Post-liberalism has been around since the 1980s in theology and at least since the 1990s in politics. It only became popular in the 2010s.

Conservatives need to go deep into post-liberal thought. We need to know what bits align with intellectual conservatism and what elements of post-liberalism may never fit. We need to understand the elements of policy that might flow from different branches of post-liberalism. We can’t simply dismiss it as nothing but collectivism.

Dr. James Wood is a professor of religion and theology at Redeemer University (Ontario Canada) with a deep interest and understanding of post-liberalism.

The article we discuss isn’t posted online yet. I will endeavour to add a link when it’s available.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks again

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Professor James Wood about his review of Stefan Borg’s book The Return of the Common Good and the wider post-liberal conversation. Wood recounts how his Christian conversion, dissatisfaction with market logic in finance, and early moral concerns (including abortion) led him to critiques of liberal atomistic individualism and liberal “neutrality.” He traces post-liberal roots to 1980s–90s communitarianism (e.g., Sandel, MacIntyre, Taylor), post-liberal theology influenced by Barth (Frei, Lindbeck), and figures like Milbank and Hauerwas, and distinguishes British from contemporary American post-liberal currents (national populists, common-good conservatives, integralists). The discussion argues liberalism tends toward autonomy maximization, depends on pre-liberal virtues it can’t sustain (the Böckenförde dilemma), and treats liberalism as a political theology and “prodigal child” of Christendom, with Wood emphasizing an ecclesiocentric, church-centered post-liberalism.

00:00 Liberalism And Autonomy

01:01 Episode Setup And Stakes

01:52 Guest Introduction

03:12 Wood’s Postliberal Journey

07:10 Communitarians And Radical Orthodoxy

11:58 Postliberal Theology Roots

16:16 Milbank And Hauerwas Bridge

20:50 Barth And Political Theology

25:15 British Vs American Postliberalism

30:36 Common Good Debates

34:26 Liberalism and Common Good

35:33 State Power and Virtue

36:42 Shared Logos and Dilemma

39:55 Desire and Modernity

44:24 Liberal Separations Critique

48:24 Neutral State Myth

55:12 Heresy and Freedom

01:00:38 Post Liberal Revolutions

01:02:52 Church and Politics Finale

Conservatives have been telling us to wake up decades before anyone had heard of being woke.

But Randell doesn’t offer the same old, dour observations. He confronts the most dire predictions, then he gets to work trying to rescue Western civilization from itself.

Danny Randell gives me hope. He is part of a new, young cohort of conservative builders and thinkers. Please consider subscribing to his Foundations Forum and check out some of his writing below.

And let me know what you think!

Thanks again,

Shawn

Western Civilization is Already Dead

In Search of the Public Houses

Against John Stuart Mill

Chapters and AI summary:

Shawn Whatley interviews Danny Randell, a doctoral student in intellectual history at the University of Buckingham and managing director of Foundations Forum, about his claim that “Western civilization is already dead,” arguing that the inherited norms and mores many associate with the West—often remembered as strong in the 1990s—no longer exist in the same form amid rapid cultural change, crime, altered education, and declining affordability. Randell outlines his PhD research on the shift from religious toleration to secular pluralism in Britain and Canada, discusses how axiomatic ideas can drive secularization, and explores breaks from tradition since the 1960s, including the sexual revolution and family breakdown. They debate liberalism, John Stuart Mill, neutrality and the state, factionalism, and civic education, and conclude with Randall’s call for communal “public houses” and his Foundations Forum newsletter and events aimed at recovering Western intellectual, spiritual, and cultural heritage.

00:00 Western Civilization Dead

00:41 Meet Danny Randell

01:33 PhD Secular Pluralism

03:22 Axioms Drive Secularization

04:28 Trends Advertising Fashion

06:09 Why The West Feels Gone

09:36 Nineties Politics Shift

10:54 History Connection Breaks

14:37 Twentieth Century Upheaval

20:30 Freedom Discipline Debate

23:51 Mill Debating Club Rules

27:45 Athens Meets Jerusalem

30:25 Beyond Law and Property

31:08 Hobbes and New Leviathans

32:59 Civic Education and State Role

34:30 Myth of Neutral State

38:39 Conflict and Strongmen

40:14 Factionalism and Shared Good

42:59 Disagree Better in Politics

45:50 Public Houses and Community

52:35 Foundations Forum Mission

57:23 Subscribe and Closing

Sound familiar?

