is a visiting fellow with the Mercatus Center’s Program on Pluralism and Civil Exchange whose work focuses on populist authoritarianism. Previously, Dalmia was a writer at Reason Magazine and a senior analyst at Reason Foundation, a nonprofit think tank. She is a columnist at The Week, and writes regularly for Bloomberg View, The New York Times, USA Today, and numerous other publications. From 1996-2004, Dalmia was an editorial writer at Detroit News.
Dalmia has an M.A. in Mass Communication from Louisiana State University and a B.S. in Chemistry and Biology from the University of Delhi. You can subscribe to Dalmia’s substack, The UnPopulist, dedicated to defending open liberal societies from populist authoritarian attacks. And can follow Shikha on Twitter @shikhadalmia
1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton who, for obvious reasons, is more commonly referred to as simply Lord Acton, was a 19th century writer, historian, and member of the British parliament whose contributions to history, faith, and politics are largely forgotten beyond his most famous quote: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Joining Josh to explore just why Acton was important and why he’s worth studying today is Dan Hugger from the apply named Acton Institute.
About Dan Hugger
From Dan’s bio: Dan Hugger is librarian and research associate at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty. He writes and speaks on questions of education, history, political economy, and religion, and is the editor of two books: Lord Acton: Historical and Moral Essays and The Humane Economist: A Wilhelm Röpke Reader.
About the Acton Institute
From Acton’s website: The Acton Institute was founded in 1990 in Grand Rapids, Michigan as a think-tank whose mission is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. This direction recognizes the benefits of a limited government, but also the beneficent consequences of a free market. It embraces an objective framework of moral values, but also recognizes and appreciates the subjective nature of economic value. It views justice as a duty of all to give the one his due but, more importantly, as an individual obligation to serve the common good and not just his own needs and wants. In order to promote a more profound understanding of the coming together of faith and liberty, Acton involves members of religious, business, and academic spheres in its various seminars, publications, and academic activities.
Links to resources mentioned in the conversation:
Russell Kirk’s last public address—at the Acton Institute—offering his critiques of Lord Acton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCz023vKs98
Lord Acton: A Study in Conscience and Politics
https://shop.acton.org/products/lord-acton-a-study-in-conscience-and-politics?_pos=3&_sid=937cdddbd&_ss=r
Lord Acton: Historical and Moral Essays
https://shop.acton.org/products/lord-acton-historical-and-moral-essays?_pos=2&_sid=937cdddbd&_ss=r
Selected Writings of Lord Acton
https://www.libertyfund.org/books/selected-writings-of-lord-acton/
Lord Acton: Historian and Moralist
https://shop.acton.org/products/lord-acton-historian-and-moralist?_pos=1&_sid=937cdddbd&_ss=r
Lord Acton
https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Acton-Roland-Hill/dp/0300181272/ref=sr_1_8?crid=V218N459WQDX&keywords=lord+acton&qid=1673632551&qu=eyJxc2MiOiI0LjAzIiwicXNhIjoiMy45MCIsInFzcCI6IjMuNzkifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=lord+acton%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-8&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc
Bradley Birzer’s piece on Seven Conservative Minds
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/seven-conservative-minds/
Late last year Jonathan Cole had Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis on his podcast, The Political Animals, to talk about the quirkiness of American conservatism, the rise of the NatCons, and whether there’s any hope for Josh’s brand of fusionist conservatism in the future. The conversation was simply too good not to share, so here is a re-podcast of Jonathan’s original episode.
About Jonathan Cole
From Jonathan Cole’s website:
Dr Jonathan Cole is a scholar, writer, translator and lecturer specializing in political theology—the intersection between religion and politics.
He is currently Assistant Director of Research at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture at Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australia, and host of The Political Animals Podcast: "Honest conversations about the political, theological and cultural ideas that shape who we are in the 21st century."
He has a PhD in political theology from CSU, an MA in Islamic theology and Middle Eastern politics from the Australian National University and a BA Hons in Modern Greek language and history from La Trobe University. He speaks Greek.
He spent 13 years working in a number of Australian federal government departments and agencies in Canberra, including seven years in intelligence, most recently as a Senior Terrorism Analyst at the Office of National Assessments (2010–2014).
Follow Jonathan on Facebook, Twitter, or Academia for his latest content.
CenterClip
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is honored to share he’s joined the small but growing team of contributors at CenterClip, an exciting, new audio content platform featuring elevated political discourse. CenterClip is a free app with short audio clips from established political pundits, journalists, commentators, and politicians from across the political spectrum. All content is created and heard within the CenterClip app, including contributors interacting with each other’s posts covering political commentary in real time. Download the app today and enjoy its elevated discourse.
While Saving Elephants is targeted to younger Americans, more and more Millennials cannot be counted among “the kids these days”. Today’s college students belong to Gen Z, and they are coming of age in one of the most turbulent political shifts and ideological realignments over the past half century. What are conservatives to make of this next generation? What challenges and opportunities do they present? Joining Josh to delve into this and more is Scott Howard, Gen Z representative and student at the University of Florida who possesses a remarkably Reaganite approach to politics in spite of his young age.
Josh and Scott discuss whether Gen Z is truly more woke than older generations, what's it like being a conservative on campus, the challenges “conservative” organizations like TPUSA and spokespeople like Charlie Kirk present to those who believe conservatism is about more than spreading liberal tears, the influence of nationalist populism among the young, and whether DeSantis is a viable alternative for the Trump-skeptical Republican.
About Scott Howard
Originally hailing from South Dakota, Scott Howard is a political science major at the University of Florida. He’s a contributor to Lone Conservative, guest contributor to National Review, and writes his own newsletter The Conservative Muse.
You can follow Scott on Twitter @ConservaMuse
In 1953 sociologist Robert Nisbet published his most famous work The Quest for Community, arguing for the necessity of association to the human experience and the harm inflicted upon communities when they are deprived of their function. Traditional conservatism has long upheld Nisbet’s teachings as a reminder that we are not purely material beings with strictly economic interests. Josh welcomes Luke Sheahan to this episode to discuss his efforts to pick up where Nisbet left off in fighting for the viability and flourishing of human associations, how the courts have gotten off-kilter in rulings regarding our freedom to associate, and why associations matter to each and every one of us.
About Luke Sheahan
From Luke’s website: Luke Sheahan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Duquesne University and a Non-Resident Scholar at the Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society (PRRUCS) at the University of Pennsylvania. He researches the intersection of First Amendment rights and political theory. Sheahan’s scholarly articles and reviews have appeared in The Political Science Reviewer, Humanitas, Anamnesis, and The Journal of Value Inquiry and he has lectured widely on religious liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. He is author of Why Associations Matter: The Case for First Amendment Pluralism. He is writing a second book tentatively titled “Pluralism and Toleration: Difference, Justice, and the Social Group.”
From 2018-2019, Sheahan was Associate Director and Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Freedom Project at Wellesley College and from 2016-2018, Sheahan was a Postdoctoral Associate and Research Fellow in the Department of Political Science at Duke University. He received a PhD and MA in political theory from the Catholic University of America and a B.S. in political science from the Honors College at Oregon State University. He is a five-time recipient of the Humane Studies Fellowship from the Institute for Humane Studies, a 2014 recipient of the Richard M. Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and a 2018 recipient of the Leonard P. Liggio Memorial Fellowship.
In July of this year the Russell Kirk Center announced the appointment of Dr. Luke C. Sheahan as the fifth editor in the history of The University Bookman, originally established by none other than Russell Kirk, seeking to redeem the time by identifying and discussing those books that diagnose the modern age and support the renewal of culture and the common good.
You can follow Luke on Twitter @lsheahan
What is the great economic challenge of our times? Is it inflation? Rising inequality? Artificially low interest rates? Economist David Bahnsen joins Josh to discuss why excessive government debt and our slow-growth or no-growth economy risks the Japanification of the United States. While some warn of a financial apocalypse, David argues that a more realistic threat is continued lack of productive output and increasing discontents if we don’t reverse course. Also discussed are how supply side economists can respond to the Left’s critiques of the free market in the wake of the Great Recession and how Edmund Burke best represents American conservatism.
About David Bahnsen
From David’s website:
David L. Bahnsen is the founder, Managing Partner, and Chief Investment Officer of The Bahnsen Group, a bi-coastal private wealth management firm with offices in Newport Beach, CA, New York City, Minneapolis, and Nashville managing over $3.5 billion in client assets. David is consistently named as one of the top financial advisors in America by Barron’s, Forbes, and the Financial Times. He is a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business and is a regular contributor to National Review and Forbes. He has written his own political viewpoint blog for over a decade.
David serves on the Board of Directors for the National Review Institute and was the Vice-President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County for eight years. He is a committed donor and activist across all spectrums of national, state, and local politics, and views the cause of Buckley and Reagan as the need of the hour.
David is passionate about opposition to crony capitalism, and has lectured and written for years about the need for pro-growth economic policy. Every part of his political worldview stems from a desire to see greater freedom as a catalyst to greater human flourishing.
He is the author of the book, Crisis of Responsibility: Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It and his most recent book, There’s No Free Lunch: 250 Economic Truths.
His ultimate passions are his lovely wife of 18+ years, Joleen, their gorgeous and brilliant children, sons Mitchell and Graham, and daughter Sadie, and the life they’ve created together in Newport Beach, California.
Listener Mail
At the end of the episode, Josh responds to a listener’s question about book recommendations for those interested in conservatism. Below are the books included in his response:
The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot by Russell Kirk
How to be a Conservative by Roger Scruton
What Is Conservatism? by Frank Meyer
Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea by Irving Kristol
The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 by George Nash
The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism by Matthew Continetti
Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke
The Great Debate by Yuval Levin
Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered by Russell Kirk
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
The Fatal Conceit by F.A. Hayek
I, Pencil by Leonard Read
Suicide of the West by Jonah Goldberg
Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell
A Conflict of Vision by Thomas Sowell
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by Roger Scruton
Them by Ben Sasse
A Time to Build by Yuval Levin
Mónica Guzmán joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis as they reach across the political divide to explore how the Left and Right might better engage one another in respectful debate. Mónica shares her experiences as a liberal living in deep, blue Seattle yet grappling with her immigrant parent’s support for Trump. They also discuss the limitations of reason to resolve our differences, why viewing people as complex and not merely complicated helps us bridge divides, and why Mónica has hope for a brighter future.
About Mónica Guzmán
Per her website, Mónica Guzmán is Senior Fellow for Public Practice at Braver Angels, a nonprofit working to depolarize America, host of Crosscut’s interview series Civic Cocktail, and author of I Never Thought Of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times.
Moni was a 2019 fellow at the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, where she studied social and political division, and a 2016 fellow at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, where she studied how journalists can better meet the needs of a participatory public.
Before committing to the project of helping people understand each other across the political divide, Mónica cofounded the award-winning Seattle newsletter The Evergrey and led a national network of groundbreaking local newsletters as VP of Local for WhereBy.Us.
She was named one of the 50 most influential women in Seattle, served twice as a juror for the Pulitzer Prizes, and plays a barbarian named Shadrack in her besties' Dungeons & Dragons campaign.
American conservatism has long struggled to reconcile the American Revolution with a worldview that defers to the slow accretion of cultural and historical development over generations. Yet some nations followed this more “conservative” path. How might American conservatism appear to them? Joining Josh in this episode is bona fide conservative and Australian Jonathan Cole to discuss how Australian conservatism differs from both the American and British models and what each of us might learn from the other. Also discussed are how Jonathan defines conservatism, whether it’s an ideology or the negation of ideology, why conservatives are over-focused on power dynamics and have lost sight of the whole-life perspective of conservatism, how Australians view the politics of America, how American political culture impacts Australia, and the implications of the rise of China.
About Jonathan Cole
From Jonathan Cole’s website:
Dr Jonathan Cole is a scholar, writer, translator and lecturer specializing in political theology—the intersection between religion and politics.
He is currently Assistant Director of Research at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture at Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australia, and host of The Political Animals Podcast: "Honest conversations about the political, theological and cultural ideas that shape who we are in the 21st century."
He has a PhD in political theology from CSU, an MA in Islamic theology and Middle Eastern politics from the Australian National University and a BA Hons in Modern Greek language and history from La Trobe University. He speaks Greek.
He spent 13 years working in a number of Australian federal government departments and agencies in Canberra, including seven years in intelligence, most recently as a Senior Terrorism Analyst at the Office of National Assessments (2010–2014).
Follow Jonathan on Facebook, Twitter, or Academia for his latest content.
In an age where what passes for the archetype conservative are the likes of Candace Owens, Bill Mitchell, Sean Hannity, Matt Gaetz, Tomi Lahren, and Donald Trump, it can be discouraging for those of us who take pride in the rich legacy and colorful history of thinkers on the Right to be associated with such grifters, demagogues, and charlatans.
Trying to define conservatism is challenging and trying to compile a list of individuals who best exemplify conservatism is problematic. Yet this is becoming increasingly important in a world where “conservatism” is quickly being coopted by reactionary nationalist populists who have little to nothing in common with the namesake.
In this episode Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis offers his list of conservative thinkers well worthy of your time and attention.
Disclaimer
This list is imperfect and incomplete. If I were to revisit the list next year or possibly even next week, I’m sure there are plenty of names I’d believe should supplant the names here. Some of these individuals may even be uncomfortable with the label “conservative”, though they all share aspects of the broader conservative worldview. The names below are not listed in order of preference or importance, but they are all insightful and noteworthy.
The fifty individuals discussed in this episode are noted below. If you’d like to learn more about each one you can check out the original blog post of Fifty Conservative Thinkers for a brief bio and links.
Josh’s (Incomplete) List of Fifty Conservative Thinkers Worth Your Time
Edmund Burke
Milton Friedman
Wilhelm Röpke
David Bahnsen
F.A. Hayek
John Adams
Frederick Douglass
Thomas Sowell
James Madison
Barry Goldwater
Ronald Reagan
Bradley J. Birzer
Russell Kirk
Matthew Continetti
David French
Gertrude Himmelfarb
George Nash
Stephen J. Tonsor
Roger Scruton
Jacques Ellul
Whittaker Chambers
Michael Oakeshott
Eric Voegelin
Timothy Carney
C.S. Lewis
G.K. Chesterton
Jonah Goldberg
Wendell Berry
T.S. Eliot
Ross Douthat
Mary Eberstadt
- Stanton Evans
Irving Kristol
George Will
William F. Buckley
Kristen Soltis Anderson
Robert Nisbet
Carly Fiorina
Arthur Brooks
Marian Tupy
Charles Marohn
Patrick Deneen
Harry Jaffa
Walter Williams
Frank S. Meyer
Alexis de Tocqueville
Lord Acton
Leo Stauss
Willmoore Kendall
Yuval Levin
With the end of Roe, the pro-life movement scores a major victory in the fight to protect the life of the unborn. But does this victory signify the end or is it merely the beginning of a new set of challenges and uncertainty in a world that doesn’t always embrace life? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Kimberly Ross to discuss what a post-Roe world looks like for the pro-life movement and where to go from here.
About Kimberly Ross
Kimberly Ross is a freelance conservative writer. Her work regularly appears in The Washington Examiner, both online and the print magazine, and The Mirror magazine, a monthly publication from Aid to the Church in Need. Her archive of published work can be found at RedState, Arc Digital, The Bulwark, Rare, and USA Today.
As a mother of two and self-described "first wave feminist", she is most passionate about the rights of children, women, and the issue of abortion. She considers herself an independent conservative (not to be confused with conservative independent), and is beholden to no politician.
Kimberly has a B.A. in history with graduate work in political science. You can follow Kimberly on Twitter @southernkeeks
Earlier this summer, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis joined three other veteran podcasters to launch a new show: Are We Right? Cal Davenport, Brooke Medina, and Calvin Moore, and Josh debate a wide range of topics from politics to religion to culture and invite the audience to weigh in on whether or not they’re right. A recent episode featured Calvin quizzing Josh and Cal on why they embrace a conservative worldview. And even though Cal and Josh are in violent agreement during much of the conversation, there’s plenty of nuance and jargon to satiate the politically curious listener. This conversation was quite apropos for the Saving Elephants project, so it is being re-podcast as a Saving Elephants episode.
Hosts of Are We Right?
Cal Davenport – Fellow Burkean conservative and co-host of his own podcast, In The Trenches, Cal brings a wealth of sobriety and insights far beyond his years.
Josh Lewis – Needs no introduction.
Calvin Moore – Veteran podcaster and host of the progressive Christian podcast What's Left to Say who keeps the conversation from succumbing to violent agreement by offering the progressive alternative.
Brooke Nicole – Vice President of Communications for the John Locke Foundation and eternal optimist in an age of despair, Brooke manages to keep the boys in line and shift the ridged, patriarchal structure of the show to a softer, joyful place.
You can find the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Amazon, Audible, or wherever you listen, find us on Twitter @ TheAWRPodcast, and email us at arewerightpodcast@gmail.com.
https://open.spotify.com/show/1EzCyrKtiH7qfgvvDxS7KG
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/are-we-right/id1626743255
https://www.stitcher.com/show/are-we-right-707890
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d963d689-6630-4c8f-9c36-8360292c53fa/are-we-right?refMarker=null&returnFromLogin=1&
https://www.audible.com/pd/Are-We-Right-Podcast/B0B2NBFG82
The Orthodox Christian faith is a growing yet tiny minority in the Christendom body in the United States. Yet they are growing in strength and numbers on the broader American Right. Which suggests that Orthodoxy may exert its influence on the conservative movement of the future. What traditions does the faith hold that may bolster and modify conservatism? What challenges are there in seeking to fuse a predominantly Eastern religion with the politics of the West? How do practicing Orthodox view Russia’s war in Ukraine? Can Orthodoxy be a gateway for those who become radicalized on the Right? Returning guest and Greek Orthodox practitioner Christopher Chesny joins Josh to answer all this and more.
About Christopher Chesny
Christopher Chesny is a conservative activist who has been involved in Republican and conservative politics for almost two decades. After his political awakening at a young age after the 2000 Election and 9/11, he began to engage in the public policy process in a myriad of ways before graduating high school, and that engagement has continued through college up to the present day. This has included academic public policy research, journalism covering state governmental bodies including legislatures and executive and judicial branch agencies, being elected to various party offices and as an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention, lobbying legislators for conservative causes both in an activist and professional capacity, managing social media accounts for conservative groups, and most significantly volunteering and sometimes professionally managing and consulting political campaigns in multiple states across the country.
Currently living in Virginia outside of Washington, D.C., Christopher was born in Oklahoma City and grew up outside Tulsa, and received his B.A. with a Major in Political Science and Minors in History and Economics from Arizona State University, and later his Master's Degree in Public Administration from the University of Oklahoma. Besides specializing in American political history and psephology (the study of elections) since the Second World War, he is a fan of history and geography from most every era in most every part of the world, especially the history of different religious faiths. Besides keeping up with current events, he is also an armchair cinephile and an avid fan of both classical music and rock 'n roll, especially alternative rock and its offshoots from the 1980s through to the present day.
You can find Chris on Twitter at @ChrisChesny89
Fellow geriatric millennial Eric Kohn joins Josh to discuss what keeps the Acton Institute anchored in turbulent political waters, the proper role for libertarian ideas in conservatism, the dangers of religious zeal in political ideologies, and what’s wrong with conservative kids these days.
About Eric Kohn
From Acton Institute's website:
Eric Kohn is director of marketing and communications at the Acton Institute. In that role, he works to bring Acton's vision of a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles to a wider audience. Every week he hosts Acton Unwind, Acton's roundtable podcast, and he's a part-time host of Acton Line, Acton's weekly interview podcast.
He's an associate producer of the award-winning THE HONG KONGER: JIMMY LAI'S EXTRAORDINARY STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM, the newest documentary feature film from the Acton Institute, released in 2022.
Prior to joining Acton, Eric was director of community management at the Illinois Policy Institute, one of the nation's premier state-based think tanks. He was also the founder and CEO of Curious Task Strategies, a public affairs consulting firm. For more than 10 years, Eric led the Chicago chapter of America’s Future Foundation, an organization dedicated to developing the next generation of classical liberal leaders in Chicago.
From 2019 to 2021, Eric co-hosted Sources with Knowledge along with Joe Kaiser on News/Talk 560 The Answer in Chicago. He previously hosted The Eric Kohn Program on 1530-AM WJJG, and has guest-hosted the nationally syndicated The Guy Benson Show, Illinois Watchdog Radio on Cities 92.9FM in Bloomington-Normal, and Chicago’s Morning Answer on News/Talk 560 The Answer. He has appeared as a guest host and commentator on Beyond the Beltway with Bruce DuMont, Extension 720 with Milt Rosenberg, The Michael Koolidge Show, WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, and numerous news broadcasts in the Chicagoland area. Eric’s writings have appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, The Detroit News, the Belleville News-Democrat, and other publications.
Eric grew up in Belleville, Ill., and is a graduate of Millikin University in Decatur, Ill. He lives in Grand Rapids, Mich., with his wife and two children. You can follow Eric on Twitter @iEricKohn
Matthew Continetti’s new book The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism has instigated a vigorous conversation around the best way to understand the historical phenomenon of modern conservatism in the United States. Returning guest Avi Woolf joins Josh for a discussion on what Continetti’s depiction gets right and not-so-right about American conservatism, what has conservatism conserved, and what ought conservatism to conserve in the future.
About Avi Woolf
Avi Woolf is a writer, editor, translator, and podcaster whose work has been published in Arc Digital, Commentary, National Review, The Bulwark, Ordinary Times, and The Dispatch. He is chief editor of the online Medium publication Conservative Pathways, and he—in his words—"hopes to help forge a path for a conservatism which is relevant for the 21st century while not abandoning the best of past wisdom.”
Avi has been a guest on the show several times prior: the first in which he explored the need for conservatism to find a way to appeal to people who live in urban areas in Episode 26 – Urban Conservatism, the second in which he mulled over the love/hate relationship the Right has long had with institutions of higher education in Episode 49 – God and the Speechless at Yale, and, finally, where he considered what is America and what does it mean to be an American in Episode 87 – E Pluribus Unum with Avi Woolf.
Avi hosts his own podcast entitled Avi’s Conversational Corner, a podcast on culture, history, and politics in a broad perspective. You can find Avi on Twitter @AviWoolf
Introducing the Are We Right? Podcast
If you like Saving Elephants you’ll love the new podcast Are We Right? featuring Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis along with three other co-hosts: Cal Davenport, Brooke Medina, and Calvin Moore. Cal, Josh Brooke, and Calvin debate a wide range of topics from politics to religion to culture and invite the audience to weigh in on whether or not they’re right. You can find the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen, find us on Twitter @ TheAWRPodcast, and email us at arewerightpodcast@gmail.com.
Founded in the early 1950s, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) sought to fill the gaping void in higher education where progressive ideas were in vogue and conservative ones were ignored or attacked. Under the leadership of their first president, a young journalist named William F. Buckley Jr., ISI began mentoring young men and women to become eloquent defenders of the principles of liberty. And they have continued this legacy on to today.
In this episode Josh is joined by ISI National Director of Student Programs Marlo Slayback to talk about the work of the organization, her personal journey to conservatism, the role of religion and political worldview, and what it’s like for conservatives on campus today.
About Marlo Slayback
Marlo Slayback is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh, where she studied political science and poetry. She is a former ISI Collegiate Network fellow at National Review and led an ISI Society on her campus, where she also helped launch a Collegiate Network newspaper. Marlo is a 2021 Publius Fellow with the Claremont Institute and joined the ISI team after working as an education and culture reporter at the Daily Caller. She is a freelance writer and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Spectator US, The Lamp, and the University Bookman. You can follow Marlo on Twitter @marlo_safi
Esteemed AEI scholar Matthew Continetti returns to the podcast for a woefully brief overview of his latest book, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism
From the book’s description:
When most people think of the history of modern conservatism, they think of Ronald Reagan. Yet this narrow view leaves many to question: How did Donald Trump win the presidency? And what is the future of the Republican Party?