We need to pay attention to other countries, especially those in Europe. A similar process is happening in North America. There’s no reason, yet, to see why we don’t end up in the same place.

Dr. Nathan Pinkoski has spent years studying French and Anglo-American political thought. This is his third book translated from French into English, and he offers insights you won’t get from other sources.

Check out Zemmour’s The Suicide of France: The Quiet Revolution That Destroyed a Nation

And let me know what you think -- thanks again!

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Nathan Pinkoski about his English translation of Éric Zemmour’s 2014 bestseller The Suicide of France, a 140,000-word political nonfiction “literary event” that sold 500,000 copies in months and helped set the stage for Zemmour’s 2022 presidential run. Pinkoski explains Zemmour’s method of “deconstructing the deconstructors” through 42 episodic vignettes that flip post–May 1968 progressive “moments of progress” into accounts of national decline, rooted in an elite revolt against de Gaulle’s legacy. They discuss why this style fits France’s more unified literary/TV culture, contrast it with North America’s fragmented narratives, and compare it to works like Allan Bloom and Christopher Caldwell. The conversation covers shifts in capitalism, class, feminism, judicial activism, laïcité, the EU as a neoliberal borderless project, loss of political control, and Zemmour’s call for the West to recover Greco-Roman and Christian roots.

00:00 Zemmour Book Phenomenon

01:35 Meet the Guest

03:54 Breaking French Progressivism

07:46 Why It Became a Bestseller

10:33 Could It Work in America

16:54 Events Ideas Method

21:46 EU Neoliberal Dream

33:29 America and French Mimicry

40:19 Laicite vs Religious Freedom

45:52 Universalism and Western Roots

55:48 Closing Thanks

Goldberg has been a keen observer of conservative politics for nearly four decades. You might say he was the voice of Republicanism in America before President Donald Trump. He thinks deeply, reads widely, and is willing to change his mind.

Don’t miss this episode with Jonah Goldberg, witty, thoughtful, and entertaining as always.

From his website:

“Jonah Goldberg is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he holds the Asness Chair in Applied Liberty. In 2019, he left National Review magazine after a 21-year stint to cofound The Dispatch, where he is Editor-in-Chief. He has been a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times since 2005 and a nationally syndicated columnist since 2000. He hosts the popular podcast The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg.

His syndicated column appears regularly in many of America’s leading newspapers. His first book, Liberal Fascism, was a #1 New York Times and Amazon bestseller and was selected as the #1 history book of 2008 by Amazon readers. His second book, The Tyranny of Clichés, was also an instant bestseller and hailed as perhaps “the best and most fun-to-read primer on the tenets of conservative politics since P. J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores.”

His most recent book, Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy, was also a New York Times bestseller in 2018.”

Thanks for checking this out!

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Jonah Goldberg clarifies his consistent dislike of populism while distinguishing between necessary elites and irresponsible or hypocritical ones. He argues conservatism is rooted in prudence, trade-offs, and Burkean skepticism of one-size-fits-all principles, warning that ideologies claiming all good things align invite authoritarianism. Goldberg critiques technocracy and “value-neutral” pragmatism as rhetorical games used to short-circuit debate, linking moral-equivalent-of-war politics from Wilson through the New Deal to modern progressivism. He explains his idea that “complexity is a subsidy,” rewarding those with cognitive, financial, and social capital and fueling resentment. In discussing Suicide of the West, he argues capitalism, democracy, and rights are “unnatural” historical achievements deserving gratitude. He condemns Trump-era right-wing dishonesty, audience capture, and the erosion of character standards, and briefly addresses Canada’s politics and Trump’s treatment of Canada.