In The Right, Matthew Continetti gives a sweeping account of movement conservatism’s evolution, from the Progressive Era through the present. He tells the story of how conservatism began as networks of intellectuals, developing and institutionalizing a vision that grew over time, until they began to buckle under new pressures, resembling national populist movements. Drawing out the tensions between the desire for mainstream acceptance and the pull of extremism, Continetti argues that the more one studies conservatism’s past, the more one becomes convinced of its future.
Deeply researched and brilliantly told, The Right is essential reading for anyone looking to understand American conservatism.
About Matthew Continetti
Matthew Continetti holds a BA in history from Columbia University and is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work is focused on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century. A prominent journalist, analyst, author, and intellectual historian of the right, Mr. Continetti was the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at The Weekly Standard.
Mr. Continetti is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine. He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, among other outlets. He also appears frequently on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” with Bret Baier and MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily” with Chuck Todd.
Mr. Continetti is the author of two additional books: “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star” (Sentinel, 2009) and “The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine” (Doubleday, 2006).
You can find Matthew Continetti on Twitter @continetti.
Introducing the Are We Right? Podcast
If you like Saving Elephants you’ll love the new podcast Are We Right? featuring Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis along with three other co-hosts: Cal Davenport, Brooke Medina, and Calvin Moore. Cal, Josh Brooke, and Calvin debate a wide range of topics from politics to religion to culture and invite the audience to weigh in on whether or not they’re right. You can find the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen, find us on Twitter @ TheAWRPodcast, and email us at arewerightpodcast@gmail.com.
Bo Winegard returns to the show to talk about controversies surrounding the science of human variation, his experience with cancel culture, and the growing problems of cognitive distribution. It’s another in-the-weeds wonkfest of alarmingly nerdish proportions.
About Bo Winegard
Bo Winegard obtained his PhD in social psychology from Florida State University, under the tutelage of Roy Baumeister. Formerly a professor at a small college in the Midwest, Bo is now an independent scholar interested in human evolution, human variation, the rise of political order, and political conservatism. He also enjoys literature, film, sports, and mediocre detective fiction.
Bo has many peer-reviewed publications on motley topics and often writes for the online media publication Quillette. He is currently working on the first of several books on human nature and political ideology.
Visit Bo’s website:
https://www.bmwinegard.com/
And his YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8mHb9VLBbrlvzRRwwGgL5w
You can also find Bo on Twitter @EPoe187
Introducing Are We Right?
If you like Saving Elephants you’ll love the new podcast Are We Right? featuring Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis along with four other co-hosts: Cal Davenport, Brooke Medina, and Calvin Moore. Cal, Josh Brooke, and Calvin debate a wide range of topics from politics to religion to culture and invite the audience to weigh in on whether or not they’re right. You can find the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen, find us on Twitter @ TheAWRPodcast, and email us at arewerightpodcast@gmail.com.
As more and more working-class Americans join the Republican party some voices on the Right are advocating the GOP become the worker’s party—a role that has traditionally been held by various movements and parties of the Left. Is there any merit to this idea? What is the history of labor relations and the Right and Left in the United States? How have labor unions and right to work laws evolved over the past century? Do national candidates like JD Vance or Ron DeSantis have what it takes to capitalize on the surge of working-class voters on the Right? Joining Josh is his friend of nearly a decade Christopher Chesny to discuss all this and more.
About Christopher Chesny
Christopher Chesny is a conservative activist who has been involved in Republican and conservative politics for almost two decades. After his political awakening at a young age after the 2000 Election and 9/11, he began to engage in the public policy process in a myriad of ways before graduating high school, and that engagement has continued through college up to the present day. This has included academic public policy research, journalism covering state governmental bodies including legislatures and executive and judicial branch agencies, being elected to various party offices and as an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention, lobbying legislators for conservative causes both in an activist and professional capacity, managing social media accounts for conservative groups, and most significantly volunteering and sometimes professionally managing and consulting political campaigns in multiple states across the country.
Currently living in Virginia outside of Washington, D.C., Christopher was born in Oklahoma City and grew up outside Tulsa, and received his B.A. with a Major in Political Science and Minors in History and Economics from Arizona State University, and later his Master's Degree in Public Administration from the University of Oklahoma. Besides specializing in American political history and psephology (the study of elections) since the Second World War, he is a fan of history and geography from most every era in most every part of the world, especially the history of different religious faiths. Besides keeping up with current events, he is also an armchair cinephile and an avid fan of both classical music and rock 'n roll, especially alternative rock and its offshoots from the 1980s through to the present day.
You can find Chris on Twitter at @ChrisChesny89
Historian George Nash returns to the show to discuss the life and legacy of Herbert Hoover.
Few American presidents are as decried by voices on both the Left and Right as Herbert Hoover. His name has become synonymous with economic suffering and callous Federal response. But Dr. Nash contends that the popular narrative linking Hoover to the catastrophes of the Great Depression do a great injustice to the actual historical account and reduce one of America’s most remarkable men to that of a callous buffoon. Hoover, in Dr. Nash’s telling, was responsible for saving the lives of more people than anyone else who ever lived. And that’s just the start of it. He accomplished so much in his long life of public and private service that, even if he had never been president, he would be well worth studying today. A greater appreciation for the complexities of the man and the times in which he lived provides the student of conservatism a greater appreciation for the challenges we face today.
About George Nash
George H. Nash is the epitome of a gentleman and a scholar. A graduate from Amherst College who received his Ph.D. in History from Harvard University, Dr. Nash is an authority on the histories of American conservatism and the life of President Herbert Hoover. Dr. Nash is an independent scholar, historian, and lecturer. He speaks and writes frequently about the history and present direction of American conservatism, the life of Herbert Hoover, the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the education of the Founding Fathers, and other subjects. His writings have appeared in the American Spectator, Claremont Review of Books, Intercollegiate Review, Modern Age, National Review, New York Times Book Review, Policy Review, University Bookman, Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. He has lectured at the Library of Congress; the National Archives; the Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson presidential libraries; the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum; the Hoover Institution; the Heritage Foundation; the McConnell Center; and at various universities and conferences in the United States and Europe. Several of his lectures have been featured on C-SPAN. He has also been interviewed by C-SPAN, National Public Radio, numerous radio stations, and the print media. Dr. Nash lives in Massachusetts.
Julie Mastrine of AllSides joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis in a freewheeling conversation about the media. Conservatives love to complain of the liberal media bias, but are their complaints founded or over exaggerated? Do “both sides” have a bias problem? How do they differ and how are they similar? Are there times when bias is acceptable and even welcome? Is bias the same as inaccuracy or dishonesty? How might you identify media bias and what can we do about it?
About Julie Mastrine
Julie Mastrine is a writer and online marketing professional who is passionate about being a responsible member of the media. She believes in promoting critical thinking and traditional values.
Julie creates engaging online content to help brands communicate, tell their stories, and get attention. Her content has earned millions of online impressions. As Director of Marketing and Media Bias Ratings at AllSides, Julie oversaw a 1,684% increase in total social media impressions for AllSides in just three years and a 1,656% increase in website traffic. Julie created the AllSides Media Bias Chart™, which has been viewed and shared tens of millions of times and published in numerous academic textbooks. She frequently conducts media bias research to bolster AllSide’s media bias ratings, and wrote the highly trafficked guide, 12 Types of Media Bias.
Julie is also a frequent writer and editor, writing regularly for AllSides and Evie Magazine on topics such as politics, culture and relationships. And her work has also appeared in The Epoch Times, USA Today, The Federalist, and other publications.
When she’s not immersed in media, Julie is also a fire dancer and performance artist.
You can learn more about Julie on her website and follow her on Twitter @juliewrites
About AllSides
Is a web-based organization dedicated to strengthening our democratic society with balanced news, diverse perspectives, and real conversation. AllSides exposes people to information and ideas from all sides of the political spectrum so they can better understand the world—and each other. Their balanced news coverage, media bias ratings, civil dialogue opportunities, and technology platform are available for everyone and can be integrated by schools, nonprofits, media companies, and more.
AllSides displays the day’s top news stories from the Left, Center, and Right of the political spectrum—side-by-side so you can see the full picture.
AllSides also provides Media Bias Ratings for over 800 media outlets and writers, so you can easily identify different perspectives.
Josh engages in a Cannonball Run conversation with Bo Winegard across a wide variety of subjects from how Bo found himself migrating from the political Left to the Right, whether Edmund Burke believed in natural rights, how one might approach Burke from both a religious and secular angle, the curious tendency of the academic Left to erect strawman versions of conservatism, the limitations of Thomas Sowell’s constrained vs. unconstrained visions paradigm, how the GOP might chart a course between throwback Reaganism and MAGA Trumpism, and whether religion is necessary to sustain ordered liberty.
About Bo Winegard
Bo Winegard obtained his PhD in social psychology from Florida State University, under the tutelage of Roy Baumeister. Formerly a professor at a small college in the Midwest, Bo is now an independent scholar interested in human evolution, human variation, the rise of political order, and political conservatism. He also enjoys literature, film, sports, and mediocre detective fiction.
Bo has many peer-reviewed publications on motley topics and often writes for the online media publication Quillette. He is currently working on the first of several books on human nature and political ideology.
Visit Bo’s website:
https://www.bmwinegard.com/
And his YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8mHb9VLBbrlvzRRwwGgL5w
You can also find Bo on Twitter @EPoe187
In this re-podcast episode Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis joins his committed liberal friend David Blatt on Andrea Klunder’s show The Creative Impostor to discuss the differences between the Right and the Left, why we’re so polarized, and how civil dialogue might be restored.
About Andrea Klunder
Andrea Klunder is the Creative Director, Media Strategist and Podcast Producer behind The Creative Impostor Studios. Andrea works with organizations, companies, and leaders who want to use audio content to tell stories, create movements, and change culture. She calls upon her myriad experiences as a singer, actor, director, business owner, yoga, and meditation teacher to produce and edit podcasts for social impact organizations and entrepreneurs. She consults on strategy and coaches podcasters to go deeper into the craft and culture of making their show.
Andrea boasts of four podcasts:
Podcast Envy: elevating the craft and culture of podcasting
The Creative Impostor: featuring creative thought leaders who take bold action in life and work, despite the little voice in their heads that says, “Who do you think you are?!”
Improve With Auntie: A round table for aunties like us to come together to share our brilliant ideas, sharp wit, and A+ advice, and
Power Your Story: produced by her high school mentees who attend a Chicago public school for diverse learners
Andrea has developed podcasts with the Santa Fe Opera, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Del Norte Credit Union, Institute for Justice, Chicago Reader, the NARM Training Institute, and more. She has been a featured speaker and trainer for Podcast Movement, Podfest, She Podcasts Live, the University of Florida, The Wing, Next Door Chicago, Chicago Public Schools, and many, many podcasts. Andrea believes in the power of podcasting to immerse your followers in an authentic brand experience through engaging, entertaining, and educational audio media. Her mission is to help your voice to shine!
About David Blatt
David Blatt, Ph.D., has worked for more than two decades in the public policy field. Blatt founded the Oklahoma Policy Institute, a state policy think-tank that aims to expand opportunity for all Oklahomans through nonpartisan research, analysis and advocacy. He served as its executive director for 10 years. Now, he brings this expertise to students in the Master of Public Administration program at OU-Tulsa as the George Kaiser Family Foundation Endowed Professor of Practice.
Blatt previously served as director of public policy for Community Action Project of Tulsa County, as a budget analyst for the Oklahoma State Senate and as a parliamentary intern for the Canadian House of Commons. He earned his doctorate in political science from Cornell University, his master of arts degree from McGill University and his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Alberta.
The British theologian and philosopher G. K. Chesterton observed that “religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” When we talk openly about political or religious matters, we risk endangering relationships. Yet politics and religion are immensely important topics that ought not to be ignored for the sake of avoiding awkward conversations. Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Corey Nathan as they discuss how we might talk politics and religion without killing each other.
About Corey Nathan
Corey Nathan was raised in an observant Jewish household attending an Orthodox synagogue. His family is mostly from Brooklyn, NY; but Corey grew up on the Jersey side—Bruce Springsteen country! In his late 20s, much to the family's chagrin, Corey became a Born-again Christian. Not long after this epiphany, the new believer began to find many of the default social and political positions of contemporary American Evangelicalism to be at odds with the very Scriptures that are supposed to be Christians’ authority for how to engage in the world. Vocationally, Corey started out as a stockbroker (Series 7, Series 63) during the day while he was studying at a theatre conservatory at night. Since then, he’s been an entrepreneur with one foot in business and one foot in creative pursuits having built and managed such endeavors as a specialty headhunting firm, a theatre and film ministry, a residential and commercial service company, a 501c3 to help folks during the pandemic, and, most recently, a new media/content company.
Corey continues to be a student of theology, politics and culture and enjoys sharing invigorating conversations with world-renowned experts of these subjects on the podcast he produces and hosts, Talkin’ Politics & Religion Without Killin’ Each Other. He can also be caught having these same kinds of discussions with friends and family over a good whiskey or glass of wine with the music of Monk, Coltrane or Louis Armstrong setting the mood. Corey has been married to Lisa for 24 years and has 3 kids, along with the family pooches, Bailey and Charles Mingus the 3rd. You can follow Corey on Twitter @coreysnathan.
How secure and reliable are elections in the United States?
The Left and Right are both replete with voices warning of the dire consequences of the “other side” getting their way. And nowhere is this more evident than with concerns about the legitimacy of elections. Whether it’s the Right’s concerns with voter fraud and election theft or the Left’s apprehensions about voter suppression and disenfranchisement, Americans are growing increasingly concerned that their votes don’t, or won’t, or eventually will not count.
What’s more, the leaders of each party, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, have used increasingly alarmist language in claiming our democratic institutions have been undermined. Trump continues to assert that the 2020 election was “stolen” and that it was a “fraud on the American people”. Meanwhile, Biden has warned that those who do not share his views on election reform are interested in instituting “Jim Crow 2.0” and that they are akin to the likes of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis.
In this episode Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis takes a deep dive into the various allegations made by Trump and Biden and offers some thoughts on whether Americans can have faith in their democratic institutions.
Saving Elephants officially hits 100 episodes! Host Josh Lewis is joined by Alan Wolan to discuss their mutual admiration for the writings and ideas of Thomas Sowell.
Thomas Sowell, along with Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and William F. Buckley, comprise the Mt. Rushmore of thinkers who best exemplify the conservatism espoused by Saving Elephants. Sowell is an American economist, social theorist, and researcher whose nine decades of life and forty-five books covering topics as far reaching as social policy on race, ethnic groups, education, and decision-making, to classical and Marxian economics, to the problems of children perceived as having disabilities.
About Alan Wolan
Alan Wolan is a business owner, entrepreneur, investor, homeschool dad with five kids and host of The Genius of Thomas Sowell podcast, a venue for discussing the books and ideas of Thomas Sowell. That's it. Nothing else. You can check out a brief summary of Sowell prepared by Alan at TomSowell.com
Alan earned his BA in Intellectual History from the University of Pennsylvania and MBA in Marketing from New York University. He lives in California. You can follow Alan on Twitter @AlanWolan
Few individuals have had as deep an impact on modern conservative thought, yet remain in relative obscurity, as Willmoore Kendall. The conservative English professor Jeffrey Hart said of Kendall that he was "the most important political theorist to have emerged in the twenty-odd years since the end of World War II." Kendall’s writings are thought-provoking, challenging, contentious, scrupulous, and, often, innovative. His analysis and critiques took no prisoners on both the Right and Left, and his prickly personality shattered relationships with friends, family, and spouses alike. Founding editor of National Review and early mentor to William F. Buckley, Kendall was on the forefront of conservative thought. His ideas don’t entirely fit squarely within the broader warring camps on the Right today, but they are nonetheless instructive, and we ignore his arguments at our own peril.
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the life and ideas of this important yet often neglected thinker on the Right is historian Chris Owen whose new book Heaven Can Indeed Fall: The Life of Willmoore Kendall offers the definitive biography of Kendall’s life and work.
Per the book’s description: “Willmoore Kendall was a man against the world, a "maverick," an "iconoclast." His thoughts were profound, his countless enemies powerful, his personal life full of drama. Heaven Can Indeed Fall is the first full-length biography of Kendall and integrates the man with the teacher, thinker, and cold warrior. Once a Marxist, Kendall became a fearsome foe of global communism. He never apologized for supporting Joseph McCarthy. As the co-founder of National Review he helped turn the word liberal into an insult. A "stormy petrel," Kendall was a man “who never lost an argument or kept a friend.” Yet he was one of the most effective and sensitive teachers of his age. His ideas shaped Cold War practices of intelligence analysis and psychological warfare. As an academic he became the premier American theorist for conservative populism. The recent reemergence of populist ideas among American conservatives makes understanding Kendall ever more imperative. This book shows how a child prodigy and bucolic boy scout became an ambitious intelligence analyst, razor-tongued polemicist and profound student of American politics. By knowing Kendall one can better understand Cold War America, and contemporary America as well.”
About Chris Owen
Dr. Christopher Owen is a historian and recently retired Professor of English within the Department of Languages and Literature at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. Dr. Owen earned his PhD in history at Emory University in 1991. His previous book includes The Sacred Flame of Love: Methodism and Society in Nineteenth-Century Georgia.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat joins Josh Lewis to talk about his recent memoir The Deep Places. His book tells of his recent journey in battling chronic Lyme disease and his reflections on illness, discovery, and hope.
Ross’ story begins prior to the illness in which he was attempting to build the life he’d always dreamed of. “At that moment in my life I only really believed in upside…I wrote my share of words on the problem of evil…usually making the case that much of American Christianity offers people the wrong answers, encouraging them to believe that actually bad things shouldn’t happen if you’re good, that the American Dream should be yours if you just stay in God’s good graces and follow the paths that He’s marked out.”
“I had a similar critique of the secular meritocracy in which I had been educated: that because it asked its climbers to work so hard and jump so high, it encouraged an idea that we had somehow earned all our privileges, that our SAT scores and extracurricular accomplishments meant that we genuinely deserved to rule.”
“But despite these critiques, there was still a sense in which I believed exactly these ideas myself—or at least for myself—as I passed through college into adulthood, achieved the career as a writer that I wanted, won the wife I wanted, the job I wanted, the kids I wanted, and now the house and country life I wanted, too.”
Yet life had other plans for Ross as he’s spent the past six years battling an invisible enemy that’s robbed much of the life he’d built. His book offers profound insights into what we can make of our sufferings and how to keep hope in hopeless situations.
About Ross Douthat
Ross Douthat joined The New York Times as an opinion columnist in April 2009. His column appears every Tuesday and Sunday. Previously, he was a senior editor at The Atlantic and a blogger on its website. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies American politics, culture, religion, and family life.
A prolific writer, Ross has written for The Atlantic and National Review and has been published widely in the popular press. In addition to The Deep Places, he is also the author of five other books: “The Decadent Society: How We Became the Victims of Our Own Success”; “To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism”; “Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics”; “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream”, which he coauthored with Reihan Salam; and “Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class”.
Ross has a BA in history from Harvard University. He lives with his wife and four children in New Haven. You can follow Ross on Twitter @DouthatNYT
Christmastime is here, a season of joy and merriment, happy gatherings of family and friends, peace on earth and goodwill to all. Both tradition and pop culture remind us that all is merry and bright this time of year. And yet for some who are grieving the holiday season only amplifies sorrow. As the rest of the world is making merry the pains of suffering and loss seem unbearable and profoundly alienating.
The British statesman Edmund Burke believed that “beings made for suffering should suffer well.” What are we to do with grief in a season that exacerbates misery? Should we lean into it or flee from it? What are we to do with our grief when it subsides into the background but never truly leaves us alone? What possible good is there in our grief? How do we grieve well and avoid the many pitfalls of grief? And how might we find joy in the midst of grieving?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by two guests—Jimmy Humphrey and Andrew Snyder—to wrestle with the challenging topic of grieving well.
About Jimmy Humphrey
Jimmy Humphrey is host of the Jimmy’s Table Podcast, a show about the intersection of faith, life, and culture. Jimmy describes himself as curiously evangelical, politically homeless, and a dreamer of small things.
Jimmy went to Bible college and seminary to study theology and prepare for ministry at Lee University and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. But “life happened” and he ended up with a career in the mortgage industry at one of the nations’ largest banks as a high-level underwriter and analyst.
You can follow Jimmy on Twitter @TableJimmys
About Andrew Snyder
Andrew Snyder is a philosopher-theologian with an interest in the intersection between stories and life, neither of which—he would argue—can be properly understood apart from the other.
Andrew recently finished writing his doctoral dissertation on Søren Kierkegaard's understanding of anxiety's educative role in developing one's self and has been releasing digital content focused on the paths of myth and meaning. The flagship of this content can be found on the recently launched podcast, Mythic Mind. The first series walks through Kierkegaard's The Concept of Anxiety and The Sickness unto Death. The next series will focus on stories.
You can find Andrew’s writings and videos at https://www.andrewnsnyder.com/
You can follow Andrew on Twitter @Andrewnsnyder
Hosts of the Conservative Minds podcast Kyle Sammin and Corey Astill join Josh to discuss the timeless questions of what conservatism actually means, how the Left more utopian than they often admit, whether they actually read all eight hundred pages of Whittaker Chambers’ Witness, and which tomes and authors are indispensable to the serious conservative thinker.
About Conservative Minds
A podcast about conservative ideas and thinkers. Hosts Kyle and Corey explore what it means to call yourself a conservative, where conservatism has been, and where it's going. Each week, they select readings and conduct a discussion to share with you their investigation.
You can follow the podcast on Twitter at @consminds
About Kyle Sammin
Kyle Sammin is a Senior Editor at Philadelphia Weekly who covers politics, history, law, and sports. He is also a senior contributor to The Federalist and writes regularly for Broad + Liberty. You can find many of his writings at https://kylesammin.com/
You can follow Kyle on Twitter @KyleSammin
About Corey Astill
Corey Astill has over 15 years of experience in Congress, government relations, and law. He is Vice President at Business Roundtable, an Association of CEOs of leading U.S. companies working to promote a thriving economy, where he leads the Health & Retirement Committee and Smart Regulation Committee.
Before joining Business Roundtable, Corey served for a decade as a senior advisor in the U.S. Senate. Most recently, he served as Legislative Director for Senator Deb Fischer, managing the Senator’s legislative staff and coordinating her leadership activities in her capacity as a Deputy Whip. Earlier in his career, Corey served as Staff Director of a subcommittee on the Senate Finance Committee, Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Joint Economic Committee, and Counsel for former Senators Dan Coats and Bob Bennett. He began his career as a legislative aide to former Senator Jon Kyl.
In this re-podcast from America’s Future Facebook live interview, Ericka Andersen interviews Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis about his motivations for launching Saving Elephants. Also discussed are the worsening partisanship and tribalism in recent years and possible solutions to a healthier political dialogue.
About Ericka Andersen
Ericka Andersen is a freelance writer and digital media marketing professional. Her writings cover addiction, church planting, mental health, politics, policy, culture, fitness, and more for a variety of publications in including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, and National Review. She is a regular contributor at Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC.) Previously, Ericka worked for National Review magazine, was Online Media Director for Congressional House Leadership, for the Heritage Foundation and Human Events magazine.
Ericka is the author of “Leaving Cloud 9: The True Story of a Life Resurrected From the Ashes of Poverty, Trauma and Mental Illness”. She wrote “Leaving Cloud 9” for those who have suffered trauma of all kinds—and have or are seeking to overcome it in the future. The book is a true story of miraculous healing—both physically and mentally—from years of trauma, suffering from depression, going through divorce and personal destruction.
Ericka host the “Worth Your Time” podcast, featuring inspiring women living out big dreams and making a difference in the world. The podcast is generally faith-based and seeks to highlight the stories of women living and loving others well.
Ericka lives in Indianapolis, Indiana. You can find her on Twitter @ErickaAndersen
About America’s Future
America's Future is an organization that recruits and cultivates young professionals to become effective, lifelong advocates who will inspire their peers to embrace freedom.
America’s Future empowers young people to be active, civil, and curious citizens who build freer communities that lead to fulfillment, dignity, and happiness for all by working toward a time in America where young people collaborate to drive change in their communities—change that equips the individual to build a free and happy life. America’s Future offers rising generations opportunities for networking, mentoring, leadership and community engagement through our national network and extensive array of programming.
Founded in 1995 by a group of aspiring young advocates, America’s Future Foundation quickly grew to be “the place” for rising young leaders in Washington, DC. In 2011. They have since expanded by launching chapters in cities across the country.
For the Trump-skeptical conservative, the past five years have been dizzyingly disconcerting. We’ve often felt politically homeless and even out of step from the power centers on both the Left and Right. What’s a principled conservative to do? What is the long-term goal of the movement? What future might we practically hope for and what goals are overly optimistic and detached from reality?
Returning guest Justin Stapley joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to contemplate the merits of Trump-skeptical conservatives sticking with the GOP and whether the Republican party could reasonably embrace a principled conservatism in the future.
Justin Stapley has been writing politically since 2016. His writing has been featured by ALEC, The Federalist Coalition, and the personal blogs and platforms he has operated over the years, which include Never Tyranny, The Millennial Federalist, and The Liberty Hawk.
About Justin Stapley
Justin considers himself a liberty-minded conservative with principles and beliefs grounded in the idea of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism.
Justin currently studies Political Science at Utah Valley University with an emphasis in Political Theory and Constitutional Studies. He is a staunchly independent voice and is unafraid to call balls and strikes as he sees them. His calm but pointed writing style is often flavored with humor as he analyzes and discusses both news cycle driven topics as well as deeper philosophical considerations.
Justin appeared previously on Saving Elephants on the following episodes:
Episode 30 - Fusionism with Justin Stapley
Episode 55 – The New Centrist with Justin Stapley
Bonus Episode – The 2020 Elections – Now What?
Episode 77 – Truth in Tension with Justin Stapley
You can following Justin’s blog on Substack
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis offers a conservative critique of socialism.
It’s hardly news that socialism is gaining in popularity among younger Americans. Yet it’s more difficult to ascertain what Millennials have in mind when they express support for socialism or socialist candidates. Do they mean Marxism or the numerous varieties of Communist authoritarian regimes tried over the past century, European-style “socialism”, democratic socialism, having the state seize the means of production and abolish private property, bolstering labor unions, or some complex web of worker-ownership cooperatives? Or do they simply mean “whatever we have now, I don’t like that” with some vague idea that “the rich are not paying their fair share” thrown in for good measure?
Millennial support of socialism likely has less to do with an embrace of socialist arguments than with a frustrated search for answers. Socialism is winning by default, not persuasion, in much the same manner some candidates win elections not because they are liked, but because they are less hated than their opponent.
Just as it’s hardly news that younger Americans are becoming increasingly supportive of “socialism”—however defined—it also goes without saying that American conservatives have—generally speaking—opposed socialism and supported capitalism (or, more accurately, the free market). And while most conservatives will tell you this is for the sufficient reason capitalism “works” and socialism doesn’t, if pressed further they are likely to give additional moral reasons the former is superior to the latter. And that moral reason would be that capitalism allows for a flourishing of liberties that socialism impairs or, in some cases, obliterates.
But before we can untangle the merits of capitalism and how it is superior to socialism, both economically and ethically, we have to first come closer to understanding what we mean by the terms “capitalism” and “socialism”.
Founded in 1953, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) has remained on the forefront of the conservative intellectual movement with a particular focus on ensuring college students are equipped with the tools they need to explore the conservative worldview. During the tumultuous begins of the modern conservative movement in the United States, ISI embraced many of the views and adherents of both the libertarian and traditionalist wings of the movements. Today, ISI is yet again navigating the divisions on the Right as they seek to maintain a platform where these embattled factions can meet together and debate their differences with civility and passion.
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis in this episode is James Davenport, Academic Program Officer for ISI, as they discuss indispensable books for the student of conservatism, the plight of young conservatives on college campuses, the importance and relevance of fusionism, cancel culture and civility, and how conservatives might combat the continuous Leftward bent of higher education.
About James Davenport
James Davenport is Academic Program Officer for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. He received his BA in politics, philosophy, and theology from the Templeton Honors College at Eastern University. As an undergraduate, James was an ISI Honors Scholar and president of his campus ISI Society—The Montaigne Society. He also participated in seminars with the Elm Institute, was a fellow with the Philadelphia Commons Institute (formerly the Agora Institute), and was a course fellow in religion and politics with the Hertog Foundation.
James’ writing can be found in the Imaginative Conservative, The University Bookman, Philanthropy Daily, Front Porch Republic, the Forma Journal of the Circe Institute, and more. He also hosts the Conservative Conversations with ISI podcast alongside ISI President Johnny Burtka and National Director of Student Programs Marlo Slayback. You can find James on Twitter @mrJSDavenport
Listener Mail
In the listener mail segment Josh responds to a listener’s request to cover the topics of conservatism in urban areas and the challenge of countering the Left’s hold over elite institutions, particularly in higher education.
As the old adage goes, variety is the spice of life. And the conservative heartily agrees. Variety, not uniformity, is what gives life its vitality and each life the potential for self-actualization and the opportunity for each of us to develop in our own unique way. But is variety compatible with equality? What do we mean by equality, and how might equality be established? What is the relationship between equality, progress, and justice?
In this solo episode, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis explores what conservatism has to say about variety and equality and their relationship to progress and justice. No one disputes inequalities exist. But there is much disagreement on why they exist, or what qualifies as an “inequality”, let alone what should be done about it. Perhaps the sharpest question we can ask is who is to blame for inequalities? Does the mere fact that one person is unequal than another person create an injustice? And what of the various kinds of inequalities? We might be able to reach a wide consensus that no injustice is done if John is taller than Bill, or even if John is wealthier than Bill. But what if John belongs to an ethnic or social group that’s predominantly wealthier than Bill’s ethnic or social group? Is that an injustice?
To the conservative, true equality—equality before the law and before God—is precisely what gives rise to inequalities. And enforcing unnatural equality necessarily violates our natural equality. If people who are born with different abilities and access to opportunities are all set on a level playing field, we would naturally expect radically different outcomes. If we were to force equal access to opportunities by granting them to those without and depriving them to those who would otherwise have access, we would still see different outcomes because people would still be operating within the abilities they inherited at birth. If we strove still to eliminate even these inequalities, by demanding or enforcing that all outcomes be the same—such that if one person’s abilities allowed them to produce more or excel in some way beyond that of their peers we would deprive them of their excess production—we might finally achieve absolute equality. But the price we’d pay would be the death of distinction, variety, and—in a multitude of historical examples where such heavy-handed leveling has been attempted—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is that justice? Is that progress?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Ian Rowe and Nique Fajors—two black Harvard Business School graduates—who hope to change the narrative and highlight the positive achievements of black men in the United States. What is wrong with the common narrative surrounding black men? How much has changed over recent decades and are those changes adequately reflected in the narrative?
Ian and Nique host The Invisible Men, a podcast and video platform interviewing successful black men. In the aftermath of Rodney King’s assault by police officers in the 90s and his attackers’ subsequent acquittal, Ian Rowe and Nique Fajors grew weary of a public narrative proclaiming that black men in America were doomed to failure under an oppressive system. A feeling of invisibleness struck both Ian and Nique who were then Harvard Business School classmates as the stories of men like them became increasingly ignored in the public eye. Today, Ian and Nique have resurrected “The Invisible Men” as a video podcast. In their inaugural episode, Ian and Nique share their inspiration behind launching “The Invisible Men” documentary in the 90s and discuss why—30 years later—their message of agency and empowerment is needed more than ever.
About Ian Rowe
Ian Rowe is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on education and upward mobility, family formation, and adoption. Mr. Rowe is also the cofounder of Vertex Partnership Academies, a new network of character-based International Baccalaureate high schools opening in the Bronx in 2022; the chairman of the board of Spence-Chapin, a nonprofit adoption services organization; and the cofounder of the National Summer School Initiative. He concurrently serves as a senior visiting fellow at the Woodson Center and a writer for the 1776 Unites Campaign.
Until July 1, 2020, Mr. Rowe was CEO of Public Prep, a nonprofit network of public charter schools based in the South Bronx and Lower East Side of Manhattan. Before joining Public Prep, he was deputy director of postsecondary success at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, senior vice president of strategic partnerships and public affairs at MTV, director of strategy and performance measurement at the USA Freedom Corps office in the White House, and cofounder and president of Third Millennium Media. Mr. Rowe also joined Teach for America in its early days.
Mr. Rowe has an MBA from Harvard Business School, where he was the first black editor-in-chief of The Harbus, the Harvard Business School newspaper; a BS in computer science engineering from Cornell University; and a diploma in electrical engineering from Brooklyn Technical High School (Brooklyn Tech), one of New York City’s elite public schools, which specializes in science, technology, and mathematics.
You can follow Mr. Rowe on Twitter @IanVRowe
About Nique Fajors
Nique Fajors is a business leader in retail, e-Commerce, software entertainment, and organizational development. Mr. Fajors has launched over 85 e-Commerce products and services generating over $2.1 billion. A nationally respected business thought leader, he has been quoted in the New York Times, The Financial Times, and Business Week and been a speaker at TEDx.
You can follow Mr. Fajors on Twitter @NFajors
America’s history of bigotry and racism have left wounds that fester to this day. How might the country make amends to those racial minorities who were harmed? To what extent are white Americans responsible for addressing wrongs perpetrated by their ancestors? To what extent can the effects of these past sins be measured and known?
These are not easy questions, nor is there much consensus on where we go from here. But there is one area where both conservatives and liberals may be able to find common ground: addressing historic wrongs committed by the practice of redlining at the local level. Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined again by Charles Marohn to discuss the history of redlining, its effect on American minorities, and a possible path forward to making restitutions consistent with conservative principles. Much of their discussion centers around an article Marohn wrote for Strong Towns entitled The Local Case for Reparations.
About Charles Marohn
Charles (or “Chuck” to friends and colleagues) Marohn is the founder and president of Strong Towns, a nonprofit that supports thousands of people across the United States and Canada who are advocating for a radically new way of thinking about the way we build our world. Marohn is a professional engineer and a land use planner with decades of experience. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of Minnesota.
Marohn is the author of two books: Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity and Confessions of a Recovering Engineer. He hosts the Strong Towns Podcast and is a primary writer for Strong Towns’ web content. He has presented Strong Towns concepts in hundreds of cities and towns across North America. Planetizen named him one of the 10 Most Influential Urbanists of all time. He is a long-time commentator on KAXE Northern Community Radio. He currently co-hosts KAXE’s Dig Deep program, a monthly examination of public policy issues affecting Minnesotans. Marohn grew up on a small farm in central Minnesota. The oldest of three sons of two elementary school teachers, he joined the Minnesota National Guard on his seventeenth birthday during his junior year of high school and served in the Guard for nine years. In addition to being passionate about building a stronger America, he loves playing music, is an obsessive reader, and religiously follows his favorite team, the Minnesota Twins. Chuck and his wife live with their two daughters in their hometown of Brainerd, Minnesota. You can find him on Twitter @clmarohn
Listener Mail
Josh responds to a listener’s message asking if he would encourage his listeners to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis joins Dennis Sanders on his podcast En Route to discuss the past, present, and future of the GOP and conservative movements, what younger generations of Americans have to offer the country, and where the #NeverTrump movement went wrong.
About Dennis Sanders
Dennis Sanders is a blogger, podcaster, pastor, and media and technology professional. He hosts En Route, a podcast about the journey focusing on religion, politics and culture and the things we discover on the way. Dennis was born and raised in Flint, Michigan and currently lives in Minneapolis. You can find Dennis on Twitter @denminn
Often the highest praise we can offer a bright, promising student is “you’ll go far”. Americans have long associated success with striking out on one’s own and heading for greener pastures. But is this transient attitude conducive to the long-term health of local communities? What happens to the places we leave behind and what impact does that have on us?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Gracy Olmstead, author of Uprooted: Recovering the Legacy of the Places We've Left Behind. Their conversation delves into how Americans have historically thought of leaving or sticking with the communities of their upbringing and how American practices don’t always align with American values. Gracy offers her thoughts on what wisdom Alexis de Tocqueville and Wendell Berry have to share and how the pains of homesickness might point us towards an understanding of what parts of the past are worth bringing into the future.
About Gracy Olmstead
Gracy Olmstead is a writer and journalist located outside Washington, D.C. Her work has appear in The American Conservative, The Washington Times, the Idaho Press Tribune, The Federalist, The Week, National Review, and Acculturated.
Gracy’s book examines the heartbreaking consequences of uprooting—for both her hometown of Emmett, Idaho, and for the greater heartland of America. Part memoir, part journalistic investigation, Uprooted wrestles with the questions of what we owe the places we come from and what we are willing to sacrifice for profit and progress.
You can follow Gracy on Twitter @GracyOlmstead
Listener Mail
At the end of the episode, Josh responds to a listener’s question about the recent debate on the Right regarding whether Viktor Orbán policies in Hungary are worth emulating in the United States to effectively engage in the culture wars.
The opioid overdose crisis is back in the news with recent revelations that the already shocking death toll has increased dramatically since the pandemic. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death with opioids accounting for most of the deaths. This crisis has certainly received a lot of attention from lawmakers, healthcare professionals, and the media. However, Saving Elephants returning guest Peter Pischke argues that much of the debate over what to do about the growing crisis is overly focused on patients with medical needs who rarely abuse their medication.
About Peter Pischke
Peter Pischke is an independent disability and health reporter covering politics, journalism, ethics, and culture. He is the host of the Happy Warrior Podcast and the creator of The Happy Warrior substack. His specialty is communicating on the little-discussed side of the opioid crisis, the side from those reliant on opioid pain medication, the prescription opioid crisis.
Peter himself is a disabled pain patient and became deeply impacted in 2018 when his trusted physician force tapered him off his medication. With an ear to the ground on the different sides of this deeply felt issue, Peter tries to parse out what is happening on the ground and give his readers a clear picture of what the opioid crisis is and how we might get out of this man-made mess.
Peter was a guest on the Saving Elephants podcast in Episode 42 - Media Bias with Peter Pischke. You can read his recent article in the New York Daily News on the CDC’s mishandling of the opioid crisis here. You can find Peter on Twitter @HappyWarriorP
What is America and what does it mean to be an American? We Americans have been debating this question for centuries, yet we seem even less united on a common understanding than Americans of prior generations.
America’s original national motto was E Pluribus Unum: “Out of many, one”. It contained the notion that this diverse country of ethnicities and religions and ideologies were somehow unified in some sense. In 1956, our national motto changed to “In God We Trust”. Yet this was no less of a statement on American unity. In 1956 the Cold War was raging, and the government of the United States sought to distinguish itself from the atheistic Soviet Union. Trusting in God was simply what it meant to be an American.
And yet no one can deny that there are plenty of Americans who would not claim to believe, let alone trust, in God. And the idea that the best way to describe ourselves in light of our current political divides is “Out of many, one” seems downright laughable.
Why is it so hard to come to a common agreement on what it means to be an American? What ideas have been tried in the past? Why did they fail and to what extent were they ever successful? How important is it that we reach some kind of consensus? Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss these questions and more is returning guest Avi Woolf.
About Avi Woolf
Avi Woolf is a writer, editor, translator, and podcaster whose work has been published in Arc Digital, Commentary, National Review, The Bulwark, and The Dispatch. He is chief editor of the online Medium publication Conservative Pathways, and he—in his words—"hopes to help forge a path for a conservatism which is relevant for the 21st century while not abandoning the best of past wisdom.”
Avi has been a guest on the show in two previous episodes as well: the first in which he explored the need for conservatism to find a way to appeal to people who live in urban areas in Episode 26 – Urban Conservatism and the second in which he mulled over the love/hate relationship the Right has long had with institutions of higher education in Episode 49 – God and the Speechless at Yale.
Avi hosts his own podcast entitled Avi’s Conversational Corner, a podcast on culture, history, and politics in a broad perspective. You can find Avi on Twitter @AviWoolf
Josh takes a break from the guests to cover a little conservatism 101. Russell Kirk’s pithy list Ten Conservative Principles: begins with what Kirk called an enduring moral order: “The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”
The full implications of this idea—not to mention the arguments in favor or disapproving of this view or the thorny business of trying to agree upon a working definition of “moral order”, “human nature”, or “permanent truths”—is precisely what makes this so challenging to untangle. But untangle we must for, if we ever hope to understand conservatism, we must first understand the foundation conservatism rests upon.
It would be difficult to overemphasize the importance of order. It’s not some idea relegated to trivial conversations amongst people with a lot of time on their hands, it is quite literally the glue that holds reality together. “Either order in the cosmos is real, or all is chaos,” explained Kirk, “In a vortex of chaos, only force and appetite signify.” Everything conservatism defends as worth conserving rests on the idea that there exists some standard by which we can truthfully distinguish what things have value from mere popular preferences. Our ability to make these distinctions is important, but such efforts would be utterly hopeless if order did not exist. In that case all we could say is that some people prefer some things while other people prefer other things; we couldn’t make actual truth statements about those things.
Edmund Burke put it more succinctly: “Good order is the foundation of all good things.” The connection between order and foundation is key. The existence of order—that is, something that is fixed, absolute, immutable, and completely outside of humanity’s ability to create or destroy—is precisely what grounds reality. Without it, all that’s left is chaos and appetite. Humans don’t submit to the gods they create; and if we come to believe there is no truth greater than whatever “truth” we create for ourselves we shouldn’t act surprised when a spirit of benevolence and comradery is insufficient to hold barbarism at bay. Without order, we don’t have a basis for justice or a universal argument for natural rights and liberty from coercion.
If Kirk’s assertion of the existence of an enduring moral order is true, we’re faced with an abundance of questions, such as:
- Can we define this moral order, or at least discern it? If so, how?
- What is the relationship between societal order and the order within each individual in society?
- Where does this order come from? Is it spiritual in nature?
- What political and legal implications does a moral order impose?
- Doesn’t the flirtation with ideas of a moral order quickly descend into authoritarian theocracy? How does the conservative guard against that?
- What implications does this have for politics or the state? Or is this a matter of faith that should be left out of political considerations altogether?
- What is the relationship between order and liberty? Are these ideas in conflict or can they be reconciled?
Josh tackles all that and more in this episode
For thousands of years the ways in which cities and towns developed has provided us with a of blueprint for what human habitats need to flourish. Yet today many of our cities and towns have forsaken these tried-and-true methods and instead imposed rational planning and an overreliance on pricey infrastructure projects to foster growth and further development. What are the potential downfalls of departing from these practices of the past?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns to traverse the world of urban planning and discuss the need for a return to the ancient models of development, the terrible costs of over-indebted infrastructure projects to younger Americans, whether or not Wal-Mart is a net boon or detriment to local communities, and how conservatism can help us form a more prosperous and enjoyable world.
Podcast Survey
Help us make the podcast even better: Take the listener survey for a chance to win a Saving Elephants coffee mug.
About Charles Marohn
Charles (or “Chuck” to friends and colleagues) Marohn is the founder and president of Strong Towns, a nonprofit that supports thousands of people across the United States and Canada who are advocating for a radically new way of thinking about the way we build our world. Marohn is a professional engineer and a land use planner with decades of experience. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of Minnesota.
Marohn is the author of Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity (Wiley, 2019). He hosts the Strong Towns Podcast and is a primary writer for Strong Towns’ web content. He has presented Strong Towns concepts in hundreds of cities and towns across North America. Planetizen named him one of the 10 Most Influential Urbanists of all time. He is a long-time commentator on KAXE Northern Community Radio. He currently co-hosts KAXE’s Dig Deep program, a monthly examination of public policy issues affecting Minnesotans.
Marohn grew up on a small farm in central Minnesota. The oldest of three sons of two elementary school teachers, he joined the Minnesota National Guard on his seventeenth birthday during his junior year of high school and served in the Guard for nine years. In addition to being passionate about building a stronger America, he loves playing music, is an obsessive reader, and religiously follows his favorite team, the Minnesota Twins. Chuck and his wife live with their two daughters in their hometown of Brainerd, Minnesota. You can find him on Twitter @clmarohn
Listener Mail
Josh responds to a listener’s question about conservatism’s challenges with appealing to minorities and whether our nation’s institutions are worth conserving given the history of American slavery and other past sins.
In 1976 historian George H. Nash wrote The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, a celebrated historical accounting that established much of the narrative for how we think about the development of modern conservatism even today. George Nash joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the various strands of thought that emerged after the second World War that eventually evolved into a political movement on the Right. Along the way, Dr. Nash shares his insights on the colorful individuals who shaped the debate, how they fought one another, and how an eventual loose consensus was brought forth. Finally, he offers some thoughts on what a lifetime of studying the history of conservatism can teach aspiring conservatives today.
Podcast Survey
Help us make the podcast even better: Take the listener survey for a chance to win a Saving Elephants coffee mug.
About George H. Nash
George H. Nash is the epitome of a gentleman and a scholar. A graduate from Amherst College who received his Ph.D. in History from Harvard University, Dr. Nash is an authority on the histories of American conservatism and the life of President Herbert Hoover. Dr. Nash is an independent scholar, historian, and lecturer. He speaks and writes frequently about the history and present direction of American conservatism, the life of Herbert Hoover, the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the education of the Founding Fathers, and other subjects. His writings have appeared in the American Spectator, Claremont Review of Books, Intercollegiate Review, Modern Age, National Review, New York Times Book Review, Policy Review, University Bookman, Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. He has lectured at the Library of Congress; the National Archives; the Herbert Hoover, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson presidential libraries; the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum; the Hoover Institution; the Heritage Foundation; the McConnell Center; and at various universities and conferences in the United States and Europe. Several of his lectures have been featured on C-SPAN. He has also been interviewed by C-SPAN, National Public Radio, numerous radio stations, and the print media. Dr. Nash lives in Massachusetts.
Listener Mail
At the end of the episode, Josh responds to a listener’s question about a comment he made in the episode that dropped on Election Day 2020. Josh had expressed his views that that time that neither major party candidate represented an existential threat to the United States and the listener askes, given what we now know about the election aftermath, accusations of widespread election fraud, the incursion on January 6, and the subsequent white washing of the Republican party, would Josh now view Trump as an existential threat to the country?
Few conservative thinkers are as little known, controversial, or had as great an impact on the conservative elite as Leo Strauss. Who was Leo Strauss, what did he believe, and how does that inform conservative thought today? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Seth Root to disentangle the mysteries of Straussianism including his views on esoteric writing, the ancients vs. moderns, reason vs. revelation, and arguments against historicism and relativism. Seth also enlightens us on the different variants of Straussianism and why he identifies as a West Coast Straussian.
About Seth Root
Seth Root is the cohost of the In The Trenches Podcast, a show for conversations with people that are right in the middle of the war of ideas. Seth was a fellow at Conservative Partnership Institute and an incoming intern at the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding.
Listener Mail
Josh responds to a Mark’s email about his blog post Fifty Conservative Thinkers and conservatism and the environmental movement. Mark is the author of Old Man on a Green Bike: Chronicles of a Self-Serving Environmentalist, a book on the politics and practicalities of conscious bicycling, inspiring readers to take to two wheels for their own sake, and maybe also the good of the planet.
Syndicated columnist, author, podcaster, and political commentator Jonah Goldberg joins Josh to discuss his work in conservative media, their shared concerns with the direction of the country and sanity of the GOP, and why Woodrow Wilson was possibly an even worse human being than James Buchanan.