00:00 Populism and Elites

00:58 Poverty Wealth and Complexity

02:52 Trump and Character Test

03:21 Conservatism and Contradiction

05:42 Fusionism Tradeoffs and Prudence

08:51 One Thingism and Triage

13:46 Liberal Fascism Cover Controversy

16:42 New Right and Illiberal Turn

23:10 State Cannot Love You

23:45 Microcosm vs Macrocosm

32:42 Complexity as Subsidy Revisited

36:54 Tyranny of Cliches and Values

38:18 Values in Government

39:05 Liberal vs Progressive Labels

41:30 Word Games and Cliches

43:57 Pragmatism and Technocracy

48:47 Crisis Politics and War

51:12 New Deal as Mobilization

53:09 Elitism vs Populism

56:26 Tea Party Lessons

58:47 Defining Elite and Oligarchy

01:04:34 Institutions and Staying Lanes

01:06:21 Unnatural Miracle of Modernity

01:12:05 Hockey Stick Prosperity

01:14:49 French vs English State

01:15:32 Straussian Theology Questions

01:16:29 God And Rights

01:18:29 Locke And Liberal Origins

01:22:59 Culture Over Intellectuals

01:24:41 Ideas Lag Reality

01:28:44 Trump And Right Wing Capture

01:38:00 Power Corrupts Intellectuals

01:42:47 Canada And Trump Fallout

01:46:13 Closing Thanks

Dimpee Brar and Matt Spoke invest a ton of their own time and resources into saving Canada from Leftist nonsense. They aren’t just offering opinions devoid of effort.

Is patriotism a ‘conservative value’ that demands devotion to Canada, even when Canada is ignoble?

Should we defend the prime minister, because his office deserves respect?

Do separatists deserve an audience, or should we denounce them outright?

The Canadian non-Left is a coalition. It includes people with major differences in opinion. It’s what makes the Right more exciting than the Left, in my opinion.

Brar and Spoke offer attractive examples of the best in the conservative movement in Canada. Make sure you check out their other work too!

A Grateful Canadian’s Love Letter to America, by Dimpee Brar

Country Before Party, by Matt Spoke

Let me know what you think!

Thanks again,

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley moderates a discussion with Dimpee Brar and Matt Spoke about whether opposing Prime Minister Mark Carney can be patriotic, how Canadian conservatives should balance “country before party,” and why anti-Americanism is a weak basis for national unity. Brar argues Western patriotism rests on truth, justice, and reason, claims the Liberal project has dethroned reason in favor of resentment, and contends Carney lacks loyalty and has stoked anti-American sentiment while being trapped by it in trade talks; she favors deeper Canada–U.S. alignment and views Trump as a model for pushing back against leftism and relativism. Spoke agrees it’s patriotic to fight flawed domestic leadership but urges a united international posture, rejects both anti-American tactics and separatist/annexation talk, and says Trump widened what conservatives can openly address while warning against importing Trump as Canada’s template.

00:00 Patriotism and Carney

00:26 Country Before Party

02:17 Western Patriotism Explained

03:46 Welcome and Guests

05:07 Twitter Spat Origins

08:47 Truth Above Nation

11:49 Matt’s Loyalty Argument

18:00 Principles Versus Interests

19:29 Carney and Trade Deal Doubts

25:47 Is Anti Carney Patriotic

29:45 Anti Americanism and Annexation Talk

33:24 Who Belongs in the Right

34:59 Conservatism vs Separatism

36:34 Country Before Ideology

37:57 Hyphenated Conservatism Debate

39:23 Relativism and Trump Model

46:29 Can Trump Save Canada

47:42 Overton Window and Leadership

53:11 Trump Space to Build

01:01:11 Outsiders and Patriot Fight

01:03:59 Socrates and Common Good

01:06:38 Coalition Closing Thanks

Reno is also articulate on post-liberalism. It’s not the simplistic idea you see dismissed in most of the legacy media. We also touch on secularism, and I tried to get him to use the contrast between Catholic and Protestant political theology to explain the issues in Quebec over Bill 21. He’s too smart and didn’t take the bait.

I hope you enjoy this one. Let me know what you think!