Jonah Goldberg hosts The Remnant, a podcast featuring a “Cannonball Run”-style cast of stars, has-beens, and never-weres to address the most pressing issues of the day and of all-time, mixing history, pop culture, rank-punditry, political philosophy, and, at times, shameless book-plugging, and the nudity is (almost) always tasteful. In October of 2019 Goldberg co-launched and became founding editor of the online opinion and news publication The Dispatch. He was the founding editor of National Review Online, and from 1998 until 2019 he was an editor at National Review.
A prolific writer, Goldberg writes a weekly column about politics and culture for the Los Angeles Times as well as a frequent “newsletter” The G-File. He has authored three books, the No. 1 New York Times bestseller Liberal Fascism; The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas; and Suicide of the West, which also became a New York Times bestseller.
Goldberg is also a regular contributor on news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, appearing on various television programs including Good Morning America, Nightline, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Real Time with Bill Maher, and The Daily Show. Goldberg is an occasional guest on a number of Fox News shows and a frequent panelist on Special Report with Bret Baier.
Listener Mail
In this episode we’re introducing a new segment: listener mail. Josh selects from some of the messages he’s received and responds to them in the podcast. Few episodes have generated as much feedback as the previous episode: Episode 81 – But, He's a Fighter. Josh reads a text he received from Jeff saying how much he enjoyed the episode and a tweet and email from Dennis expressing concerns over the episode.
How often have you heard someone say of a Republican politician that they don’t necessarily approve of everything they do or say, but at least they fight? What exactly do we mean when we say—often approvingly—that someone is a fighter? Why is the Right so concerned with whether or not someone is fighting? Who are they supposed to be fighting, and what does it mean to fight? What is the role of civility in public discourse, and is it possible to maintain an appropriate amount of civility while still fighting? If we grant that the Right seems to be on the losing end of the culture wars, what is the best course of action? Does fighting mean we develop our own form of cancel-culture and work to produce as many liberal tears as we can? Or does it mean we work to rebuild our own cultural values? Can both be done at the same time? Is it even possible to make cultural gains through political means?
Bob Burch joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to hash out these questions and more in a conversation where they—ironically—have more to fight about than usual.
“There's a well-worn tale about modern American conservatism,” writes Stephanie Slade in her piece for Reason entitle Is There a Future for Fusionism? “It says that the movement as we know it came into being during the mid–20th century as a ‘fusionist’ coalition of economic libertarians and religious traditionalists. These groups, whose goals and priorities differed from the start, were held together mainly by two things: the sheer charisma of National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr., and the shared enemy of global communism. As long as the Cold War endured, the story goes, each wing was willing to cede some ground to the other…But the fall of the USSR meant the collapse of the common foe that had sustained the fusionist partnership. It was able to trundle on for a while, powered by a reservoir of goodwill, but it has long been running on fumes. In the last few years, the alliance's inherent tensions have come to a head.”
The problem with this “well-worn tale”, Stephanie contends, is that it isn’t true. Fusionism, as developed by conservative thinkers from William F. Buckley Jr. to Frank Meyer, was a philosophical orientation that sought to advance both virtue and liberty as societal ends whereas the coalition on the Right that formed to combat global Communism was born out of political expediency. As such, fusionism is just as relevant in a world where Communism is no longer the global menace it was in the prior century, in spite of competing voices on the Right calling for a realignment of market-skeptical Common-Good Conservatism, nationalism, and populism.
Stephanie joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the true history of fusionism, what it became the dominant consensus on the Right, and why it still remains relevant today. Also discussed are some common objections to fusionism, how fusionism can fit within the broader worldviews of libertarians, conservatives, and classical liberals, what is meant by “liberty” and “virtue”, and the seductive dangers of the post-liberal movement.
Stephanie Slade is managing editor at Reason, the libertarian magazine of "free minds and free markets." Prior to joining Reason, Stephanie worked as a speechwriter, a pollster, and a regular contributor to U.S. News and World Report. In 2013, she was named a finalist for the Bastiat Prize for Journalism. In 2016–2017, she was selected as a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. She's a proud graduate of the University of Florida, where she earned a B.A. in economics. She also has an M.A. from American University. You can find her on Twitter @sladesr
The Saving Elephants podcast turns three years old today—no joke! To celebrate Saving Elephants is releasing a bonus episode: a re-podcast from the Conservative Minds podcast where Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis joined Corey Astill and Kyle Sammin to discuss Frank Meyer’s classic book What Is Conservatism?
Conservative Minds is a podcast about conservative ideas and thinkers. Hosts Corey and Kyle explore what it means to call yourself a conservative, where conservatism has been, and where it's going. Each week, they select readings and conduct a discussion to share with you our investigation. You can join the conversation by liking them on Facebook or following them on Twitter at @consminds.
The book What Is Conservatism? contains multiple essays from twelve prominent conservative intellectuals compiled by the father of conservative fusionism himself, Frank Meyer. Just what is conservatism? Many people are groping for answers, especially as conservatives seem to retreat into factions—Tea Partiers, traditionalists, libertarians, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and on and on. But this illuminating book shows what unites conservatives even as it explores conservatism’s rich internal debate.
What Is Conservatism?features brilliant essays by such leading lights as:
- F. A. Hayek, Nobel Prize–winning economist and author of The Road to Serfdom
- William F. Buckley Jr., founder of National Review and the man perhaps most responsible for the rise of modern conservatism
- Russell Kirk, whose seminal book The Conservative Mind gave the conservative movement its name
- M. Stanton Evans, author of the conservative movement’s central credo, the “Sharon Statement” (1960)
It also includes a foreword by #1 New York Times bestselling author and The Dispatch founder Jonah Goldberg explaining the influence of What Is Conservatism? on conservative thought and the book’s relevance today.
Host of the Leading Questions podcast Calvin Moore joins Josh to discuss his journey away from the Evangelical faith and a traditional, conservative, Republican culture. Calvin became disillusioned with the Christianity of his upbringing and dissuaded from the politics commonly attached to it over many years of wrestling with hypocrisies and disingenuous arguments. His story is an excellent example of the dangers in short-sighted political strategies and belief systems that fail to take the experiences of others into account.
Calvin begins his story where he left off last year on the podcast Changed My Mind with Luke T. Harrington in which he shares why he left behind Evangelicalism. Calvin Moore is the host of Leading Questions with Calvin Moore, a weekly moderated roundtable discussion about ongoing issues in our culture. The podcast brings together disparate voices on a particular issue, discusses disagreements, considers one another's positions and, at the very least, leaves the table with a measure of respect for the person on the other side of the debate as they strive to create a space for passionate, yet healthy dialogue.
Always the inquisitive, skeptical member of his family, Calvin has consistently pushed the boundaries of accepted conventions in his search for truth and understanding. With the rise of new media, he noticed the degradation of dialogue between disparate viewpoints, which led to the creation of this program.
Calvin earned his Bachelor of Science in History Education at Rochester University in Rochester Hills, Michigan. His focus is on the African-American experience in the Early American Republic and Presidential History.
Calvin resides in Michigan with his wife, Jennifer.
Women on the Right have an invisibility problem. It’s not that they’re nonexistent, it’s that they’re often overlooked by the Fox News stereotype of what is believed to constitute a conservative woman. So says Leslie Loftis, longtime curator of publications from conservative women.
Leslie and Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis delve into the challenges women on the Right face and what unique strengths they might bring to the Republican party and conservatism in general if they were more visible. Leslie also shares her thoughts on the role of feminism in advancing women’s concerns, what unifies conservative women, the challenges social media present to our civil discourse, and how we might ultimately improve our political dialogue across the ideological spectrum.
Leslie Loftis is a recovering lawyer and political writer. She started writing back in the blog boom of the early 2000’s with an expat blog, An American Housewife in London. By 2012, Leslie had moved back to Texas and was brought on to write for an expanding PJMedia. Soon thereafter, she became one of the original Senior Contributors for The Federalist and published in local newspapers, The Conservative Woman UK, and US News and World Report, among others.
By mid-2017, Leslie was publishing exclusively at Arc Digital and for her own start-up magazine and newsletter, Iron Ladies. When disillusionment and burnout after the Kavenaugh Hearings dampened any writing desires, Leslie took a temporary (as it turns out) break from writing to start a long-intended project, teaching life administration. (Think household budgets and management, the kind of practical skills few seem to learn anymore until they already need them.) She revived the Iron Ladies newsletter a year ago, which you can subscribe to here. https://mailchi.mp/b3a6caef7f85/ironladiescollectionsignup
Leslie lives in Houston with her husband and their four teenagers and four dogs. You can find her on Twitter @LeslieLoftisTX
In this crossover episode friend of the podcast Justin Stapley invites Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis onto his show Self-Evident to discuss self-evident truths and what it means to hold truth in tension.
The conversation includes thoughts on whether or not our inalienable rights are “self-evident”, the genius of American founders, Jeffersonian, Lockean liberalism vs. Hamiltonian, Burkean conservatism, why John Adams didn’t make a good president, whether the 1619 Project or 1776 Project is “right” or if the truth is somewhere in-between, whether America’s founding perfect or problematic, whether truth is to be found in reason or prescription, can Burkean conservatism be found in Burke alone or is he only the starting-point for conservative thought, the challenges conservative fusionism faces today, and a surprisingly lengthy and unexpected conversation about American slavery.
This conversation was originally released on the Self-Evident show. Self-Evident is a weekly newsletter and intermittent podcast where Justin Stapley discusses both timely political topics as well as the timeless values and first principles of limited government and free society.
Justin Stapley has been writing politically since 2016. His writing has been featured by ALEC, The Federalist Coalition, and the personal blogs and platforms he has operated over the years, which include Never Tyranny, The Millennial Federalist, and The Liberty Hawk.
Justin considers himself a liberty-minded conservative with principles and beliefs grounded in the idea of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism.
Justin currently studies Political Science at Utah Valley University with an emphasis in Political Theory and Constitutional Studies. He is a staunchly independent voice and is unafraid to call balls and strikes as he sees them. His calm but pointed writing style is often flavored with humor as he analyzes and discusses both news cycle driven topics as well as deeper philosophical considerations.
Justin appeared previously on Saving Elephants on the following episodes:
Episode 30 - Fusionism with Justin Stapley
Episode 55 – The New Centrist with Justin Stapley
Bonus Episode – The 2020 Elections – Now What?
You can follow Justin on Twitter @JustinWStapley
The million-dollar question within conservatism these days is what happens now? After the tumultuous years of the Trump administration and with a Republican party gearing up for civil war to determine who owns the heart and soul of the Right, to say nothing of looming questions of the role of nationalism and populism competing against conservatism, it’s difficult to predict how all of this will ultimately shake out.
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to try to offer some clarity in our murky times is Cal Davenport, co-host of In The Trenches Podcast, a show of two young conservatives having conversations with people who are in the arena of ideas. Josh and Cal discuss what a future coalition of the Right might consist of and what conservative giants of old taught that might benefit us in our present dilemma. Cal offers three prescriptions for how our American political discourse might turn from its current dangerous trajectory and how conservatism might regain its footing.
Cal Davenport is co-founder and co-host of the In the Trenches Podcast on conservative intellectual thought. He has written for The Wasington Examiner, RedState, The Resurgent and more. He has worked in Congress, for political campaigns, for think tanks, and in political consulting. Cal received his M.A. in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from Witten/Herdecke University.
Tomorrow Joe Biden will be sworn in as our 46th President. Yet this inauguration will mark the first time in American history that the outgoing president refused to accept the results of the election and actively worked to overturn them. And, for the first time in modern American history, we were deprived on a peaceful transfer of power.
On January 6, 2021 our country was attacked. My country. Your country. Though the events took place several weeks ago, it is important to keep them fresh in our minds as we reflect on what it means to be Americans and to live in the greatest experiment in self-government in human history.
The assailants were not foreign combatants, Leftist provocateurs, or opportunistic criminals. They were supporters of Donald Trump who, having been deceived into believing the election was stolen from them, committed acts of sedition against the United States by violently breaching barricades into the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power by the duly elected representatives of the American people.
All of this happened precisely because Donald Trump has been spreading lies and misinformation for two months in hopes of overturning the results of the election and because he asked his supporters to come to Washington to “stop the steal” and incited mob violence. Trump’s speech to the crowd that morning contained numerous unsubstantiated claims of a deep state effort led by the Left, big tech, weak Republicans, and other supposed enemies. He (falsely) claimed Mike Pence had the constitutional authority to stop the certifying of votes and that his supporters will “never give up,” “not take it anymore,” and “stop the steal”. He then told them to march to the Capitol and promised to join them there (yet another lie).
Trump—who isn’t exactly known for his reticence in expressing his views on Twitter—then watched in comfort and glee as the violence unfolded before the world. Hours later, as blood stained the Capitol floors and rioters continued to wreak havoc, Trump delivered a brief address that focused far more on approval for his supporters’ loyalty than it did a call for peace. Later that day Tweeter suspended his account when he tweeted such acts are to be expected when an election is stolen.
It was Mike Pence—not Trump—who ultimately put an end to the violent incursion by ordering the deployment of the National Guard. The condemnation Trump was unable to muster at the mob who stormed the Capitol was directed, instead, to Pence and to his top aide, Marc Short, who was denied entry into the White House that same night.
There are three groups responsible for this cowardly attack on our country: 1) the President and his closest allies, 2) willing accomplices in Congress, and 3) the protestors themselves. It’s important we understand clearly what happened on January 6th so that nothing like this ever happens again.
One year ago today, on January 12, 2020, Sir Roger Scruton died at the age of 75. Thus passed one of the greatest intellectual minds of the past century. Scruton was an English philosopher and writer who specialized in aesthetics and political philosophy. He wrote over 50 books on philosophy, art, music, politics, literature, culture, sexuality, and religion, as well as novels and two operas. Yet his greatest achievement, according to Dr. Samuel Gregg with the Acton Institute, was to put into words and give form to conservatism as a philosophy beyond a mere disposition or attitude.
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis in remembering the life and works of Sir Roger Scruton is returning guest Bryan Baise, professor of philosophy and apologetics at Boyce College. Bryan describes Scruton as a dear friend he’d never met who nonetheless had a rescuing influence on his life. Bryan published several obituaries for Scruton last year to celebrate his life. He wrote:
“I was sitting in Panera when I received a text message from a friend and colleague: ‘Roger Scruton has died.’ I was with my family and a widow from our church, holding back tears until I could get in the car. A man that changed so many things about my world has now passed away.”
Bryan then recounted the many things Scruton had taught him, as discussed in the episode. In another obituary Bryan wrote:
“It’s difficult to try to describe the various ways [Scruton] influenced individuals and movements…I’m afraid the loss of Scruton means the erosion of a kinder, gentler conservatism than what is currently on offer…The posture toward politics and culture that Scruton embodied is, I fear, being forgotten and will one day die out.”
Bryan Baise is a professor of philosophy and apologetics at Boyce College. Bryan is the program director of philosophy, politics, and economics and the program director of the Christian worldview and apologetics. He is currently working on two books, one about beauty and another about introducing the conservative worldview to a non-academic audience. You can follow Bryan on Twitter @bryanbaise.
Bryan was a guest on two previous episodes:
Episode 41 - Why Beauty Matters with Bryan Baise
Episode 25 - Developing Your Worldview with Bryan Baise
What is the opposite of conservatism? It’s liberalism, right? Well…it’s not quite that simple. Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis goes guestless in this episode to take a deep dive into the good, the bad, and the ugly of liberalism and to explain why liberalism, far from being the opposite of conservatism, is actually much of what conservatism is trying to conserve.
But to get there we first need to untangle what we mean by liberalism. What is liberalism? What is the goal of liberalism? What are they “liberal” about? What is the difference between modern-day or progressive liberals and the classical liberalism of the past? What does liberalism and conservatism have in common? How are they different? Why are they always fighting? And why would conservatives want to conserve liberalism?
Is liberalism the same as being on the Left and conservatism the same as being on the Right? Is the Declaration of Independence a liberal or conservative document? What is liberty? How did the ancients understand liberty and how might that differ with how we understand it today? What do we mean by rights? Where do rights come from, and how are they protected?
What do classical to contemporary thinkers on the Right, such as John Locke, Russell Kirk, Roger Scruton, Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, and David French, have to say about liberalism? Is liberalism sufficient for liberty or does society require something more to maintain order? Does liberalism contain the seeds of its own destruction? What is the “myth” of liberalism and how is it different from traditional conservative myths? And why can’t Woody Allen neck with William F. Buckley? Learn all that and more in the episode.
Here are some links referenced in the show:
William F. Buckley on Woody Allen’s show
Blog post: French-ism and the Looming Conservative Civil War
Saving Elephants Episode 27 - What's so Positive about Negative Rights?
Saving Elephants Episode 59 – Podcasting Orphans with Andrew Heaton
Saving Elephants Episode 68 – Divided We Fall with David French
Last week cohosts Cal Davenport and Seth Root of the In The Trenches podcast invited Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis on their show for some no holds barred discourse around the topic of whether David French’s recommendations for addressing the growing political divide in the country are sufficient, achievable, and ideal or fail to go far enough. Throughout the conversation Cal and Josh appeal to Burkean arguments while Seth holds his own defending a Straussian viewpoint. What are the solutions to the nation’s political divide? Are David French’s solutions too Frenchist? Is nationalist populism a viable alternative to Frenchism? Take a listen!
Among the legions of intellectuals and academics milling about Washington D.C., few commands more respect than Yuval Levin. Yuval has worked in the nation’s capital for decades and has a surprisingly hopeful message for the prospects of conservatism’s future and the fate of the republic. Yet he is soberminded about the challenges we face, chiefly the failure of our institutions to form us into the kind of people fit to live in a society of ordered liberty.
Yuval joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss why are institutions are important, why they’re failing us, and what we can do about it. They also discuss the intellectual roots of the modern Left and Right and what Edmund Burke contributed to modern political thought.
Yuval Levin is a political analyst, public intellectual, academic, and journalist. He is the founding editor of National Affairs, director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a contributing editor of National Review, and co-founder and a senior editor of The New Atlantis. He also holds the Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy.
Yuval served as a member of the White House domestic policy staff under President George W. Bush. He was also executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics and a congressional staffer at the member, committee, and leadership levels.
Yuval’s essays and articles have appeared in numerous publications, among them, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary. He is the author of five books, two of which are discussed in detail in the episode: A Time to Build and The Great Debate.
About a year ago Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis and frequent guest Bob Burch did a series exploring the American Presidencies from a conservative perspective. The discussion took place over three episodes:
Part 1 – George Washington through Abraham Lincoln
Part 2 – Andrew Johnson through Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Part 3 – Harry S. Truman through Jimmy Carter
The series ended with Jimmy Carter as he was the last president to serve before the oldest Millennials were born. Now Josh and Bob pick things up where they left them and walk through the Millennial Presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Donald Trump is excluded as his term as president is ongoing and—quite frankly—he’s all most political podcasts have been talking about for some time.
What did our more recent presidents do well? What were their shortcomings? How does a conservative view their administration? And what is their lasting impact on the nation? Join Josh and Bob as they explore of this and more in Saving Elephant’s longest episode yet.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis participated in a panel discussion on the podcast Leading Questions with Calvin Moore to discuss the possible impact of a Biden presidency on the Republican and Democratic parties, the historic nature of Kamala Harris being the first female VP, and the future of American political discourse. This is a rebroadcast of that panel discussion. The panel also includes Leading Questions hosts Calvin, Kent, and Steve and guests Saeed Khan and Jennifer Moore.
The 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke is often credited as being the father of modern conservatism. His most famous work—Reflections on the Revolution in France—is heralded as the most eloquent counter-revolutionary political text ever written and lays much of the foundation for the conservative mindset of the West. Yet Burke is challenging to read and comprehend. His 18th century prose and deeply complex arguments seem otherworldly in an era of bumper-sticker political slogans and surface-level philosophy.
Russell Kirk—perhaps Burke’s greatest American disciple—wrote of Burke: “If conservatives would know what they defend, Burke is their touchstone; and if radicals wish to test the temper of their opposition, they should turn to Burke. Having done this, some conservatives may find that their previous footing was insecure; while some radicals may acknowledge that the position of traditionalists is tenable, or that Burke, too, was a liberal—if liberalism be in any degree associated with ordered freedom.”
In this episode, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Wes Siler to introduce the audience to Burke’s teachings and attempt to demystify his complex and foundational thoughts.
Wes Siler is the founder and Director of The Burkean Conservative, a website, social media presence, and video platform that produces content focused on educating and expanding the conservative movement on the basis of Edmund Burke's principles. You can follow The Burkean Conservative on Twitter @TheBurkeanCon
Saving Elephants’ own Josh Lewis hosts an election night panel to discuss the incoming results of the race and what it may mean for the future of the country, Republican and Democratic parties, and conservative movement.
Meet the panelists:
Brooke Medina:
Brooke Medina is a homeschool mother of four and the Director of Communications at Civitas Institute where she manages Civitas’ outward facing platforms, oversees messaging strategy, and handles all press relationships. The North Carolina based Civitas Instituted is a nonprofit policy organization dedicated to removing barriers to freedom so that all North Carolinians can enjoy a better life. Brooke also co-hosts Civitas’ podcast Civitalk, which focuses on drawing connections between civics and culture.
Brooke is a graduate of Regent University, holding a B.A. in Government and a minor in English. She has also completed several programs with the Charles Koch Institute, including the Koch Leaders Program and Koch Communications Fellowship, focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of market-based management and classical liberalism. She also sits on the board of directors for ReCity Network, a Durham-based non-profit committed to empowering civil society in combating poverty-related problems. Brooke’s writings have been published in outlets such as The Hill, Entrepreneur, Washington Examiner, Daily Signal, FEE, and Intellectual Takeout.
But most importantly, Brooke’s hot takes, insights, and shenanigans on social media are worth following so be sure and check her out on Twitter @Brooke_Medina_
Justin Stapley:
A prolific writer and thoughtful tweeter, Justin began working on projects not at all dissimilar to Saving Elephant’s mission to fight for a restoration of political principles in the American political process shortly after the 2016 election. And during the past several years, Justin has launched multiple websites and written for many affiliate groups.
His flagship website is the apply named justinstapley.com which links to his various endeavors, including a contributing advocate and writer for the Federalist Coalition, an advocacy journalist at NOQ Report, an opinion columnist at Porter Medium, the founder and editor of The Liberty Hawk, and the Shooting Editor at Spencer Durrant Outdoors and will be a co-host for the up-and-coming Spencer Durrant Outdoors Podcast. Earlier this year Justin launched his own podcast called The New Centrist which features his original commentary and highlights of worthwhile speeches. In addition to politics, his writings include recreational shooting, hunting, fishing, and self-defense. His most current work includes the near-weakly newsletter Self-Evident.
Justin described himself as a “liberty-minded conservative and member of the Republican Party” whose “principles and beliefs are grounded in the idea of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism.” While much of that remains the same, he no longer feels he can be a card-caring member of the Republican party and hold to those values, as he explains at length in the episode.
You can find Justin on Twitter @JustinWStapley.
JB Shreve:
Veteran podcaster JB Shreve conducted a series of interviews of Christians of various political persuasions to ask about their expectations and recommendations in the upcoming 2020 election. JB had invited Josh to join as the “conservative” participant in the interviews. And Josh was happy to return the favor in having JB on the show to share his insights.
JB Shreve is the founder of The End of History, a blog and podcast for Christians dedicated to helping believers make sense of the chaos of the world around them. JB has been producing podcasts and articles since 2012.