Thanks again

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Rusty Reno, editor of First Things and author of Return of the Strong Gods (2019; updated 2021), on how liberalism struggles to generate solidarity amid a “meta-crisis” of disintegration. Reno explains his critique of the postwar “open society” consensus shaped by Popper and Hayek and unpacks “neoliberalism” as a left-right, technocratic, globalization-era economic and cultural project that promoted openness, porous borders, and creative destruction, helping set the stage for populist backlash where immigration fuses economic and cultural concerns. They discuss universalism vs particularism, the “order of loves,” and why civic loyalty and a “pre-political we” matter for freedom. The conversation also addresses post-liberalism’s varieties, liberalism’s limits, and Quebec’s laïcité/Bill 21 tensions in a multicultural society.

00:00 Liberalism Lacks Solidarity

00:52 Meet Rusty Reno

01:16 Episode Roadmap

03:45 Rock Climbing Icebreaker

05:13 Introducing Strong Gods

07:04 Praise Words And God Terms

10:07 Neoliberalism And Weakening

15:42 Populism And Open Society

21:47 Universalism Versus Particularism

27:01 Political We And Self Interest

32:39 Crisis Of Disintegration

33:41 Canada And Multicultural Identity

34:34 Freedom and Solidarity

36:07 Critiques of Liberal Mind

37:28 Defining Post Liberalism

38:43 Post Liberal Theology Roots

42:55 Liberalism Not Enough

43:50 War Immigration Nationalism

46:45 Totalitarianism Debate

48:43 Quebec Bill 21 Laicite

55:10 Multiculturalism Managed Diversity

59:41 Republican We and Civic Virtue

01:02:04 Platonism and Real Nations

01:06:38 Metaphysical Density and Youth

01:10:34 Closing Thoughts and Farewell

A few highlights:

1. French republicanism carries markedly different presuppositions than English liberal traditions.

2. We cannot ignore the political differences the follow from a Catholic vs Protestant starting point.

3. Language matters, e.g., freedom of conscience implies freedom to think as one sees fit, in French, and it means freedom on understanding of moral issues, in an Anglo-American tradition.

4. Why is Bill 21, Quebec’s so-called secularism bill, so interesting today, when it wouldn’t have been conceived in the 1960s?

Tons of essential political concepts in this episode!

Tell me what you think. I hope you get a chance to listen and check out the whole Nation and the Veil series.

Thanks for listening!

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Lisa Richmond (VP of Research at Cardus) about Cardus’s four-part audio documentary, “The Nation and the Veil: Quebec’s Struggle with Secularism and Religion,” created over three years with Jean-Christophe Jasmyn and Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard to help English and French Canadians better understand Quebec and Bill 21. Richmond explains laïcité as a state-religion framework grounded in four principles: separation of church and state, equality of citizens, freedom of religion, and state religious neutrality. They compare Anglo-American liberalism and French republicanism, discuss how Protestant and Catholic histories shape fears of state vs religious power, trace Quebec’s church-state history through the Quebec Act and the Quiet Revolution, and explore why secularism and pluralism have become defining political questions alongside sovereignty, including differences in how “conscience” is understood in French and English.

00:00 Why Quebec Secularism Matters

03:04 Welcome and Episode Overview

05:17 Inside the Audio Documentary

09:42 Defining Laïcité

13:07 French Republican vs Anglo Liberal

21:19 Locke Rousseau and Minorities

26:38 Catholic vs Protestant Secular Fears

37:48 How Quebec Became Catholic State

42:47 Church Runs Society

43:46 Governance Vacuum After Conquest

45:48 Church Role Reconsidered

47:26 Common Law Versus Civil

49:41 Great Darkness Explained

51:23 Quiet Revolution Reframed

55:11 Laïcité Political Flip 58:23 Bear Pelt Metaphor

01:03:14 Secularism Versus Sovereignty

01:09:40 Conscience And Common Good

01:17:44 Canada Two Solitudes

01:24:16 Closing Plug And Thanks

Canada, especially, has pretended that demography and assimilation don’t matter. All that matters is world-leading levels of immigration.

Dr. Eric Kaufmann is another refreshing academic who speaks plainly, and he has suffered for it.

We discuss Toward and Ethical Populism, an article he recently published in First Things.

And we dig into two of his books:

The Third Awokening: A 12-point plan for rolling back progressive extremism

White Shift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities

I shortened my comments at the start; trying something different.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks for checking it out

Shawn

Chapters and AI Summary:

Shawn interviews political scientist Eric Kaufmann about his article “Toward Ethical Populism,” arguing the post-Trump right should combine disruption of ideologically captured institutions with Scrutonian respect for norms and due process. Kaufmann discusses his book The Third Awokening, defining “woke” as sacralizing marginalized identity groups and pursuing equal outcomes, which he says harms merit, authenticity, free speech, and national cohesion through measures like affirmative action, DEI, and historical revisionism. He contends Canada is especially susceptible due to moralistic universalism and weak historical attachments, with multiculturalism and political correctness as precursors to woke extremism. Kaufmann defends government action against private censorship in universities and corporations, urges organized lobbying and education reform, and in White Shift argues demographic change drives populism, assimilation is slow, and high immigration—especially in Canada—should be slowed.

00:00 Cancellation And Merit

02:58 Meet Eric Kaufmann

03:55 Ethical Populism Explained

07:43 Foxes Versus Lions

10:39 Deculturation And Woke

16:02 Academic Backlash Story

21:18 Canada And Moralism

28:09 Why Government Must Act

35:40 Private Censorship Lock In

39:05 Common Ground Conservatism

39:32 Free Speech Fabric

40:35 Leviathan Debate

45:13 Ethical Populism Rules

46:50 Twelve Point Blueprint

50:09 Education Culture War

53:34 Canada Identity Crisis

57:36 Multiculturalism Origins

01:04:53 Populism Demography Data

01:08:05 Liberal Ethnicity Future

01:13:30 Fertility Reality Check

01:18:39 Closing Thanks

Dimpee Brar has entered the scene in high gear. Over the last few months she has written provocative pieces at a rate of roughly one every two weeks. She’s been on panels, podcasts, and interviews. I hope she can maintain her output!

A few of her articles include:

Why Islam seeks shelter under the banner of the Left. The Federalist

A NATO that doesn’t support U.S. action shouldn’t exist. The Federalist

Churches are burning, and the the lie fuelling it still holds. The Daily Wire

Western Civilization is under siege in Canada, activist warns. National Post

Blood & soil vs post-nationalism misses Canada’s real identity. Western Standard

The tide is turning, and old ideas are resurfacing in the mainstream.

Let me know what you think of this episode!

Thanks again,

Shawn

Chapters and AI Summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Diimpee Brar, Director of Engagement at Allies for a Strong Canada and a prolific columnist, about defending Western civilization and Canada’s founding principles. Brar describes moving from studying neuroscience to the humanities, encountering what she calls nihilism in academia, and being “redeemed” by Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, which led her to political philosophy and Leo Strauss. She defines nihilism as meaninglessness and argues that modern democratic decline expresses itself as relativism, erasing distinctions between good and bad and enabling fanatics to rule, particularly in Canada. The conversation covers liberalism versus conservatism, the friend–enemy distinction, and Brar’s view of the 1839 Durham Report as a founding document emphasizing one nation and assimilation through education. They also discuss Islam and the “Red-Green” alliance, and end with Brar identifying Nietzsche as a dangerous thinker and noting debates about Strauss, Judaism, and atheism.

00:00 Mission to Defend the West

01:19 Meet Dimpee Brar

03:40 Why She Entered Politics

05:59 From Neuroscience to Humanities

07:24 Bloom and Strauss Awakening

09:09 What Nihilism Means

10:55 Relativism and Fanatics

12:30 Where She Fits Ideologically

17:39 Friends and Enemies Debate

21:36 Durham Report and Assimilation

28:39 Liberalism Then and Now

31:35 Tolerance and Islam Question

34:49 Is Liberalism Too Thin

37:28 Is Liberalism Still Real

38:53 Natural Rights vs Identity Rights

40:56 Debate as a Sign of Life

43:09 Red Green Alliance Explained

45:40 Islam and Liberal Blind Spots

49:35 Auxiliary Militia and Iran Warning

52:34 Women Freedom and Defense

56:19 Nietzsche and Relativist Language

01:01:20 Strauss Judaism and Revelation

01:04:58 Straussians Political Theology Wrap

01:11:25 Final Thanks and Farewell

Durable civilizations choose both.