After more than 200 podcast episodes, his listeners have come to expect well researched, fact-based backgrounders on a wide variety of topics to help them better understand the world around them. These backgrounders range from the history of the Middle East to the true story of economic inequality. Episodes and posts frequently expose myths and false paradigms we have come to believe. JB is adamant he is not pushing a political agenda. Rather, JB’s mission is to:
- Help believers in crafting their own response to world affairs and current events
- Provide a faith-based, values-centered voice in the face of current global issues
- Ease the tension between a Biblical worldview and the world we live in
- Provide reasonable, intelligent perspectives empowered with Biblical values and faith
- Remove the yelling, outrage, and debate from our worldviews to find facts and seek the truth
You can learn more about JB’s work and podcast on his website, The End of History. JB can be found on Twitter @JB_Shreve
Calvin Moore:
Calvin Moore is the host of Leading Questions with Calvin Moore, a weekly moderated roundtable discussion about ongoing issues in our culture. The podcast brings together disparate voices on a particular issue, discusses disagreements, considers one another's positions and, at the very least, leaves the table with a measure of respect for the person on the other side of the debate as they strive to create a space for passionate, yet healthy dialogue.
Always the inquisitive, skeptical member of his family, Calvin has consistently pushed the boundaries of accepted conventions in his search for truth and understanding. With the rise of new media, he noticed the degradation of dialogue between disparate viewpoints, which led to the creation of this program.
Calvin earned his Bachelor of Science in History Education at Rochester University in Rochester Hills, Michigan. His focus is on the African-American experience in the Early American Republic and Presidential History.
Calvin resides in Michigan with his wife, Jennifer.
It’s finally here! It’s Election Day. After what feels like the longest year of our lives, the campaign season is over.
While voting and elections are still fresh in our minds, now’s as good a time as any to reflect on the voting process. Yes, you may have already voted, but the act of voting is about so much more than checking a box once every four years. It’s about the life-long process of becoming the sort of people fit to live in a free republic.
It’s easy to get tripped up right out of the gate if you’re fuzzy on the purpose for voting in the first place. As citizens of a constitutional republic, one of the ways in which we “participate” in governing ourselves is by electing representatives to—literally—represent us. We are far too encumbered with our own busy lives to fully take the time to understand the nuances of tax policy, foreign diplomacy, or a myriad of other issues. Therefore, we rely on others to fully immerse themselves in these issues in a manner that best represents our interests and values.
Perhaps this sounds so pedantic or straightforward you find it odd to even mention it. But it is quite easy for other competing notions of the purpose of voting to swim about in our heads and, unless we take the time to think them through, we may fall victim to these subconscious biases. It is quite easy for us to quickly turn the idea that we are voting on people to represent our interests and values in a political sense to a broader notion of representation. We may come to believe it is important that we be able to “relate” to the person we vote for, or that we need to find them more likeable than their opponents.
The purpose of voting is to communicate our values, ideas, and concerns, not to make a political statement. It’s to find leaders who will represent our interests and protect our rights, not to express our anger at political frustrations.
Voting should not be viewed as the central duty of fulfilling one’s civic responsibilities when called upon, but one of the many ways we perform our civic duty. Serving in the military, paying your taxes, voting in elections, and obeying the speed limit fall under the rubric of civic duty; but so too does educating yourself, honest dealings in business, staying true to your personal commitments, and flossing your teeth.
Part of what it means to participate in a society of self-governance is to govern oneself. That does not mean we must be perfect, but it does mean that we create a greater need for governmental intervention each time we fail to govern our own affairs. It also does not mean who we vote for is unimportant, but it does mean how we conduct ourselves in our personal and professional relationships is far more important to the health of our nation. A nation is no greater than the sum of the individuals and sub-groups within the nation.
In this bonus episode, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is interviewed by Wes Siler, director and founder of The Burkean Conservative. This conversation was originally broadcast on Facebook Live under The Burkean Conservative’s weekly video series Conservatism on Tap LIVE. The conversation centers around how Saving Elephants came to be and the ongoing project to reignite conservatism for Millennials in hopes of restoring the Republican party.
The Burkean Conservative is a website, social media presence, and series of frequently updated videos focused on educating and expanding the conservative movement on the basis of Edmund Burke's principles. They define a “Burkean Conservative” one who ascribes to conservative political philosophy in the tradition of Edmund Burke, an 18th century philosopher and statesman widely credited for developing classical conservatism.
According to The Burkean Conservative website, Edmund Burke took strong stances against the violence and progressivism of the French Revolution while also taking a position of sympathy and leniency towards the more justified impulses of the American Revolution. Today the ideas, speeches, and political stances of Edmund Burke serve to philosophically differentiate conservatism from other beliefs. However, Burke's ideas are still too often ignored and disregarded by leading American intellectuals today. Far too many conflate conservatism with libertarianism or simple nostalgia, and in doing so they ignore the true intellectual roots and maturity of the conservative perspective.
Can we all just admit that 2020 sucks? This year has been a disaster on so many fronts it’s hard to keep track. What feels like a decade’s worth of news stories pass from one week to the next with no end in sight. But just how bad is 2020? Compared to what? How are we doing as a nation, world, or species in the grand scheme of things? Is the future bleak or bright? And how do we maintain perspective so that we can clearly see what needs to change without overlooking genuine progress quietly taking place elsewhere?
Long-time guest Bob Burch is back after a long hiatus to join host Josh Lewis in parsing through the good, the bad, and the ugly truths about 2020 and to share how the conservative mindset can help keep hope alive in the midst difficult times.
Hardly anyone disagrees Americans are divided, or that our divisions are problematic. But could continual political partisanship and polarization actually fracture the United States into multiple nations? What is the likely outcome or potential risks if we do not find a way to reverse the negative polarization? What are the preconditions for state secessions, and how close are we to meeting those preconditions? Is the United States facing another civil war, acrimonious divorce, or eventual reconciliation?
Those are precisely the questions David French sets out to answer in his new book Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation. David joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the threats political polarization represent for the United States, what our history can tell us about the likelihood of these dangers, and how returning to the Madisonian blueprint of the extended republic may offer the solutions to many of the controversial political battles today.
David French is an Iraqi war veteran, attorney, free speech and religious liberties advocate, political commentator, and author who has been at the center of some of the hottest political battles over the past four years. His name was used to coin the term Frenchism to describe a deference to classical liberalism and opposition to the new nationalism and authoritarianism on the Right (see the Saving Elephants article on Frenchism for more information).
French has served as a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom, has lectured at Cornell Law School, and spent much of his career working on religious-rights issues. He served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He retired from FIRE in 2005, citing plans to serve in the United States Army Reserve as a judge advocate general officer. He was a staff writer for National Review from 2015 to 2019, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. In 2019 French left National Review to join the conservative news site The Dispatch as a senior editor.
Many Evangelicals and conservatives share an embattlement mindset. Somehow we’re always losing the culture wars despite political gains and cultural acceptance, and even when we’re in the majority politically or enjoy unprecedented influence we can’t shake the feeling that the other shoe is about to drop. No majority, position, or gain is ever secure and we’re just one election away from losing everything.
But where does this embattlement mindset come from? Is it simply crackpot paranoia? Is there something embedded in the histories of the Right and Evangelicalism that gives this mindset an air of legitimacy? Or is it a little bit of both?
Paul Matzko joins Josh to answer these questions by exploring the murky histories of the radio Right in the 1960s, Kennedy’s successful efforts at censoring opposition, and the cultural significance of Evangelicals’ evolution from The Painter of Light Thomas Kinkade to The Painter of Trump Jon McNaughton.
Paul Matzko is a historian (PhD, Penn State) specializing in the intersection of politics and religion in twentieth century America. His work also draws from media studies, public choice economics, gender studies, and social movement theory.
Paul’s book The Radio Right, was published earlier this year, which tells the story of the 1960s far Right, who were frustrated by what they perceived to be liberal bias in the national media, particularly the media's sycophantic relationship with the John F. Kennedy administration. His book provides the essential pre-history for the last four decades of conservative activism, as well as the historical context for current issues of political bias and censorship in the media.
Paul has taught multiple courses at Penn State, both on campus and online, and worked as an adjunct at Princeton University. He is currently the Assistant Editor for Tech and Innovation at Libertarianism.org, an outreach of the Cato Institute, where he runs a regular column and also hosts a podcast on emerging technology called Building Tomorrow. He cohosts the Impolitic podcast dedicated to friendly conversations on politics, culture, and history from the standpoint of his own libertarian views and the socialists views of his friend Sean Trainor.
Paul can be found on Twitter @PMatzko
Stephanie Kelton’s book The Deficit Myth released in June was just the latest in a series of books, blogs, articles, podcasts, and videos extoling the virtue of Modern Monetary Theory (or “MMT”). We’re told that governments that have sovereignty over their currency can afford a wide array of social programs from entitlement expansion to generous welfare benefits to the Green New Deal. Leftist are ecstatic that they finally have an answer to the Right’s persistent question “how are you going to pay for all this stuff?”
But is MMT sound monetary policy? For that matter, what is monetary policy? What did famous economists like Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes have to say about monetary policy? Was it a mistake for America to get off the gold standard? What is the Federal Reserve, and why can’t they seem to leave the interest rate alone? Do deficits matter? If so, how?
For most, monetary policy may sound like a subject that’s dreadfully complicated or—far worse—boring. Yet this opaque subject matter is very important to our economic wellbeing. In fact, bad monetary policy greatly exacerbated economic downturns to the point of creating The Great Depression and The Great Recession. Sound monetary policy benefits us all, and it’s imperative we understand what sound—and not so sound—monetary policy looks like.
Returning guest and friend to the podcast Joseph Sternberg joins Josh in a discussion on monetary policy that’s both digestible and engaging. We last heard from Joseph in episode 35 when he dropped by to discuss his book The Theft of a Decade: How the Baby Boomers Stole the Millennials’ Economic Future.
Joseph is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, where he writes the Political Economics column. He joined the Journal in 2006 as an editorial writer in Hong Kong, where he also edited the Business Asia column. He currently lives in London. He graduated from The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia with an economics major.
With everything else going on, it’s easy to forget 2020 is still a presidential election year. To help us navigate the coming election, Josh welcomes Sarah Isgur to talk about national elections, money in politics, how much gender and race is a factor in elections, and how much influence campaigns really have in determining the outcome of an election.
Sarah Isgur is a writer and podcast host at The Dispatch where she specializes in legal and political matters.
Sarah graduated from Harvard University with a degree in law. She has extensive experience in political campaigns, including working in both John Corbyn and Ted Cruz’s campaigns for U.S. Senate and Mitt Romney’s presidential race in 2012. In 2013 and 2014 she served as Deputy Communications Director to the Republican National Committee. In 2016 Sarah was Deputy Campaign Manager in Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign. During Jeff Session’s stint as Attorney General she served as his Senior Counsel as well as Director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice. Prior to joining The Dispatch, Sarah worked for CNN as a political editor.
You can follow Sarah on Twitter @whignewtons
School districts across America are faced with unprecedented challenges as they weigh their options in reopening classrooms in the midst of a global pandemic. But could these challenges point the way to interesting opportunities to find innovative ways to educate and even allow for a healthy debate on the purpose of education in the first place?
Perennial optimist and returning guest Brooke Medina believes this is the case and she shares how empowering parents and local governments to make their own choices is not only the best way to deal with the lasting effects of COVID-19, it also happens to be the best policy for educating our kids overall. Brooke joined Josh earlier this year in episode 58 in a discussion over the philosophy and purpose of education. However, Josh got so wound up reminiscing about his homeschool upbringing that there wasn’t time left to cover school choice, vouchers, and education policy. This episode picks things up where episode 58 left off in moving beyond the philosophical to the more practical elements of conservatism as applied to education policy.
Brooke Medina is a homeschool mother of four and the Director of Communications at Civitas Institute where she manages Civitas’ outward facing platforms, oversees messaging strategy, and handles all press relationships. The North Carolina based Civitas Instituted is a nonprofit policy organization dedicated to removing barriers to freedom so that all North Carolinians can enjoy a better life. Brooke also co-hosts Civitas’ podcast Civitalk, which focuses on drawing connections between civics and culture.
Brooke is a graduate of Regent University, holding a B.A. in Government and a minor in English. She has also completed several programs with the Charles Koch Institute, including the Koch Leaders Program and Koch Communications Fellowship, focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of market-based management and classical liberalism. She also sits on the board of directors for ReCity Network, a Durham-based non-profit committed to empowering civil society in combating poverty-related problems. Brooke’s writings have been published in outlets such as The Hill, Entrepreneur, Washington Examiner, Daily Signal, FEE, and Intellectual Takeout.
But most importantly, Brooke’s hot takes, insights, and shenanigans on social media are worth following so be sure and check her out on Twitter @Brooke_Medina_
As Millennial conservatives know, conservatism gets a bad wrap in our generation. Conservatism is a hard sell on the young in general because it begins by challenging our natural inclinations towards innovation, novelty, and the pursuit of progress and revolution over gratitude and reform. And far too often, older conservatives fail to understand the unique historical inputs—the Great Recession, 9-11, our increasingly digital and automated world, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street—that have formed our worldviews. As such, they tend to dismiss Millennial concerns as trite, unappreciative, ignorant, or dangerously unpatriotic instead of engaging our concerns head-on and offering better solutions. We’re depicted as the “kids these days” and largely written off as hopeless causes who will eventually swing to the Right when we learn what’s good for us.
But the oldest Millennials will soon be forty—which hardly qualifies as the “kids these days”. And as Millennials age and eventually take charge, are we in danger of repeating the same mistakes of our elders? Do we understand the unique inputs that are forming the next generation of Americans—COVID-19, civil unrest and police misconduct, the Trump era—and how the message of conservatism might be tailored to meet their concerns?
To that end, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis (a Millennial) welcomes Nate Hochman (Gen Z) to the podcast to discuss conservatism through the eyes of younger Americans.
Nate Hochman is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Athwart, an online publication that offers a platform for dissent from Colorado College’s political orthodoxy. Hochman is currently majoring in political science with a minor in journalism at Colorado College. He has interned at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. and National Review and has been published in National Review. He is currently interning with Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg’s media start-up The Dispatch. You can follow Nate on Twitter @njhochman
Josh forgoes the podcast guest this episode and offers some thoughts on how the conservative worldview differs from the worldview of secularism, scientism, and materialism.
Secularism can mean the belief that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. However, this describes a viewpoint held by many religious and nonreligious people and is not wed exclusively to a materialistic worldview. Secularism, for the purposes of this discussion, has less to do with whether a person has fine feelings about government neutrality on religious matters and everything to do with whether or not they believe religious matters comport to reality or hold any weight beyond mere private superstitions.
Secularism, then, is more than the principle of separating institutions of government from institutions of religion—though that idea is present. But the secularist also possesses an indifference, rejection, or exclusion of religious considerations or appeals to supernatural explanations. This would include both a person who rejects all supernatural explanations as well as a person who—though they may consider themselves to be religious personally—for all practical purposes behave as if all that exists is the material world.
Some secularists ascribe to scientism; the belief philosopher and theologian J. P. Moreland defines as “the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality.” Other secularists hold that personal introspection, reasoning, logic, and philosophical inquiry are also means of discovering truth—not just the scientific method. But all secularists agree that religious traditions and divine revelation—that is supernatural methods—are illegitimate means of discovering truth.
In fact, many would describe religious truth claims as not only nonsensical, but destructive to the form of modern, Western society we live in today. The conservative staunchly disagrees with this notion. For, while conservatism isn’t a religion, it is interested in conserving things of value in our culture (among which are certain religious traditions). That is, the conservative defends religious convictions not out of some sense of loyalty or nostalgia, but because the conservative believes religious convictions play an important role in the formation of culture and—even more importantly—comport to reality.
Are reason and science sufficient for acquiring knowledge? Can they sustain a society of ordered liberty? Can they provide us with a moral code rivaling religious doctrine? Can they fulfil humanity’s desire for the transcendent? Can they answer our deepest questions? The secularist says “yes” the conservative says “no”.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis was interviewed by J. Cal Davenport and Seth Root on their podcast In The Trenches Podcast back in May. Their conversation has been released in this bonus episode and includes a discussion on:
- Josh’s decision to step down from the Republican party in 2016.
- How Saving Elephants came to be
- How Millennials are similar to other generations in how they respond to persuasion on political questions and how are they unique and different
- Understanding conservative “first principles” and what younger Americans should know about them
- Whether conservatism is about adhering to the “old consensus” or charting a new way forward
- Underrated conservative thinkers
Today the term “neocon” is often used to depict someone as war hawkish or part of “The Establishment”. And it’s often used as a pejorative. To call someone a neocon is to imply they are part of the problem, unsympathetic to the plight of the average Joe, and, quite possibly, evil.
Neocon is, of course, short for “neoconservative”. But what is neoconservatism? Is it simply a group of elitist gloooobalists on the Right who profit from the status quo and ever-increasing military ventures at the expense of the rest of us? And who is a neocon? Politicians ranging from George W. Bush to John McCain to Hillary Clinton have all been labeled neocon. Is it a label without any meaningful distinction?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Matthew Continetti to untangle this often misused, misunderstood, and definitely underappreciated term. Josh and Matthew talk through the three iterations or waves of neoconservatism from the godfather of the movement—Irving Kristol—in the 1960s to the conservative responses to the Vietnam War to the post-Cold War iteration with Irving’s son Bill Kristol on to today, and what this historical tradition can tell us about our own political dilemmas.
From Continetti’s bio with AEI:
Matthew Continetti holds a BA in history from Columbia University and is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work is focused on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century. A prominent journalist, analyst, author, and intellectual historian of the right, Mr. Continetti was the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at The Weekly Standard.
Mr. Continetti is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine. He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, among other outlets. He also appears frequently on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” with Bret Baier and MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily” with Chuck Todd.
Mr. Continetti is the author of two books: “The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star” (Sentinel, 2009) and “The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine” (Doubleday, 2006).
You can find Matthew Continetti on Twitter @continetti.
In the wake of the global pandemic, American attitude on trade with China is beginning to sour. Is president Trump’s hawkish stance on free trade the right way to go? Has free trade made us more prosperous or mere stooges of foreign governments who take our jobs and rob us of billions in trade deficits? Joining Josh to untangle these important issues is Scott Lincicome, international trade attorney and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
This episode was inspired by a listeners email:
“Hello I’m a new listener and big fan of the show all the way from Massachusetts. I was hoping you would cover some economics like the supply side vs demand And maybe the debt deficit and why it matters. I know some of it can be wonky but I think your listeners would really enjoy it I know I would.”
Regards,
Raphael
While a discussion on trade touches only aspects of a broader discussion on conservative economic ideas, this episode will at least serve as an introduction to the subject with many more to come in the days ahead.
From the Cato Institution’s biography of Scott Lincicome:
Scott Lincicome is an international trade attorney with extensive experience in trade litigation before the United States Department of Commerce, the US International Trade Commission (ITC), the US Court of International Trade, the European Commission and the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body. He has also advised corporate and sovereign clients on US bilateral and regional trade agreements and US trade policy, as well as WTO matters, including accessions, compliance and multilateral trade negotiations. Scott is also a Visiting Lecturer at Duke University, where he teaches a course on US trade policy and politics.
From 1998–2001 Scott was as a trade policy research assistant at the Cato Institute. Since 2009, Scott has authored or co‐authored several policy papers published by the Cato Institute and other organizations. He also blogs on international trade politics and policy at his personal blog, lincicome.blogspot.com. Scott has a BA in Political Science from the University of Virginia and a JD from the University’s School of Law.
You can find Scott on Twitter @scottlincicome.
Versatile author, stand-up comedian, and podcaster Andrew Heaton joins Josh to untangle the complex web of models and metrics for identifying someone’s political persuasions. Both Andrew and Josh feel uncomfortable with the simply Left/Right scale—and it’s not just because they’re chary of adopting the political paradigm of dead Frenchmen. No political identification model is perfect, but Andrew and Josh attempt to weigh the merits of some of the more perfectible models.
Also discussed: What puts the “OK” in Oklahoma, Heaton’s eventful journey from Goldwater Republican to eventually landing somewhere on a spectrum between George Will and Andrew Yang, the commonality of those who feel alienated from political tribalism, and why Andrew doesn’t want to make America great again by fighting trade wars with China.
From Heaton’s website:
Andrew Heaton is a comedian, author, and political satirist. He’s the host of The Political Orphanage comedy and news podcast, and scifi deep dive podcast Alienating the Audience. He’s a frequent Reason TV contributor and hosted the popular webseries Mostly Weekly. He’s performed standup comedy at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, as a finalist in the China International Standup Competition, and throughout the United States and Europe. A former congressional staffer, he’s the best-selling author of “Laughter is Better Than Communism,” as well as two funny novels. He once opened for William Shatner, who said he’s “very funny.” So there.
As a UCB-trained sketch writer and improviser Andrew Heaton comprises half of the comedy duo Lost History, which has performed improvised historical reenactments at the Del Close Marathon and Austin’s Out of Bounds Comedy Festival. He’s a founding member of the popular New York indie improv team Lumberon, and an alumni of the sketch troupes 17:38 and First Runner Up.
As a political comedian Andrew Heaton has entertained numerous think tanks and advocacy groups, student associations, and sinister political action committees. He’s a regular at Electoral Dysfunction at the People’s Improv Theater in New York, and the Totally Dishonest Media Show at Stand Up New York. He hosted the award-winning series EconPop, a comedy show which explained economics through popular culture.
Andrew Heaton is the author of the best-selling work of political satire Laughter is Better Than Communism, and two funny paranormal novels: Frank Got Abducted (about aliens) and Happier as Werewolves (a tender coming of age novel involving werewolves).
You can follow Heaton on Twitter @MightyHeaton
What is the real purpose of getting an education? And what benefits does a proper education bring to the individual and to society at large? What became of the radically conservative cult(ure) of ATI, Bill Gothard, I Kissed Dating Goodbye courtships, and denim-skirt-wearing coalitions of Christian home schoolers of the 80s and 90s? Does homeschooling have its cultish elements today, or are conservative homeschoolers more…conservative? Aren’t all students just homeschoolers now that COVID-19 has us social distancing from educational facilities?
Saving Elephants host and former homeschooler Josh Lewis is joined by perennial educator and fellow former homeschooler Brooke Medina to answer these questions and many more.
Brooke Medina is a homeschool mother of four and the Director of Communications at Civitas Institute where she manages Civitas’ outward facing platforms, oversees messaging strategy, and handles all press relationships. The North Carolina based Civitas Instituted is a nonprofit policy organization dedicated to removing barriers to freedom so that all North Carolinians can enjoy a better life. Brooke also co-hosts Civitas’ podcast Civitalk, which focuses on drawing connections between civics and culture.
Brooke is a graduate of Regent University, holding a B.A. in Government and a minor in English. She has also completed several programs with the Charles Koch Institute, including the Koch Leaders Program and Koch Communications Fellowship, focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of market-based management and classical liberalism. She also sits on the board of directors for ReCity Network, a Durham-based non-profit committed to empowering civil society in combating poverty-related problems. Brooke’s writings have been published in outlets such as The Hill, Entrepreneur, Washington Examiner, Daily Signal, FEE, and Intellectual Takeout.
But most importantly, Brooke’s hot takes, insights, and shenanigans on social media are worth following so be sure and check her out on Twitter @Brooke_Medina_
Russell Kirk contributed more to modern American conservatism than arguably anyone else! Yet few who call themselves conservative today are familiar with the name “Kirk”—unless they’re referring to Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA. No offense to Charlie but comparing him to Russell is like comparing the works of William Shakespeare to whatever the last thing Bill Mitchell tweeted.
Who was Russell Kirk? Why is he considered the father of American conservatism? What did he do that was so important? Does his message hold value for conservatives today? Why has his legacy been largely forgotten? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Bradley Birzer to answer these questions and more about this woefully underappreciated, unusually eccentric, and highly ingenious thinker from the twentieth century whose prolific writings still have much to say to us about the nature of conservatism in the twenty-first century. But aside from all that, Kirk is just a fascinating individual who wrote more than the average intelligent adult will read in their lifetime and was far more comfortable with mysticism, levitation, and cultish practices than you’d ever expect of someone considered the father of American conservatism!