Harold Innis was a giant in Canadian academia in the early 20th century, but most people have never heard of him. He offers deep and helpful insights on civilization, progress, and culture. Professor John Bonnett wrote his thesis on Innis and introduces us to his work.

We discuss a draft article Bonnett has written on Innis. Once it’s published, I’ll try to update this with a link.

Thanks for checking this out!

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

The host interviews Brock University professor and Innis scholar John Bonnett about an upcoming article arguing that conservatives are renewing a focus on culture as essential to Canadian national cohesion, especially as digital technology and AI disrupt society much like the printing press did. Bonnett explains Harold Innis’s importance to Canadian thought (influencing McLuhan and praised by George Grant), his “staples” analysis of Canada’s development, and his communication theory that technologies shape cognition and impose costs. Drawing on Innis, they discuss historical anxieties about new media, the dangers of information overload destabilizing politics, and “monopolies of knowledge” created by space- or time-biased media that can trap cultures and reduce innovation. Bonnett outlines adaptations—expressive and cognitive diversity, combinatorial thinking, democratizing cultural institutions like the Canada Council, and using digital/augmented-reality landscape art to renew culture.

00:00 Why Culture Matters

01:19 Meet Professor Bonnett

05:00 Which Conservatives

08:08 Why Innis Matters

13:17 Where To Start Reading

16:05 This Happened Before

22:07 Too Much Information

26:02 Monopoly Of Knowledge

33:41 Three Ways To Adapt

40:42 Democratizing Culture Policy

48:14 Digital Landscapes Project

57:17 Conservatism And Social Glue

01:00:11 Closing Thoughts And Thanks

As Interim Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Van Geyn has the deep knowledge and experience required to explain the essential elements of free expression in a short book titled, Maple’s Garden: A Canadian Freedom of Speech Story.

We also discuss her other books, Pandemic Panic, and Free Speech in Canada.

Thanks for checking this out!

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary

Shawn Whatley interviews Christine Van Geyn, interim executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, about her children’s picture book Maple’s Garden, inspired by the Mississauga case involving Wolf Ruck and Ontario rulings that a naturalized garden can be protected expression reflecting subjective views of beauty. They discuss how governments and bylaws can overreach by enforcing aesthetic standards, the difference between harmful invasive or dangerous plants and taste-based complaints, and why free expression protects disagreement. Van Geyn also explains her co-authored book Pandemic Panic as a documented record of civil liberties impacts, cases, and “memory-holed” incidents from COVID-19, including the Freedom Convoy and the Emergencies Act challenge. The conversation ends with a primer on Charter Section 2(b), Section 1’s Oakes test, and concerns about human rights tribunals being used to penalize speech, citing cases in BC and Ontario’s Emo flag dispute.

00:00 Parents vs State Power

00:36 Why Free Speech Matters

01:30 Meet Christine Van Geyn

04:20 Why She Wrote Maples Garden

06:23 The Garden Case Explained

09:43 Kids And The Hidden Animals

11:37 Beauty Versus Weeds Debate

18:53 Invasive Plants And Real Harm

21:25 Where The State Draws The Line

29:33 Teaching Beauty Without Force

30:46 Kids and Creativity

31:29 Who Decides Beauty

33:03 What Is Beauty

34:25 Why This Kids Book

37:56 Illustrator and AI Art

41:14 Pandemic Panic Overview

42:59 Recording Pandemic Abuses

46:44 Charter and Human Rights

48:43 Oakes Test Explained

52:00 Human Rights Overreach Cases

01:01:08 Forced Endorsement by Tribunal

01:05:34 Defending Disagreement

01:08:43 Closing and Call to Action

Josh Lewis has been wrestling with this, and many other issues, for the last 9 years on his podcast, Saving Elephants. He’s hosted many of the biggest influencers in American conservatism, including a number of voices from Canada and Europe.

The conservative movement is a jigsaw puzzle. Conservatives need to distinguish themselves from all the factions on the Left, while also retaining the distinct shapes of each puzzle piece. For conservatives, this is a conversation without end. If we grow tired of it, the coalition will fracture.

Of course, we can’t talk about American politics without talking about Trump -- plenty of that in this episode too.