Bradley J. Birzer, Ph.D. is a professor of history at Hillsdale where he is the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies and Fellow of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. He is the co-founder, editor at large, and senior contributor of The Imaginative Conservative, an on-line journal for those who seek the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, addressing culture, liberal learning, politics, political economy, literature, the arts, and the American Republic. Dr. Birzer also serves on the boards of the Free Enterprise Institute and The Center for Cultural Renewal and is a Fellow with the Foundation for Economic Education, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The McConnell Center, and the Center for Economic Personalism (Brazil).
Dr. Birzer is author of several books, including: In Defense of Andrew Jackson, American Cicero: The Life of Charles Carroll, Sanctifying the World: The Augustinian Life and Mind of Christopher Dawson, J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth, co-editor of The American Democrat and Other Political Writings by James Fenimore Cooper, and co-author of The American West. He is also the author of Russell Kirk: American Conservative, and is considered an authority on the life of Russell Kirk.
He and his wife (also Dr. Birzer) have seven children and divide their time between Michigan and Colorado.
Conservative Millennials who came of age listening to rightwing radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh probably associate political conversations about the environment with the likes of Al Gore railing against global warming and sundry other Environmentalist Wacko warnings of environmental apocalyptic doom. Much of what the Right had to say about environmental concerns was that they were frequently overblown and often used by the Left as an excuse to bring about their calls for central planning.
But as younger Americans have come of age, there’s growing concern on the Right about a whole host of environmental concerns from conservation to endangered species to event climate change. The late conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton noted that “there is no conceivable chance that the conservative defense of property will gain converts among the young without the attempt to show that it is not state control but private ownership that will save the planet from human waste.” If conservatism hopes to survive and adapt, it must find a what to answer the challenge of environmental concerns in a way that’s not hostile to the free market and limited government.
Fortunately, there are growing voices on the Right who claim conservatives can do just that. And among the most prominent of those voices spring from a group of young Americans who make up the American Conservation Coalition: a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and empowering conservatives to re-engage on environmental conversations. ACC Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Danielle Butcher joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the work ACC is doing, how conservatives can impact the environment for the better and—shudder—the threat of climate change.
Danielle Butcher is a nonprofit executive who aides organizations in developing and implementing their national strategies.
Danielle currently serves as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Conservation Coalition and on the Advisory Board of the British Conservation Alliance, where she merges her love of leadership with her passions for free-markets and the environment.
Danielle was recently named to 2020’s Forbes 30 Under 30 list. She has spoken at several prominent conservative events including CPAC, appeared as a frequent guest on NPR and Fox News Radio, and has had her work featured in publications such as The Times, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, VOX, and more.
With her work prior to ACC, she served in leadership roles at various conservative nonprofits and organizations. Danielle attended Bethel University in Saint Paul, Minnesota, where she studied Political Science and Rhetoric Communications.
Saving Elephants turns two years old this April Fools Day—no joke!—and we’re celebrating with a bonus episode. Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis recently appeared in the guest line-up on Calvin Moore’s Leading Questions podcast. Leading Questions hosts Calvin, Kent, and Steve sit down with Millennials Kelly Cleaver (representing the political Left) and Josh Lewis (representing the Right) to discuss the major differences between Republicans and Democrats, whether progressivism or moderation is the winning ticket, reactions to “the other guy” getting a political victory, political pragmatism, and what the major issues are in the 2020 election cycle.
As the polarization between the two political parties increases where does that leave principled conservatives? Are we simply outcasts, or the new centrists? Justin Stapley returns to the show to discuss the state of the GOP, what he considered to be the “last straw” that led him to leave the Republican party earlier this year, the impeachment proceedings, his objections to “vote blue no matter who”, the changing political landscape, and why he now calls himself a new centrist.
A prolific writer and thoughtful tweeter, Justin began working on projects not at all dissimilar to Saving Elephant’s mission to fight for a restoration of political principles in the American political process shortly after the 2016 election. And during the past several years, Justin has launched multiple websites and written for many affiliate groups.
His flagship website is the apply named justinstapley.com which links to his various endeavors, including a contributing advocate and writer for the Federalist Coalition, an advocacy journalist at NOQ Report, an opinion columnist at Porter Medium, the founder and editor of The Liberty Hawk, and the Shooting Editor at Spencer Durrant Outdoors and will be a co-host for the up-and-coming Spencer Durrant Outdoors Podcast. Earlier this year Justin launched his own podcast called The New Centrist which features his original commentary and highlights of worthwhile speeches. In addition to politics, his writings include recreational shooting, hunting, fishing, and self-defense.
Justin described himself as a “liberty-minded conservative and member of the Republican Party” whose “principles and beliefs are grounded in the idea of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism.” While much of that remains the same, he no longer feels he can be a card-caring member of the Republican party and hold to those values, as he explains at length in the episode.
Justin last appeared on the podcast in Episode 30 – Fusionism, and he’s also contributed a couple of blog posts to Saving Elephants, first in contrasting Trump to Reagan then in weighing in on the French/Ahmari wars that erupted within conservative circles last year. You can find Justin on Twitter @JustinWStapley.
The tables are turned in this special bonus episode as Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is the interviewee in a conversation that was originally included in The End of History podcast. Podcaster JB Shreve conducted a series of interviews of Christians of various political persuasions to ask about their expectations and recommendations in the upcoming 2020 election. JB had invited Josh to join as the “conservative” participant in the interviews. The conversation includes exploring the influences and influencers that shaped Josh’s worldview, his political journey from the first presidential he voted in until today, and his thoughts on keeping one’s sanity in the 2020 race. JB Shreve is the founder of The End of History, a blog and podcast for Christians dedicated to helping believers make sense of the chaos of the world around them. JB has been producing podcasts and articles since 2012. After more than 200 podcast episodes, his listeners have come to expect well researched, fact-based backgrounders on a wide variety of topics to help them better understand the world around them. These backgrounders range from the history of the Middle East to the true story of economic inequality. Episodes and posts frequently expose myths and false paradigms we have come to believe. JB is adamant he is not pushing a political agenda. Rather, JB’s mission is to: * Help believers in crafting their own response to world affairs and current events * Provide a faith-based, values-centered voice in the face of current global issues * Ease the tension between a Biblical worldview and the world we live in * Provide reasonable, intelligent perspectives empowered with Biblical values and faith * Remove the yelling, outrage, and debate from our worldviews to find facts and seek the truth
You can learn more about JB’s work and podcast on his website, The End of History. JB can be found on Twitter @JB_Shreve
Let us begin with some unsettling facts: * You will die someday. * It is quite possible your death will be painful and frightening. * For some, death comes tragically early and unexpectedly. * For some, death comes much later and is fully expected, after years of the body and mind steadily deteriorating to the point vital organs no longer function. * If you live long enough, everyone you care about now will die.
I’m not trying to be macabre here; I’m simply trying to frame things in a certain context before we proceed. Our society is obsessed with success, winning, reaching our goals, being our all, “arriving”, self-help, and self-actualization. Trump promised his supporters we’d be winning so much they’d get tired of winning. We love winning. Shelves are dedicated to self-help books in bookstores and there’s no end to podcasts offering advice on how to get rich, be successful, and reach whatever goal you have in mind. Failure is temporary. If it manages to truly set us back or keep us from our goals that’s only because something or someone—God? The lifeforce? The Universe?—has set in motion something even better for us than we had imagined. Death, if it enters our minds at all, is some distant threat that won’t come knocking until after a long life of success and a solid legacy that will ensure our life’s impact is felt for generations to come. Conservative thinkers have had a lot to say about loss and failure. And their words can be a great comfort when our shallow world of "winning" falls apart. British philosopher Roger Scruton observed in his book, How to be a Conservative: “The loss of religion makes real loss more difficult to bear; hence people begin to flee from loss, to make light of it, or to expel from themselves the feelings that make it inevitable…The Western response to loss is not to turn your back on the world. It is to bear each loss as a loss. The Christian religion enables us to do this, not because it promises to offset our losses with some compensating gain, but because it sees them as sacrifices. That which is lost is thereby consecrated to something higher than itself.” “There has been a decline in the belief in an afterlife in whatever form—the belief that, somehow or other, the ‘unfairness’ of this life in this world is somewhere remedied and that accounts are made even,” wrote Irving Kristol in his book Neoconservatism, “As more and more people cease to believe any such thing, they demand that the injustice and unfairness of life be coped with here and now.” What if the faith of our ancestors that taught life everlasting is awaiting us after death wasn’t an antiquated superstition that we’ve evolved out of, but the very glue that held people together when everything else around them looked meaningless in an eternal sense? “I am a conservative. Quite possibly I am on the losing side; often I think so,” wrote Russell Kirk several generations ago, “Yet, out of a curious perversity I had rather lose with Socrates, let us say, than win with Lenin.” Can Millennial conservatives muster the strength of mind to say the same today? Once again, a new generation of conservatives faces the very real possibility of the movement fading into oblivion. The only thing that has prevented that in the past were those brave men and women willing to choose the prospect of losing over meaningless victory. Let us pray that we can find the same courage. Because when all we’re about is winning, we’ve already lost.
Civility is essential to civil society. It puts the "civil" in civilization and allows for a system of ordered liberty to flourish. But what do we do when political opponents refuse to behave with civility? Can civility become a weakness in the face of those willing to risk incivility to get their way? Is it possible to both fight for what we believe while maintaining civility, or are these ideas in conflict with one another? And what exactly is civility? Is it simply being polite and well-mannered, or is there more to it than that? Alexandra Hudson joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the importance of civility, the need to find ways to bolster institutions that strengthen civility and form the individual's character, and the crucial role of front porches (both metaphorically and literally). Josh gets a little carried away and nerds-out on a brief discussion about how these ideas relate to the broader context within conservatism such as the French/Ahmari debates. For a crash course in what the heck he was referring to, check out this post. Alexandra is a California native raised in Vancouver, Canada and currently living in Indianapolis, Indiana and is currently a fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). She studied history and political philosphy at Trinity Western University and earned a Masters in Social Policy at the London School of Economics as a Rotary Scholar. Alexandra has held posts at the Federalist Society and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Most recently, Alexandra served as a Policy Advisor for the US Department of Education, where she worked to administer an annual budget of $16 billion. She left to write her first book, on civility. Alexandra was among the recipients of the 2019 Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship Award. She has appeared on Fox News, and her work has been published in The Wall Street Journal, The American Conservative, the Washington Examiner, The Claremont Review of Books, The Catholic Herald, Commentary Magazine, and Quillette. You can learn more about Alexandra at her website and follow her on Twitter @LexiOHudson.
In Saving Elephants’ first ever cross-over podcast, Saving Elephants host is joined by Bill Roberts, host of the Departied podcast. Bill’s podcast delves into his decision to leave the Republican party amid his growing concerns with how the party’s values aligned with his Christian faith. Meanwhile, Josh, who is also a professing Christian, hosts a podcast that, while not religious in nature, encourages Millennials to work to restore a conservative framework to the GOP.
In their discussion, Josh and Bob share how their religious and political backgrounds shaped them and how their views changed over time. They discuss the limitations of the “lesser of two evils” method for deciding on a political candidate to support and how they applied this idea to the 2016 presidential election. Finally, they talk through what has changed in both the party and the Evangelical movement since the dawn of Trump and what the future may hold.
You can check out the Departied podcast here.
Josh and Bob continue their discussion from last week, further demystifying socialism. The episode opens with a three-minute clip of Leftist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) responding to a moderator’s questions in a recent townhall. Her brief clip encapsulates much of the socialist mindset Josh and Bob had discussed in Part 1.
After recapping their understanding of socialism, Josh and Bob turn to the three most common “methods” socialists advocate to bring about a socialist economy and society. They are:
- Social Democrats
- Communists/Revolutionaries
- Democratic Socialists
Josh and Bob walk through the differences and sometimes maddeningly nuanced similarities between these three methods in their attempt to understand socialism. And, of course, they offer their counterpoints and conservative critiques throughout.
It’s no secret that younger Americans are increasingly drawn to socialism. But what is socialism? Do people who say they support socialism simply mean they want something other than what we have now, or do they have a firm grasp of socialist economic theory and complex vision of what a socialist America would look like?
While some conservatives may dismiss calls for socialism as foolish and not worth debating, Millennial conservatives don’t have that luxury. We understand that calls for a socialist state are not a passing fad but a significant shift in how Americans are beginning to think. And if conservatives are going to defend the free market, we must first begin to understand what socialism is before we can show how capitalism offers a better alternative.
On December 16, 2019 the Leftist podcast Millennial Review ran an episode entitled What is Socialism (Parts One and Two) in which cohosts Trevor and Justin described what socialism means, how to create a socialist state, and what such a state might look like. Trevor and Justin are both proponents of socialism and, in defining socialism, offer their arguments in support.
You can listen to their episode by clicking here.
It’s no secret that younger Americans are increasingly drawn to socialism. But what is socialism? Do people who say they support socialism simply mean they want something other than what we have now, or do they have a firm grasp of socialist economic theory and complex vision of what a socialist America would look like?
While some conservatives may dismiss calls for socialism as foolish and not worth debating, Millennial conservatives don’t have that luxury. We understand that calls for a socialist state are not a passing fad but a significant shift in how Americans are beginning to think. And if conservatives are going to defend the free market, we must first begin to understand what socialism is before we can show how capitalism offers a better alternative.
On December 16, 2019 the Leftist podcast Millennial Review ran an episode entitled What is Socialism (Parts One and Two) in which cohosts Trevor and Justin described what socialism means, how to create a socialist state, and what such a state might look like. Trevor and Justin are both proponents of socialism and, in defining socialism, offer their arguments in support.
You can listen to their episode by clicking here.
In this episode—the first of a two-part discussion—Josh and Bob attempt to define socialism from a conservative perspective and explore the socialist notions of seizing the means of production, private property, how labor creates value, socializing industrial vs pre-industrial societies, Marx’s theory for how capitalism would eventually collapse, and much more.
Ever since William F. Buckley wrote his landmark book “God and Man at Yale” in the 1950s, conservatives have had a deep love/hate relationship with higher education. That relationship has only soured in recent decades with some prominent conservative thinkers—such as the recently deceased sir Roger Scruton—suggesting it may even be time for conservatives to work to “get rid of universities altogether.”
But unlike Buckley’s generation, conservative groups today have emerged and even thrived on college campuses across the nation. Many of these groups have successfully instilled conservatives in prominent think tanks, political offices, the media, law, education, and other important areas of society. But as conservative speakers and ideas become increasingly marginalized in American Ivy League universities, so too have these groups grown increasingly aggressive in demanding their right to freedom of speech.
Many college conservatives and their organizations are in danger of losing sight of what it is they demand to have the right to say. So much so that, were Leftist administrators and students to suddenly tolerate anything and everything their conservative counterparts had to say, they may find themselves quite dumbstruck. We are in danger of fighting for freedom of speech for the speechless.
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is international and returning guest Avi Woolf to weigh in on where conservatives can go from here. Avi is a translator and editor whose work has been published in Arc Digital, Commentary, National Review, The Bulwark, and The Dispatch. He is chief editor of the online Medium publication Conservative Pathways, and he hopes to help forge a path for a conservatism which is relevant for the 21st century while not abandoning the best of past wisdom. Avi hosts his own podcast entitled “Avi’s Conversational Corner”, a podcast on culture, history, and politics in a broad perspective, which can be found at https://avisconcorner.fireside.fm/
Avi can be found on Twitter @AviWoolf
Much has been said of the rise of populism on the Right today. But what is populism? Is it a coherent ideology with discernable objectives and ideas or a reactionary movement against an entrenched government and The Establishment?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis parses through the meaning of populism, how it’s applied to politics, what it gets right, what it gets wrong, and how populism can disguise itself as other more rigorous worldviews, not the least of which is conservatism itself. While a certain dosage of populism is important in a free society, there are many ways in which too much populism can go very, very wrong. In this episode, Josh expands on the five reasons why populism is ultimately a dangerous ideological game.
Populism is like the cover of a book. It may look enticing enough from the outside to earn you approving nods by holding it in front of your face at Starbucks, but unless it’s filled with actual content of a more comprehensive worldview, it hasn’t much to say. Show me a man who is only a populist and I will show you a book with blank pages. We can only truly understand a populist by examining the flavor of the worldview that’s infused with their populism. That’s why two populists can end up supporting radically different causes from communism to fascism to protectionism to socialism to capitalism.
We might assume then that a conservative wouldn’t find much fault with populism so long as it’s infused with conservatism. That would be a faulty assumption, though some conservatives today put much effort in defending president Trump’s rather void political philosophy on these grounds. Trumpism, lacking a set of coherent, consistent policies of its own, has—for the moment—adopted conservative policies. Why fuse over a book cover entitled The Political Rantings of an Uninformed Narcissist if the pages inside plagiarize excerpts from The Conscience of a Conservative? Why judge a book by its cover?
Laying aside the argument that the words we use actually do matter, this view wrongly assumes conservatism can be reduced to a systematic list of policies. Conservatism is rooted in circumstance, not abstract principles. Conservative policies are important, but not nearly as important as the attitudes and convictions and persuasions that led us to those policies. From a distance a conservative and a populist advocating conservative policies may look very much alike. But look past the flashy cover, past the index, the preface, the introduction by that celebrity on the Right who spoke at last year’s CPAC, and delve into the actual meat of the book and the differences begin to emerge in a powerful way.
Josh explains that conservatism can never truly align with populism because conservatism stands against radical ideologies; in fact, it considers them dangerous. And, ultimately, populism is among the most dangerous, as Josh explains in this episode.
As Republicans look ahead to the end of the Trump presidency (whether that’s a year away or five years out) many are beginning to ask, “what does a post-Trump GOP look like?”
For conservatives who have spent the past three years as outcasts from a party increasingly given to populist nationalism, the prospects are both exciting and worrying. Will things ‘go back to normal’? Will the Republican party once again be the home of conservatism? Or has Trump permanently changed things? And, if so, how much has changed?
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Andy Smarick who holds an optimistic view of what the future has in store for conservatives. His recent article in The Bulwark entitled The Post-Trump GOP argues that few presidents have had a lasting impact on their party, and that Trump is even less likely leave his mark as “Trumpism has failed in terms of principles, people, and popularity.”
But it’s not enough to hope for the end of populist nationalism in the GOP. Conservatives must have something better to offer as an alternative. And to that end, Andy makes his case for why conservatism has a rich and deep heritage that will long outlast the Age of Trump.
Andy Smarick is the Director, of Civil Society, Education and Work at R Street, a free-market think tank with a pragmatic approach to public policy challenges. We draw inspiration from such thinkers as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ronald H. Coase, James M. Buchanan and Arthur C. Pigou. Andy researches and writes about civil-society issues at R Street, including localism, governing institutions, education and social entrepreneurship.
Before joining R Street, Andy was a Morgridge Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and served as president of the Maryland State Board of Education. Prior to that, he worked at the White House as an aide in the Domestic Policy Counsel and was a deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Education. He was also the deputy commissioner of education in New Jersey and a legislative assistant at the U.S. House of Representatives.
Andy has authored or edited four books The Urban School System of the Future: Applying the Principles and Lessons of Chartering(2012); Closing America’s High-achievement Gap: A Wise Giver’s Guide to Helping Our Most Talented Students Reach Their Full Potential (2013); Catholic School Renaissance: A Wise Giver’s Guide to Strengthening a National Asset(2015); and No Longer Forgotten: The Triumphs and Struggles of Rural Education in America (2018).
Andy earned his bachelor’s degree, summa cum laude and with honors, in government and politics from the University of Maryland, and his master’s in public management from UMD’s School of Public Policy. He lives in Stevensville, Maryland with his wife and three kids.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis and frequent guest Bob Burch delve into questions about looking to our political leaders as role models and the tension between morality and ability when choosing who should govern us. This discussion was prompted by a listener’s email: Hi there, I'm a new follower and listener to your podcast, but I like that after each episode you ask for people to contact you with thoughts or ideas. Since Trump has been in office I keep hearing about how horrible of a person he is a sexist, womanizer, racist, and the list goes on and on. I personally don't believe much or any of that narrative but here's my thought regardless, do we have to elect a president that we view as a role model? And, when did we (Americans) get so consumed with thinking of our president as a "role model"? Let's let our presidents do what they were elected to do! In every presidential election that I can remember, polls indicate that people care more about jobs and the economy overwhelmingly more than any other social issue. Trump is in office because the majority of voters thought he was better for the economy. I think that the left and their cancel culture has made it so that if anyone has skeletons in their closet they can never be electable or even run a business! Once again, people should be finding role models and people to look up to in other places. A teacher, pastor, mentor or even athlete and not their elected leaders; it shouldn't be criteria to be a good public servant or leader of the free world. I would entertain any thoughts or feedback! Thanks, Brandon
Who were America’s Greatest Presidents? Which Presidents had the most lasting impacts that shaped the country in ways that are clearly visible today? What about those Presidents whose blunders, incompetence, or weakness left the nation worse off? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by frequent guest Bob Burch as they work their way through the American Presidents and dissect their legacy—whether great, terrible, or somewhere in-between. Since this is an enormous topic it’s broken up into three episodes. In Part 1 covered Presidents George Washington through Abraham Lincoln. In Part 2 Josh and Bob picked things up with Andrew Johnson through Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And in Part 3 Josh and Bob conclude with Harry S. Truman through Jimmy Carter (the last of the Presidents to serve before Millennials were born).
Who were America’s Greatest Presidents? Which Presidents had the most lasting impacts that shaped the country in ways that are clearly visible today? What about those Presidents whose blunders, incompetence, or weakness left the nation worse off? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by frequent guest Bob Burch as they work their way through the American Presidents and dissect their legacy—whether great, terrible, or somewhere in-between. Since this is an enormous topic it’s broken up into three episodes. Part 1 covered Presidents George Washington through Abraham Lincoln. In Part 2 Josh and Bob pick things up with Andrew Johnson through Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And in Part 3, in next week's episode, Josh and Bob conclude with Harry S. Truman through Jimmy Carter (the last of the Presidents to serve before Millennials were born).
Who were America’s Greatest Presidents? Which Presidents had the most lasting impacts that shaped the country in ways that are clearly visible today? What about those Presidents whose blunders, incompetence, or weakness left the nation worse off? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by frequent guest Bob Burch as they work their way through the American Presidents and dissect their legacy—whether great, terrible, or somewhere in-between. Since this is an enormous topic it’s broken up into two episodes. Part 1 covers Presidents George Washington through Abraham Lincoln. In Part 2 Josh and Bob pick things up with Andrew Johnson through the Presidents of the modern age.
The incomparable Kristen Soltis Anderson joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss a plethora of topics from the GOP’s branding problem with young Americans, what messaging might appeal to Millennials, whether Millennials are Leftists, and the value of polling.
Kristen is a pollster, speaker, commentator, and author of The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up).
Kristen is co-founder of Echelon Insights, an opinion research and analytics firm that serves brands, trade associations, nonprofits, and political clients. Through her work at Echelon, she regularly advises corporate and government leaders on polling and messaging strategy, and has become one of the foremost experts on the Millennial generation. Kristen is also a frequent speaker to corporate and political audiences about emerging public opinion trends.
Kristen is a regular presence on television news and has served as an ABC News political analyst, participating in their election night coverage in 2016. She regularly appears on programs such as MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper and HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.
Kristen is the host of SiriusXM’s “The Trendline with Kristen Soltis Anderson,” airing weekly on their POTUS politics channel. She also co-hosts the bipartisan weekly podcast, “The Pollsters,” featuring Democratic pollster Margie Omero. She is a regular columnist for The Washington Examiner and has written for The Washington Post, The New York Times and more.
In 2016, Kristen was named one of ELLE’s “Most Compelling Women in Washington,” and in 2013 she was named one of TIME’s “30 Under 30 Changing the World”. She has been featured in Marie Claire’s “New Guard”, Cosmopolitan, and Glamour.
Kristen served as a Resident Fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics in 2014 and has been an invited speaker at many colleges and universities. She received her Master’s Degree in Government from Johns Hopkins University (with “Best Thesis in the Area of Democratic Processes” honors) and her Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of Florida.