Thanks so much for checking this out! Let me know what you think.

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

In the 100th episode of Concepts, host Shawn Whatley welcomes back Josh Lewis, founder of the Saving Elephants podcast, to discuss the coalitional nature of American (and Canadian) conservatism and how to handle disagreements within the movement. Lewis outlines enduring conservative factions—libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists—while exploring the rise and uncertainty of NatCon and post-liberal currents, Trump’s role as both aberration and lasting influence, and what Trump reveals about leadership, courage, and cultural “rot.” They also talk about why Lewis chose podcasting, where millennials and younger generations get information, how “bridge” institutions translate ideas, and competence as a key voter demand. The conversation culminates in proposed bright lines between liberalism and conservatism and reflections on how to appropriately mark America’s 250th anniversary.

00:00 Can Ideas Fix Politics

00:22 Episode 100 Welcome

02:06 Conservatism Is A Coalition

02:53 Nash Three Legged Stool

04:47 NatCon Moment And Trump

09:20 Avoiding Sectarian Purges

10:25 Handling The Crazy Uncle

13:49 Why Josh Chose Podcasting

18:34 Millennials News Habits

23:51 Scaling Ideas Beyond Nerds

29:42 Why I Stay Calm

31:02 What Voters Want

32:57 Competence Before Culture

34:35 Populism Versus Leadership

35:34 Trumpism After Trump

39:09 Courage And Character

42:16 Integrity And White Collar Crime

43:24 Ideas Versus Reality

45:22 Liberalism And Conservatism

50:36 Freedom Has A Purpose

54:48 America At 250

58:01 How To Celebrate A Nation

59:40 Closing Thanks

Mitchell says conservatives have done a good job at addressing the debt and tradition economies. We are strong on fiscal policy, and we stand up for the debts we owe to our fathers. But we are almost completely blind to the more profound, urgent, and critical debt of guilt. Conservatives are blind to spiritual debt.

The Left understands guilt and spiritual debt. It’s their main focus. Criticize them for having bad data or for emotionalizing things, but the Left addresses an inescapable issue that he Right seems to miss entirely.

I’d love to hear what you think of this episode. It’s deep in places but also pointed and provocative.

Thanks again for listening!

Shawn

Links:

American Awakening

https://americanreformer.org/2026/03/whither-the-reformation-in-america/

Chapters and AI summary:

Shawn Whatley interviews Georgetown political theorist Joshua Mitchell about his book American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time and his article on the Reformation in America. Mitchell argues the West’s turmoil is fundamentally a religious crisis, with identity politics functioning as a quasi-Christian, “incomplete religion” seeking purity and redemption without a Christian solution. He contrasts a “regime of competence” with a post-1989 suspension of history, critiques the feminization of public life as mercy detached from justice, and outlines three “economies” humans inhabit: payment, tradition, and spiritual debt. He contends conservatives focus on the first two while lacking language for the third, leaving the left to politicize guilt, stain, and redemption. Mitchell offers three futures—endless incomplete religions, Nietzschean rejection of Christian categories, or a return to Christianity—and emphasizes America’s covenantal Protestant imagination as key to overcoming identity politics.

00:00 Religious Crisis Frame

00:34 Show Intro Guest Setup

02:05 Is Woke Dead

03:02 Competence After 1989

04:53 Mercy Justice Feminization

07:09 Manliness Debate

09:20 Incomplete Religions Thesis

14:24 Nietzsche Tocqueville Futures

19:20 Three Economies Explained

24:00 Identity Politics As Religion

27:09 Tocqueville Self Interest

33:04 America Protestant Catholic Moment

34:53 Covenantal America Returns

35:56 Protestant Revival Warning

37:41 Host Rapid Fire Topics

41:16 Burke Simplicity Trap

43:37 Purity Stain Politics

47:43 Spiritual Economy Turn

50:20 Religion That Fits

55:00 France Religion Showdown

58:51 Aristotle Versus Plato

01:02:47 Covenant Beyond Nietzsche

01:03:45 Next Book Farewell

Corey offers a thick view of intellectual conservatism. She invites us into something challenging and deep.