Kristen is currently a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She serves on the advisory boards of a variety of companies as well as a number of nonprofit organizations including ClearPath, Service Year Alliance, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, and Winning for Women.
Originally from Orlando, Florida, Kristen now resides in Washington, DC with her husband Chris and her golden retriever Wally. In her free time, she enjoys growing chili peppers and cheering for the Florida Gators.
Is the media biased? Has media bias always been a problem in the United States, or is it a more recent development? Does the mainstream media have a Leftwing bias? Does bias exist on the Right? Saving Elephant’s host Josh Lewis welcomes Peter Pischke to the show to discuss all things media bias.
Peter Pischke is an aspiring journalist and host of The Happy Warrior podcast, a journalistic and intellectual Conservatarian commentary on the news of the day from a more positive perspective.
Peter earned his Master’s in journalism from South Dakota State University, but a chronic illness known as Chronic Pancreatitis causing intractable pain and disability has made it challenging for him to fully pursue his passion in journalism. He attributes his interest in journalism, politics, and news-making to his chronic condition. When he became sick in 2007 there weren’t any streaming media services to keep him occupies. Instead, he discovered Glenn Beck while educating himself on the topic of global warming, and turned to talk radio as a way to pass the time. This inspired him to research the topic more closely and voraciously consume books about media bias and journalism by John Stossel, Bernard Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg, and others.
Peter has run for school board twice (and lost), got a South Dakota representative re-elected, and worked on a successful mayoral campaign. My second run for school board is what got him into podcasting. The rancor he experienced from his fellow citizens was so very bad that it made him want to create something to share news and help bridge the gap between the political tribes.
In addition to podcasting, journalism, and politics, Peter’s passions include patient advocacy for those suffering from chronic conditions, particularly chronic pain. He’s recently begun doing charitable patient advocacy with chronic pain patients (primarily with social media). This year, due to struggling with untreated intractable pain and an article he wrote on the topic for The Federalist, he decided to get involved with providing comfort and advice to chronic pain patients. He believes this is a population under enormous stress and health problems, but society has ignored their suffering almost completely, and the despondency is so very bad. Specifically, Peter has become very passionate and vocal about the chronic pain aspect of the opioid crisis.
The following stats and links were referenced in the show:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048
https://www.cjr.org/innovations/measure-media-bias-partisan.php
https://www.journalism.org/2019/06/05/many-americans-say-made-up-news-is-a-critical-problem-that-needs-to-be-fixed/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/
https://datausa.io/profile/soc/news-analysts-reporters-correspondents
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html
Does beauty matter? Very much so! But why does it matter? What does beauty do for us? For that matter, what is beauty? Bryan Baise—Saving Elephant’s first out-of-state guest to make a repeat appearance of the podcast—joins host Josh Lewis to attempt to untangle why beauty matters. How we think about beauty can impact how we think about nearly everything. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that, for something to be beautiful, it must have integrity, proportionality, and brightness, clarity, and texture. Beauty was portrayed by classical and Christian thinkers as something that involved both the intellectual and moral parts of humanity. But in modern times people began to question this notion of beauty. They began to ask why beauty might do for them, and originality and utility became more important than mere beauty in the arts. In focusing on originality, art became unoriginal in that all it had left to say was that some people like looking at some things and other people like looking at other things and that, in the end, nothing really matters. In focusing on utility, art became useful but void of the beauty that enriches lives. When everything has to have a use we lose the ability to look outside of ourselves because we’re always asking “what’s in it for me?”. Bryan Baise is a professor of philosophy and apologetics at Boyce College. Bryan is the program director of philosophy, politics, and economics and the program director of the Christian worldview and apologetics. Bryan is currently working on two book proposals, one about beauty and another about introducing the conservative worldview to a non-academic audience. Be sure and check out Andrew Snyder’s blog Josh mentions in the conversation and his post The Reality of Beauty, which argues that beauty can better portray reality than even material objects.
Do conservatives care? Those are the Right are often characterized as uncaring. But what do we mean by caring? Does the conservative worldview make us distant and calculating, or does it open the way for us to care for one another without abandoning sensible policies? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined once more by Bob Burch to untangle these questions and more.
Join Josh Lewis and Bob Burch as they explore the surprisingly nuanced idea of equality and show why conservatives have valued variety over equality.
Visions of the future are often replete with uniformity not (currently) seen on earth. Star Trek foretells a future in which barriers of culture, religion, class, nationalities, and politics have given way to global unity at times extending beyond even the human race. The conservative recognizes that such a world wouldn’t be one of living long and prospering, but an authoritarian dystopia obliterating the varieties that make civilization a possibility.
The conservative is a wet blanket on starry-eyed fantasies of a world where distinctions in currency, class, and cultures melt away. The conservative is that dreary realist in the room crushing dreams of a society in which human equality has been extended to both outcomes and incomes. The conservative is a killjoy who scoffs at notions of a government capable of administering perfect social justice. But, in the end, it is the conservative who defends with his dying breath Beauty and Virtue in danger of succumbing to some radical’s ideological vision of a cold, narrowing world of equality.
It may sound laudable to insist on a broad definition of equality for all, but the conservative rightly recognizes the institution of government is ill-equipped to carry out this lofty goal. Much like wantonly declaring there will be peace leaves a nation all the more vulnerable to war, declaring there will be no inequalities leaves a people vulnerable to the machinations of social experimentation. Noble Laureate Milton Friedman, in his 1978 lecture at Stanford University, observed that “a society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty. And a society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other system that has ever been developed.”
Because conservatives hold that mankind is as much a spiritual creation as a biological organism, they reject efforts to bring about a social utopia through mechanical or scientific means. Such attempts to reduce men to machines is seen in the progressive visions depicting our future. Individuality is swallowed up in uniformity to such a degree that everyone wears a similar uniform in a society where all racial, religious, and cultural differences on entire planets are obliterated. The last “prejudices” that exist are between alien races. Uniformity, a classless society, the obliteration of cultural diversity—such is the endgame of a worldview devoid of the constraints of conservatism. Yet history has shown us time and again, these lofty aims inevitably lead to new and even more savage forms of inequalities.
Modern feminism claims to fight for equality for women. But what is feminism? And what do they mean by equality? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Rachel Bock, a biologist who abandoned feminism when she came to believe it was leading her away from what she truly wanted in life. Rachel has since been vocal about her experience with feminism and its inherent dangers for women, warning:
“When I was a feminist I didn't understand: ‘feminists destroy the family.’ Science progressed. I worked 70+ hr weeks, checking experiments at 3 am, in lab at Christmas....My friends had children. Now they have families and I have publications. Don't make my mistake. I am not saying that girls shouldn't pursue science if they want. By all means, go for it. But we cannot simultaneously push girls into intense, demanding career paths while neglecting to mention that the majority of them will want children, which requires its own planning.”
“To be clear, I am grateful for my career and for supportive parents, teachers, colleagues that all wanted me to succeed and be happy. I always loved science and deeply love that I was able to study it for so long. I am not angry. I am not placing blame elsewhere. I made all my choices w/ the information I had at the time. This information was heavily biased towards career and caused me to prioritize work over my romantic relationships. There were many missed opportunities there. The feminist view that I had was that if I didn't prioritize my science career, I was giving into the system that just saw me as a baby-maker. I wanted to prove I was more. There is so much wrong with that perception, which is why I feel that feminism was a cancer on my mind.”
Rachel Bock is a biologist with over 15 years in scientific research and writing for both technical and informal audiences. She has received numerous awards for presentations, published in peer-review publications, and taught children, college-students, and adults about science. Her areas of research has involved immunity/disease, evolution and genetics, physiology, ecology, wildlife, and statistics. Rachel holds a Master’s in Biology and left her Ph.D. after 3 years when she realized the path was no longer for her. She has since focused more time on building a fulfilling family life with absolute work/life balance.
You can find Rachel on Twitter at @RachelBock9 or check out her website at rachelbock9.com.
Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined once more by veteran guest Bob Burch as they attempt to demystify words and concepts used in political conversations
There are few subjects as likely to lead to a heated disagreement than politics. And, while there are many reasons for this, chief among them is the difficulty in coming up with words to accurately describe different viewpoints. For example, what does conservative really mean? Are we talking about an ideology? Some would say conservatism negates ideology. Is it a political party? That is, would it be fair to call the Republican party the conservative party? But if that’s all there is to it, would it make any difference if the party completely reversed their platform?
Is conservatism just an impulse—a desire to keep things as they are or to return to the past? Surely it must be more than that. And what are we to make of so many people who call themselves conservatives disagreeing with others who call themselves conservatives? When we say conservative are we just talking about a phenomenon in the United States or does the same concept apply overseas? Is an American conservative the same thing as a Russian conservative or a German conservative or even a British conservative? Do all conservatives share the same worldview, philosophy, or political platform? If not, what connects conservatives across the world in any meaningful sense?
Josh and Bob attempt to answer these questions and more, delving into what it means to be a nationalist, liberal, radical, populist, Trumplican, and many other viewpoints. They end with a discussion unique to American conservatism in attempting to understand the term neoconservatism which, while it is often used as a pejorative against war hawks and the Republican establishment, is much more nuanced than first meets the eye.
What are the prospects of the United States Supreme Court taking up an abortion-related case in the near future? What methodologies do the justices use in deciding cases? Why does President Trump pick his nominees for the Supreme Court from a list provided by the Federalist Society? Who better to ask than Ilya Shapiro of the Federalist Society? Shapiro came to Tulsa to deliver a lecture to the Tulsa Federalist Society and Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis took the opportunity when Shapiro was in town to pick his brain over a slew of Supreme Court questions such as these.
Ilya Shapiro is the director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. Shapiro is the co-author of Religious Liberties for Corporations? Hobby Lobby, the Affordable Care Act, and the Constitution (2014), and editor of 11 volumes of the Cato Supreme Court Review (2008-18). He has contributed to a variety of academic, popular, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, and New York Times Online. He also regularly provides commentary for various media outlets, including CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, Univision and Telemundo, the Colbert Report, PBS NewsHour, and NPR.
Shapiro has testified before Congress and state legislatures and has filed more than 300 amicus curiae “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court, including one that The Green Bag selected for its “Exemplary Legal Writing” collection. He lectures regularly on behalf of the Federalist Society, was an inaugural Washington Fellow at the National Review Institute and a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute, and has been an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School. He is also the chairman of the board of advisors of the Mississippi Justice Institute, and a member of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In 2015, National Law Journalnamed him to its 40 under 40 list of “rising stars.”
Before entering private practice, Shapiro clerked for Judge E. Grady Jolly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He holds an AB from Princeton University, an MSc from the London School of Economics, and a JD from the University of Chicago Law School (where he became a Tony Patiño Fellow).
Saving Elephants has got your summer reading list covered! In this episode Josh walks through classic, foundational books that every conservative should read, as well as some great books that speak to Millennials in particular. Ranging from pithy and digestible to massive, complex, and dry, Josh gives a brief outline of the book and shares why it’s important to understanding conservatism.
While summer is traditionally reserved for light reading, it can also be the perfect time of year to tear into something quite challenging. Reading hard books—if they’re good books—can sharpen our minds and develop our character. Even reading of people with strong character can develop our character. As Russell Kirk put it, “Reading of great lives does something to make decent lives.”
Here is the list of the books and authors referenced throughout the episode
Edmund Burke, British statesman and the “Father of Conservatism”:
Reflections on the Revolution in France
Russell Kirk, political theorist, moralist, historian, social critic, and literary critic:
The Conservative Mind
Concise Guide to Conservatism
Ten Conservative Principles
Barry Goldwater, Senator and 1964 Republican nominee for president:
Conscience of a Conservative
Roger Scruton, English philosopher:
How to be a Conservative
Irving Kristol, journalist and the “Godfather of Neoconservatism”:
Neo-Conservatism
Patrick Deneen, political theorist:
Why Liberalism Failed
Thomas Sowell, economist and social theorist:
Black Rednecks and White Liberals
A Conflict of Visions
Basic Economics
Jonah Goldberg, columnist, author, commentator, podcaster:
Suicide of the West
Timothy Carney, journalist and editor:
Alienated America
Ben Sasse, Senator:
Them
Joseph Sternberg, journalist:
The Theft of a Decade
- S. Lewis, author, theologian, professor:
The Abolition of Man
And here are some other great books that I didn’t have time to get through in the podcast but are still worth a read:
The Essential Russell Kirk arranged by George Panichas
The Great Debate by Yuval Levin
The Price of Greatness by Jay Cost
Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow
John Adams by David McCullough
The Selfie Vote by Kristen Soltis Anderson
“There are burglaries and heists and capers and robberies, but few thefts in history can match what Baby Boomers have done to Millennials since 2008: they stole their children’s economic futures right out from under them.” So says Joseph Sternberg, editorialist and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of the new book The Theft of a Decade: How the Baby Boomers Stole the Millennials’ Economic Future.
One generation looking down on another is all to common these days. Yet, in spite of the book’s provocative title, Joseph’s arguments are surprisingly nuanced and even sympathetic to Boomers. Both Millennials and Boomers came of age and entered the workforce at a time when the economy was suffering. However, Boomers learned all the wrong economic lessons of their childhood by mistaking economic outputs (rising wages, an explosion in home ownership, pensions, healthcare, etc.) with economic inputs (investing in the equipment, labor, and knowledge that drove the economy).
As a result, Boomers have largely been pursuing economic policies designed to re-create the robust economy of their youth. But because they’ve been focused on the wrong end of the spectrum (outputs instead of inputs) much of their efforts have led to distortions in the market that have had a profoundly negative impact on their children—the Millennial generation.
Joseph contends that one of the more surprising aspects of the political battles over the past few decades is not how much had changed but how much stayed the same. Our past four presidents have been Boomers and three of them (Clinton, Bush, and Trump) were even all born in the same year of 1946. Boomers held enormous power—both as the largest voting block and as our leaders—and regardless of what party or president was in charge, much of the economic policies of “investing” in things like education and cutting taxes to spur the economy remained relatively the same.
Millennials are anxious to break outside of the narrow lane created by the Boomer generation as we perceive we aren’t doing that well economically. And Joseph would definitely agree Millennials have a real beef. Lurching to the Left—as we’ve seen with the rise of socialism and candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—is one way to break outside of that lane. But Joseph is hopeful Millennials will find more market-friendly and pro-capitalist means of breaking outside of the narrow lane created by our parents’ generation. And he invites us to engage in the generation-wide conversation of what economic policies make sense for us today. And that conversation begins with a better understanding of what our parents got wrong in the first place.
Josh and Bob continue their conversation on the national interests of the United States that drives the nation’s foreign policy in part two of this two-part discussion.
To the casual observer, American foreign policy over the past 240 years can come across as sporadic at best. We’ve gone from Washingtonian noninterventionism to the territorial expansions of the nineteenth century to gearing up a massive military industrial complex for two world wars to Soviet containment to democratic nation-building to a series of non-specific military engagements with rogue terrorist groups.
Some conservatives have argued the best thing we could do as a nation would be to heed George Washington’s warning of no entangling alliances with foreign powers and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. Other conservatives argue for a strong military presence around the globe needed to keep world peace and free markets operating. Which view is truly “conservative” and which view represents the best course of action?
Irving Kristol—the father of Neoconservatism—spoke of the challenge of developing universal foreign policy principles. Although Neocons usually get a bad rap for being war hawkish, Kristol’s observations argued for constraint and contemplation:
“Western political thought has very little to say about foreign policy. From Thucydides to our own time, political philosophy has seen foreign affairs so radically affected by contingency, fortune, and fate as to leave little room for speculative enlightenment. John Locke was fertile in suggestions for the establishment and maintenance of good government, but when it came to foreign affairs he pretty much threw up his hands: ‘What is to be done in reference to foreigners, depending much upon their actions and the variation of designs and interests, must be left in great part to the prudence of those who have this power committed to them, to be managed by the best of their skill for the advantage of the Commonwealth.’”
While the best foreign policy may change depending on how the pieces on the chess board are arranged, one thing that does not change are a nation’s national interests. And American interests are an excellent gauge for evaluating American foreign policy. What are those national interests? Bob Burch joins the conversation with Josh once more to walk through American foreign policy.
To the casual observer, American foreign policy over the past 240 years can come across as sporadic at best. We’ve gone from Washingtonian noninterventionism to the territorial expansions of the nineteenth century to gearing up a massive military industrial complex for two world wars to Soviet containment to democratic nation-building to a series of non-specific military engagements with rogue terrorist groups.
Some conservatives have argued the best thing we could do as a nation would be to heed George Washington’s warning of no entangling alliances with foreign powers and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. Other conservatives argue for a strong military presence around the globe needed to keep world peace and free markets operating. Which view is truly “conservative” and which view represents the best course of action?
Irving Kristol—the father of Neoconservatism—spoke of the challenge of developing universal foreign policy principles. Although Neocons usually get a bad rap for being war hawkish, Kristol’s observations argued for constraint and contemplation:
“Western political thought has very little to say about foreign policy. From Thucydides to our own time, political philosophy has seen foreign affairs so radically affected by contingency, fortune, and fate as to leave little room for speculative enlightenment. John Locke was fertile in suggestions for the establishment and maintenance of good government, but when it came to foreign affairs he pretty much threw up his hands: ‘What is to be done in reference to foreigners, depending much upon their actions and the variation of designs and interests, must be left in great part to the prudence of those who have this power committed to them, to be managed by the best of their skill for the advantage of the Commonwealth.’”
While the best foreign policy may change depending on how the pieces on the chess board are arranged, one thing that does not change are a nation’s national interests. And American interests are an excellent gauge for evaluating American foreign policy. What are those national interests? Bob Burch joins the conversation with Josh once more to walk through American foreign policy in part one of this two-part series.
In an age where much of the Right is embracing nationalism, populism, and the cult of personality that is Trumpism, some are beginning to ask themselves what being a conservative even means anymore? But few have gone further to reinforce the idea that conservatism is about putting principles over party loyalty or allegiance to any one individual than Heath Mayo. Heath joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the #PrinciplesFirst movement and how it’s shaping what it means to be a conservative by developing a vision for the future without abandoning the principles of the past. Heath Mayo is a native of East Texas and currently a management consultant at Bain & Company where he helps some of the country's largest companies solve their strategic challenges. He did his undergraduate work at Brown University where he pitched on the baseball team and graduated from Yale Law School this past May. Politically, Heath is a self-described conservative activist and most recently traveled to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida volunteering for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign. During the build-up to the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Heath became frustrated over the line-up of speakers who did not represent the conservative movement he was immersed in during college but instead embodied a group who did not tolerate competing ideas or calls to principles over party. Heath tweeted—jokingly—that conservatives who were still interested in putting principles first should meet separately during CPAC and the tweet went viral. Ever since then Heath has been facilitating meetings with conservatives across the U.S. who are interested in restoring the movement. These sessions are held under the banner #PrinciplesFirst. #PrinciplesFirst sessions are designed to be 2-hour brainstorming sessions that bring together the most energized folks with the goal of (1) determining what a modern definition of conservatism is—what its principles are and how those principles might map onto a modern conservative agenda, and (2) developing a plan of action that can actually elevate those principles back into the national discussion which have fallen out of favor on the right as personalities have gotten bigger and crowded out an idea-driven discourse. You can follow Heath on Twitter @HeathMayo
Politicians are fond of talking about “the people.” But who are “the people”? That might sound like a nonsensical question but—it turns out—there are a lot of presuppositions baked into the concept of “the people” and much of the divide between the Right and the Left begins here. Identifying “the people” leads us to other important questions, such as: Who speaks on behalf of “the people”? And what system of government or society can best represent their interests and protect their rights?
In much of our political rhetoric today we are told that the most democratic expressions best represent “the people”. But what lurks behind the belief a direct, popular vote is somehow in the best interest of “the people” is the assumption is that “the people” can best be defined as a simple headcount.
They can’t.
“The people” is not a simple headcount. It is a recognition of sub-groups loosely bound to a larger group, of various interest groups within a nation-state, of factions that voluntarily choose to live in civil harmony with those with whom they don’t always agree and sometimes despise. Simply blending these sub-groups into one mass doesn’t provide clarity, it only makes our understanding of these collective interests harder to untangle.
One ought to be suspect of any political system which defines who speaks on behalf of “the people” either too narrowly or too broadly. Circumstance coupled with prudence dictates whether the polling of the majority, or the voice of the perceived “leaders” within each faction, or some truck driver who happened to call into a local radio talk show to weigh in on the matter, or some other means of discerning what “the people” have to say best represents what “the people” have to say. In practice, this means we should be suspect of the politician who seems wholly disinterested in “the people” just as we should be suspect of the politician who seems absolutely and consistently convinced they speak on behalf of “the people.”
The emergence of the modern conservative movement came about in the twentieth century with the fusion of multiple groups that found they not only had common interests, but they shared common foundational beliefs. Free market advocates, libertarians, Burkean traditionalists, the religious Right, and foreign policy hawks found common ground that led to the high watermark of the conservative movement culminating with the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s.
What led to this? Why do conservative interest groups today seem far more splintered? Why is the conservative movement devolving into so much infighting when we were once more unified? And how might we chart a course forward that reunites the shared interests of the various factions under the conservative umbrella?
Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is Justin Stapley, a freelance advocacy journalist whose writing has typically centered around federalism and classical liberalism. Justin’s first political writings appeared in 2016 on his NeverTyranny blog which was revamped as The Millennial Federalist in 2017 and today his blog is entitled Unpopular Dissent. He has written extensively on behalf of the Federalist Coalition and has also been published in the American Legislative Exchange Council website, featured at NOQ Report, and will soon be featured as a contributing opinion columnist at Porter Medium. Justin’s writings have even been featured on the Saving Elephants blog.
While Justin is certainly a conservative, he describes himself as a federalist and a classical liberal, firmly in the camp of Jefferson and Madison and their view of a government of ordered liberty. This will be evident in the conversation as Justin describes the special tension between order and liberty that has run throughout all American conservative movements.
A composite of Justin’s writings can be found at justinstapley.com. His writings extend beyond politics and touch on philosophy, religion, and the great outdoors. He was born and raised in the state of Utah and currently resides in Bluffdale.
“Welcome to Conservative Minds – a podcast dedicated to examining conservative intellectual history to determine the core values of American conservatism. What does it mean to call yourself a conservative? What did it mean in prior times and how did we get where we are today? We explore these questions and more by turning to conservative political thinkers from the past and present. Each episode we select readings and conduct a discussion to share with you our investigation.”
Thus begins each episode of the Conservative Minds podcast. In a dizzying weekly release, cohosts Corey Astillck and Kyle Sammin read a notable work of a conservative intellectual leader and hold a discussion summarizing the reading and comparing/contrasting what they’ve found to previous readings. The result is an interesting and in-depth approach to examining the many nuances of the conservative worldview.
Since conservatism isn’t a rigid ideology that can be traced back to a single godfather, it can be notoriously difficult to define. What’s more, there are inherent tensions throughout the worldview that create interesting paradoxes. Sometimes conservative thinkers will emphasize one aspect of conservatism over another and the seeming contradictions may take considerably time and effort to work through. Part of Saving Elephant’s mission is to help clarify and define the conservative worldview—no easy task—and Corey and Kyle have made much progress in this endeavor.
Thus far their podcast has included examining the writings of:
Barry Goldwater
Richard Weaver
John Locke
George Will
Robert Bork
Edmund Burke
Milton Friedman
Robert Nisbet
Irving Kristol
William F Buckley
Patrick Buchanan
Friedrich Hayek
Alexis de Tocqueville
Antonin Scalia
In this episode of Saving Elephants, Kyle Sammin joins host Josh Lewis to offer a summary of the discussions he’s had in season one of Conservative Minds. Kyle lives in Pennsylvania where he practices law and writes. His contributions have appeared in The Federalist, National Review Online, Hardball Times, University Bookman, and the Weekly Standard. You can listen to the Conservative Minds podcast here.
There are just two problems with social justice: it’s not social and it’s not justice. So says Noah Rothman, Saving Elephants’ guest and author of the new book Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America.
Noah walks us through the evolution of the concept of justice in the West to show how some political activists (perhaps unwittingly) have twisted it. Social justice may be well intentioned and be useful as a philosophical perspective. But when applied to practical politics, the results are anything but just. Perhaps most surprisingly, social justice is no longer chiefly a tool of the Left, as some groups on the Right are learning how to wield the weapon of retribution.
In a society governed by “social justice,” the most coveted status is victimhood, which people will go to absurd lengths to attain. But the real victims in such a regime are blind justice—the standard of impartiality that we once took for granted—and free speech. These hallmarks of American liberty, already gravely compromised in universities, corporations, and the media, are under attack in our legal and political systems.
Social justice is a creed born of grievances, some of them undoubtedly valid. But Noah shows that tribalism and the fanatical pursuit of retribution threaten to destroy a political culture that is historically unmatched in its friendliness to justice. Social justice is an ideology that runs counter to the American ideal, and it must be stopped. And on this episode Noah offers some guidance on how it might be stopped.
Noah is the associate editor of Commentary, a journal of scholarly opinion and analysis that has been in continuous publication since 1945, a contributor to MSNBC/NBC News, and a widely followed commentator and guest on such notable shows as Tucker Carlson Tonight and Real Time with Bill Maher. He graduated from Drew University with a degree in Russian studies and political science and received a master’s degree in diplomacy and international relations from Seton Hall University. He lives and works in the New York City area.
Is healthcare a right or a privilege? As the Democratic party swings Left, more and more Americans—Millennials in particular—are growing comfortable with the idea that we have a right to healthcare. Not to mention free education, food, shelter, and a host of other things.
But before we can even hope to have a productive conversation about these things, we must first address some fundamentals: What is a right? How do rights differ from privileges? Where do rights come from? What is the basis of a right?
Traditional conservatism has long distinguished between what we might call negative rights and positive rights. In its most basic form, a negative right is the right to enjoy things that are yours by virtue of you being born or earning property. They are called “negative”, not because they are somehow pessimistic, but because no one has to do anything for you to enjoy these rights. Your right to exist and do what you will with the things you’ve earned and possess requires no government bureau. Nothing is required of anyone save that we leave each other well enough alone.
A positive right, on the other hand, is a claim to something such as access to healthcare, food, or shelter. A positive right requires that someone give you something. Your “right” to healthcare means someone else must pay for your healthcare and provide you whatever services your “right” entitles you to.
But what is the basis for our rights? Do negative and positive rights share the same basis and are they equally valid? Are they simply favors doled out by a benevolent government that wishes its citizens to enjoy good things? What happens if negative and positive rights conflict? Who should win out? And who gets to decide? Joining Josh once more is frequent Saving Elephants guest Bob Burch to discuss these very important issues.
Conservative thinkers from Russell Kirk to Irving Kristol to the Founding Fathers have, at best, cast a wary eye towards cities. And across the country today, Leftist safe havens are often found in dense, urban areas. Does conservatism only thrive in small towns? And, if so, what does conservatism have to say for city life? Should conservatives abandon cities in hopes of a renewal of rural America? Or might there be a way to forge a path that both respects cities as cities and cultivates traditional virtues?
Joining us from Israel is Saving Elephant’s first international guest, Avi Woolf. Avi is a translator and editor whose work has been published in Arc Digital, Commentary, National Review, and The Bulwark. He is chief editor of the online Medium publication Conservative Pathways, and hopes to help forge a path for a conservatism which is relevant for the 21st century while not abandoning the best of past wisdom.
In a four-part series appearing in Arc Digital, Avi laid out a detailed blueprint for how conservatism might be applied to cities. A true conservative, Avi cautions that, while a “thin” understanding of conservatism might provide some value to cities, what’s sorely needed is a traditional conservatism that seeks to restore institutions and communities in our urban centers. To do this, Avi recommends focusing on four broad conservative principles:
- Opportunity –Removing regulations and increasing opportunity for all city residents to live where they want, work how they want, learn where they want, and thrive as they wish.
- Social Pluralism – Embracing real diversity, of the sort conservatives fight for in universities, where atheists and fundamentalists, family values people and social libertines, and Americans of all kinds live together, find ways to get along, learn from each other, and work for the common good.
- Community – The approach of conservatives in city government should simply be this: Get out of the way. No forced development lumped on people unequally, but also no to zoning barriers and rules that prevent people from moving around. Let—and even encourage—people to find ways to move around, to form bonds, and to create community. If they need some material assistance, that’s fine—but at their request, not top down.
- Tradition – For too long, we have effectively given up on the idea of cities as places with a “sense of the sacred” and the eternal, in every sense from customs to silly jokes and accents to history. We need to change that. Instead of places mired in presentism and opportunity solely for this generation’s residents or visitors, we need to think more carefully about creating cities which truly embody the covenant between the dead, the living, and the unborn that Burke spoke so highly about.
How developed is your worldview? How deep does it go? Have you taken the time to rigorously study and challenge your belief system or have you—like most of us—struggled to find the time as so many other important things in life have kept you busy?
The pathway most of us take as we develop and mature is to adopt the belief system of our upbringing—typically whatever our parents believe. Then, sometime around high school and on into college, in an effort to “find ourselves” we begin to question whether what we’ve always believed is actually so. For some of us that might look like a smooth transition that lands us fairly close to where we started while, for others, we bounce from one “crisis of faith” moment to the next until we end up at a place that’s barely recognizable from where we began.
Either way, the entire process can be draining, time consuming, and fruitless. Understandably, many of us lose interest at some point and happily settle into a worldview cobbled together from our past and present circumstances. But an underdeveloped worldview leaves us susceptible to a host of dangerous ideologies and faiths, not to mention it makes it all the more likely we’d experience another “crisis of faith” sometime down the road when we have even less energy or inclination to navigate it. And far too many have reached the point of not allowing anything they believe to be challenged.
Joining Josh in this episode is Bryan Baise, professor of philosophy and apologetics at Boyce College. Bryan is the program director of philosophy, politics, and economics and the program director of the Christian worldview and apologetics. As will become evident from the conversation—Bryan is someone who took the development of his worldview very seriously and made gargantuan efforts to do so. Bryan walks us through the process of what his own journey looked like and shares the beauty and depth of the conservative worldview he’s developed. He offers encouragement to seek out the things that matter for us all and provides a list of resources to help us get there.
Across college campuses and in our nation’s capital political activism is on the rise. But it’s not just a tool of the Left as more and more Right-leaning activist organizations are appearing. What exactly is political activism? What are its potential benefits or defects? And how might activism fit with a conservative worldview?
Joining Josh on the podcast is National Review staff writer Alexandra DeSanctis. Alexandra has been active in the prolife movement for many years and offers her thoughts on political activism put into practice. She first began working for the magazine as a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism in 2016. She cohosts the Ordered Liberty podcast twice a week with National Review senior writer David French. It can be found on the National Review website, iTunes, or Google Play. Her Twitter handle is xan_desanctis.
How valuable are your values? And what the heck is a value anyhow? Is it just a means to an end? A way to get what we want? Or is it something more?
If the word “values” carries with it the implication it primarily has some utility or economic benefit, then it’s a sure sign we’re living in an era where our convictions are grounded on the basis of their usefulness. And, indeed, this is precisely what we are seeing in a society that places the “value” of even a person’s life on their relative usefulness to the society. When our language betrays the idea values this way, then it’s likely we’re struggling with believing they’re really all that valuable in the first place. Values hold less value in a society that’s in constant need of being reminded they’re important.
To be fair, all societies at all moments in times have been in constant need of such reminders. C. S. Lewis pointed out that “generally, great moral teachers never introduce complicated new ideas; only quacks do. The business of a moral teacher is to remind people of what they know, deep down, to be true.” So, in one sense, we’re in no different a predicament than those who’ve come before us. But there are moments for some societies when reminders are no longer enough. What’s needed (or lost) is the belief itself that values are valuable. It’s one thing to lose your memory; it’s quite another to lose your convictions.
“You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you,” C. S. Lewis said in evaluating his Christian faith after the tragic death of his wife, “Only a real risk tests the reality of a belief.” Once we recognize this we begin to put away such foolish talk as “speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have” or living “your best life now.” For once values are no longer something to be pursued because of what they can do for us a lot of surface-level religion and feel-good psychology looks rather silly.
Perhaps it would help to frame things as directly as possible: is the utility of a value the only measurement for the worth of a value? Certainly not. But why not? The utility of a dollar bill may be the only measurement for the worth of the dollar bill. If the dollar bill could no longer be used to buy things it would only be worth the cost of the raw materials that formed it. But the same is not true of a value. The worth of a value doesn’t cease to exist if we can demonstrate that the value is no longer useful.
This then is the essence of a value—that its worth is inherent beyond and even regardless of any benefits it may bring. If your values disappear the moment you perceive they no longer bring you value, they weren’t values to begin with. Therefore, if we want to be the kind of people who live as if values are important to us, we must be willing to pursue our values, even when doing so doesn’t benefit us.
I want you to stop supporting Trump. Seriously. Stop it right now. You can like the president. You can love the president. You can agree with the president’s judicial and cabinet appointments, his handling of the economy, foreign affairs, domestic policies, and the like. Heck, you can even adore his outlandish, brash tweets both before and after becoming president. But, for the love of all that is good and holy, please stop supporting the president! I suppose I could understand how someone who agrees with what the president is doing would say they “support” him, just as someone who disagrees would say they “oppose” him. But—to be honest—it’s never really crossed my mind to support or oppose Trump. Quite frankly, I believe doing either is a dangerous oversimplification of our civic duty. Perhaps you’re thinking I’m getting all hung up on some trivial semantic. What difference does it make? Well, there was a time when expressing support of a president would have simply been understood to mean one supported the president’s agenda as it was currently understood and would likely vote for them again. but that does not appear to be a valid option in today’s political climate. Words and their meanings do evolve over time. We no longer presume that someone described as “gay” refers to their jolly disposition. Calling someone a “liberal” today means something quite different than it did in the early days of the American republic, when “liberal” referred to support for natural rights and government of the people over authoritarian monarchy. And in the context of our current political climate it is extremely important we discern what being a “Trump supporter” actually means. I don’t mean that it’s meaningless to support the president; but I do mean that the way in which that word is commonly used today carries with some dangerous connotations. Namely, “support” isn’t specific enough and, more and more, it’s coming to mean unquestioning fealty in a manner that was never required of conservatives in the past. In this episode I take a deep dive into the shallow politics surrounding the support/oppose model of looking at the president and examine why this way of looking at the world is contrary to the conservative worldview.
Since the end of a year is dedicated to both reflecting on the past and looking towards the future, I thought it would be apropos to take a look back at where Saving Elephants has been this past year and—more importantly—the state of conservatism in 2019 and beyond. No one wants to be a loser, and these days it seems like conservatives are in full retreat. Whether that’s a Trump supporter who voted for the president as some last-ditch effort to fight back at the Left as dirty as they were willing to fight us, or conservatives such as myself who see ourselves in the wilderness as we wait for adults to return to the political fray. But what’s important to keep in mind is that nearly every political tribe feels like it’s losing these days. You think progressives or liberals or socialists or any other group out there feels as if they have the upper hand? The thing about conservatism is that it has a remarkable ability to endure. Even when it’s vanquished for a generation it will eventually re-emerge as people grow tired of the latest ideology that comes along and promises salvation. When the ship of conservatism sinks, it becomes a submarine. It’s easy to forget that—traditionally—conservatism has not been popular. Real conservatism—not the shallow stuff masquerading as such—has stubbornly insisted that, while we can strive for and, in some cases, obtain a ‘good life’, this world is not perfect and utopia isn’t achievable. It teaches that there will always be trade-offs in the things we want and that sometimes we have to ‘order our loves’ so that what we naturally want—say, social justice or equality—must necessarily come second place to other, more enduring values. Perhaps most appallingly, it insists on each of us taking responsibility for our own lives. Shallow conservatism teaches a version of this, but it usually means talking smack about freeloaders or ‘people who are not us’ not taking sufficient responsibility for their lives. Real conservatism says we all have a duty to do so, not just the people who don’t look like us or the people we don’t like. In my view, one of the greatest threats to conservatism emerging among young Americans is the widespread distrust of our institutions. Millennials in particular are far less likely to attend church and have less confidence in our traditional political party establishment that past generations. I DO NOT mean that this distrust is unwarranted. But conservatism is all about restoring the institutions that have served us well from generation to generation—not about radical efforts to destabilize the system. I agree the system is broken. It’s time to roll up our sleeves and fix it, not tear it apart and just hope that’ll somehow make things better.
Among the ideas that have made Western civilization unique from other civilizations is the notion that humans are limited. From the ancient Greek and Roman philosophies to the Christian and Judaic teachings, Western civilization was the first to draw a stark contrast between what it meant for humans to strive for nobility over fanciful deity. Bob Burch joins Josh once again to discuss this seemingly obvious, but surprisingly nuanced and highly beneficial belief that has been passed down through the centuries. There’s something hardwired in us to need a vision. Without it runners don’t finish their marathon and managers may fail to develop strategic objectives in accordance with the original mission of their company. We don’t do well as a species left in a bleak reality of mindlessly performing the work assigned to us with no concept of how our work or efforts are somehow contributing to some larger purpose. And what’s true for the vision of an individual or a company is even truer for a political vision on a grander scale. “We know of no human community whose members do not have a vision of perfection—a vision in which the frustrations inherent in our human condition are annulled and transcended,” wrote journalist Irving Kristol, “The existence of such dreaming visions is not, in itself, a problem. They are, on the contrary, a testament to the creativity of man which flows from the fact that he is a creature uniquely endowed with imaginative powers as an essential aspect of his self-consciousness.” This imaginative envisioning of perfection is part of what makes us human. We don’t merely exist in this reality, we are self-aware of our existence and self-aware of there being something very imperfect with this reality. There’s hardly any disagreement that there is something fundamentally wrong with things as they stand now. For some that may mean it’s a pity how far of a drive it is to the cleaners while for others it may be a desperate struggle for survival against disease or famine or genocide. Regardless, we all have some sense of the injustice or inconvenience or imperfection or—dare I say—evil present in our reality. And we all have the capacity—even the yearning—to envision a reality made right. A place, or a future, where all things are made new in perfection. But what’s true of the visualization of individuals or companies is still true of our vision of a perfect reality: this vision must play by the rules. This vision of perfect reality must be anchored in actual reality or it will likely cause us more harm than good. “Man is not perfectible, but he may achieve a tolerable degree of order, justice, and freedom,” wrote Russell Kirk in his masterpiece The Conservative Mind. “Both the ‘human sciences’ and the humane studies are means for ascertaining the norms of the civil social order, and for informing the statesman and the reflecting public of the possibilities and the limits of social measures.” By working within the reality of our human frailty—as James Madison aimed to do in advocating a limited government—we truly can improve our condition. But it’s when we try to work outside of our limitations that we not only fail to achieve terrestrial heaven, we often end up with terrestrial hell.
Libertarian lawyer Christina Sandefur joins the show to share her passion for defending your right to private property. Who benefits when governments protect private property? The super wealthy? Landowners? Corporations? Or all of us? Just how important are property rights? Are they some antiquated concoction that made since when most of us were farmers, or is it possible this often overlooked right holds the key to what it means to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Find out here.
Christina is the Executive Vice President at the Goldwater Institute. She also develops policies and litigates cases advancing healthcare freedom, free enterprise, free speech, right to try, taxpayer rights, and, of course, private property rights. Christina has won important victories for property rights in Arizona and works nationally to promote the Institute's Private Property Rights Protection Act, a state-level reform that requires government to pay owners when regulations destroy property rights and reduce property values. She is also a co-drafter of the 40-state Right to Try initiative, now federal law, which protects terminally ill patients' right to try safe investigational treatments that have been prescribed by their physician but are not yet FDA approved for market.
In 2016 Christina co-authored Cornerstone of Liberty: Private Property Rights in 21st Century America along with her husband Timothy. Their book charts the decline of property rights in the United States since the time of the founding to the infamous Kelo Supreme Court decision and where that leaves us today.
Christina is a frequent guest on national television shows, radio programs, and podcasts. She has provided expert legal testimony to various legislative committees, and is a frequent speaker at conferences. Her litigation and policy work has been featured in National Review, The Washington Post, Human Events, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard, among others.
You can learn more about her work at the Goldwater Institute.
What challenges does the GOP face in attracting Millennials and younger Americans to the party? Has Trump permanently changed things? Are political parties even relevant anymore?
Who better to answer such questions than Matt Pinnell, who’s held high profile positions with both the state and national party? Matt Pinnell was elected Oklahoma’s 17th Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma in the 2018 midterm elections. But prior to winning elected office for himself, he was busy helping others do the same. Matt met Saving Elephants host Josh when he was managing the campaign for a candidate for Oklahoma Lt. Governor—which is, serendipitously, the office he has just been elected to.
But prior to entering political office himself, Matt was instrumental in helping the Republican party recruit, train, and run successful candidates. Matt took over as the Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party when Gary Jones left that position to run for State Auditor. At only 29 years old, Matt was the youngest leader of a state party in the country at the time. He continued the work Gary Jones had begun and oversaw the tremendous shift of power from Democrats to Republicans to the point where all 77 counties voted for the Republican candidate for president in 2008 and again in 2012—earning Oklahoma the title the “reddest state in the nation”.
Matt’s work received national attention and he was appointed by Reince Priebus with the RNC to oversee all Republican state parties. His title with the Republican National Committee was Director of State Parties, and he jokes he now has a doctorate in adult daycare.
With his relative youth, Matt has had a passion for involving young Americans in the political process and in sharing the values that conservatism can bring to the next generation of Republicans. Matt believes millennials are the most caring and purpose-driven generation to come along, and he’s excited about finding ways to tap into that positive energy to restore the republic.
The 2018 midterm elections have come and gone, but there’s still plenty of analyzing and expounding to be done. And who better than an investigative auditor to get to the bottom of the good, the bad, and the ugly details of 2018? Joining Josh for this special bonus episode is Mickey Dodson, investigative auditor for the Oklahoma State Auditor’s Office. Though a Millennial, Mickey has worn a number of hats that take many people a lifetime to achieve. He’s a former city councilor, former attorney for the Tulsa County DA’s office, and former agent for the FBI. These days he performs special and investigative audits of public officials and public entities in Oklahoma where he works with Saving Elephants’ host Josh Lewis in the State Auditor’s Office. In running for office himself and in working in many campaigns over the years, Mickey has gained invaluable insight into the Republican party at a state and national level. The 2018 midterm election was a mixed bag for both the Republican and Democratic parties. The real losers in the midterm elections were those who don’t identify with the more radical elements of both parties. Those who don’t separate the world into warring tribes or factions of good guys vs bad guys are becoming fewer and fewer in election positions, and our nation is all the worse off for it. What does this mean for the Republican party in the years ahead? Will the Democrats—emboldened with their new majority in the House—legislate or litigate? Will the next two years be non-stop investigations and calls for impeachment or will congress find ways to compromise and work out their differences? And where does this leave the Republican party? Have they forever solidified themselves as the party of Trump or is he a passing fad? Join us as we dissect these questions and more.
Destry Edwards, co-host of the Politicide podcast, joins Josh on election day to reflect on the turbulent days that led up to the 2016 elections and how things have changed since then. Destry hails from South Carolina, which has produced more than its fair share of noteworthy politicians in recent years. And he offers some thoughts from his front-row-seat vantage point on fellow South Carolinians like Lindsey Graham, Mark Sanford, Jim DeMint, Tim Scott, and Nikki Haley. Graduating from Bob Jones University with a degree in Cinema Production and a minor in Political Science, Destry has served in a number of political roles. He interned for Rand Paul's presidential campaign during the 2016 election and then for the Heritage Foundation the following year. He currently lives in Washington, DC where he works in video production with CRTV (Conservative Review Television). The views expressed by Destry are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CRTV.
Beyond expressing and defending conservative values, part of Saving Elephant’s mission is to call out to those conservatives who no longer know where they belong. In a world where those on the Right are often characterized as populist Trumplicans against the Deep State, it can be challenging to know where you fit if you still believe in traditional conservatism. So, where does the conservative fit? What’s wrong with populism? What’s wrong with establishmentarianism? How do we rekindle that spirit of inquiry in a free republic? How do we take back the cultural heritage of debating ideas instead of mindlessly focusing on winning and juvenile social media posts? Bob Burch joins the podcast once more to delve into these issues and offer some practical solutions. Ultimately, if conservatives are going to recover the cultural heritage we’ve lost by pulling the debate away from warring populist and establishmentarian mentalities and instead focus on ideas and values, it’s going to take a lot of work. But that work can be rewarding and enriching. The most important thing we can do at an individual level is engage and encourage conversations that invite civic debate rather than run from it. To do that we must first leave the comfort of our political echo chambers and risk engaging with those who may not agree with what we have to say. If that sounds hollow because it’s “just talk” then I want to challenge you to think differently. Part of what it means to live in a free society is that we have not only the freedom, but the duty to talk things out. Part of what gives the United States its uniqueness and its purpose are the stories we tell ourselves. This isn’t feel-good psychology, this is civics 101. It does change things when we talk, because we’re forced to interact with our neighbors and reach either consensus or at least a workable compromise. Shouting at one another on social media isn’t talking. Donating cash and time to elect people who have little interest in what we have to say or believe isn’t talking. But working through our differences one by one, first at a local level between friends and neighbors, is precisely what makes our nation exceptional. Do you want to make America great again? It’s not going to happen because you elected the right person. It’s only going to happen when the people begin talking through what’s right.
Continuing our discussion with Kerry Baldwin, we cover a wide array of prolife issues such as: how does poverty play a role in the abortion debate, and what might we do to reduce the death toll through better economics? Does a woman have a right to an abortion? Are personhood laws the answer the prolife movement has been looking for? And what can you practically do to impact the prevalence of abortions? The abortion debate is one that often evokes knee-jerk reactions. For some, it is THE issue that defines their political biases. It’s paradoxically of the utmost importance but extremely difficult to have an in-depth, frank discussion about a matter that excites such passions and deep convictions. As both a protégé and critic of the modern prolife movement, Kerry Baldwin brings a unique perspective to the debate. Kerry is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Kerry grew up closely with the prolife movement and was a strong activist in prolife causes. However, dissatisfaction with the political realities of the abortion debate and life circumstances made her question the movement’s methods and goals and led to a decade in which she did not participate in prolife rallies or causes. Earlier this year, Kerry broke her silence when prolife activist Jeff Durbin joined those calling for women who have abortions to be charged with first-degree murder. You can get a sense of Durbin’s stance in this interview he did of Vice President of National Right to Life Tony Lauinger. Though she continues to be staunchly prolife, Kerry believes the efforts of many in the prolife movement are counterproductive in ending abortions and ultimately destructive to the women who seek abortions. She offers an alternative path forward that she believes holds the hope of saving lives of not only the unborn, but those among us who are neglected, abused, and desperate. Kerry’s website, MereLiberty.com, boasts of two podcasts: Dare to Think and Flashes of Liberty (coming soon). She is also a regular contributor at the Libertarian Christian Institute. Her writing focuses on libertarian philosophy and reformed theology, aimed at the educated layperson; challenging readers to rethink prevailing paradigms in politics, theology, and culture. Kerry is a single, homeschooling mother of three. She is the librarian for her congregation. She enjoys outdoor activities in the Jemez mountains near her home, and stereotypically introverted hobbies such as puzzles and brain teasers, reading, and learning more about herbal and nutritional medicine. She enjoys studying Reformational Philosophy by way of Roy Clouser, and appreciates the theology of Meredith Kline, Lee Irons, and Aimee Byrd.