I tried to push her on whether she was asking too much. Was her approach practicable? Should we never ever fight? What role does conflict play in a conservative philosophy?

Professor Corey does not shy from these issues. She sees them as real questions for her students, but also in her own life.

Let me know what you think of this episode! Thanks so much for checking it out.

Shawn

Links:

https://lawliberty.org/podcast/conservatisms-lamentable-drift/

https://lawliberty.org/a-quiet-refusal-to-compromise/

Beautiful Losers

https://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/pleasure_of_hating/

Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley welcomes Baylor University honors program director and political science professor Elizabeth Corey to discuss her concerns that modern conservatism has become increasingly adversarial, reducing politics to winners and losers and neglecting culture, education, and the “realm of experience” beyond the friends-enemies dichotomy. Drawing on thinkers such as Oakeshott, Scruton, Pieper, Kirk, and Aristotle, Corey argues for understanding tradition as learned “practices” and for balancing the active and contemplative lives, resisting the urge to instrumentalize knowledge. They address internal conservative pluralism and the Philadelphia Society’s big-tent approach, the role of humility and charity in debate, and Corey’s reading of Laura Field’s Furious Minds on MAGA-linked institutions like Hillsdale and Claremont. Corey also discusses Hazlitt’s “pleasure of hating,” her First Things piece on admiring, and her forthcoming book The Heart of Learning.

00:00 Modern Conservatism as Battle

00:31 Meet Professor Elizabeth Corey

04:18 A Drift Toward Conflict

10:07 Hot Button Politics vs Real Life

12:03 Is Culture Enough

14:51 Tradition as Practices

20:54 Active Life vs Contemplation

26:29 Oakeshott on History and Modes

29:37 Defining Conservatism Today

33:25 Big Tent Debates and Economics

36:14 Life Beyond Economics

37:01 Avoiding Sectarian Right

39:04 Humility and Big Tent

41:02 Pluralist Conservative Case

44:32 Do Ideologies Still Matter

48:24 Furious Minds and MAGA

50:46 Hillsdale and Claremont

54:21 Pleasure of Hating

58:52 Heart of Learning

01:02:24 Can Admiration Survive

This caught me off guard. I thought Tim was simply an exemplary leader of a noteworthy organization. I had no idea that he was also personally up to his neck in litigation about the legitimacy of race-based scholarship.

You won’t meet a nicer, more thoughtful guy. Tim goes out of his way to ring-fence his own case from the organization he represents. You need to know about the Runnymede Society. The Society appears even more worth, and necessary, when you hear about Tim’s case, at the end of the episode.

Let me know what you think!

Thanks again

Shawn

Chapters and AI Summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Tim Haggstrom, National Director of the Runnymede Society, about whether freedom of speech exists in Canadian law schools and how students learn “no-go zones” on contentious issues. Hagstrom explains Runnymede’s founding in 2016 amid concerns about insufficient debate over constitutional change, citing the Supreme Court’s 2015 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision on a Charter right to strike, and outlines the Society’s mission to promote constitutionalism, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms through debates it does not adjudicate. They discuss taboo topics, civil discourse, and competing views of the rule of law, interpretation, legal neutrality, and substantive equality (including the 2020 Fraser case). Hagstrom then recounts his personal judicial review against the University of Saskatchewan after being found guilty of non-academic misconduct following letters defending dialogue and critiquing race-based policies, linking the dispute to university commitments to decolonization and anti-racism training.

00:00 Free Speech in Law School

00:22 Meet Tim Haggstrom

04:23 Why Runnymede Started

07:10 Tim’s Path to Runnymede

09:47 Campus No Go Zones

13:42 Staying Relevant and Civil

16:28 Sacred Cows Debate Example

19:05 Tim’s Lawsuit Teaser

21:53 Why Institutions Matter

25:24 Network Formation and Skills

31:03 Rule of Law Explained

37:26 Law Without Translation

38:53 Bridge Norms Example

41:33 Courts Versus Legislatures

44:13 Thick Rule of Law

45:57 Rodriguez To Carter

48:46 Living Tree Origins

50:19 Can Law Be Neutral

51:09 Substantive Equality Debate

56:05 Runnymede Student Plug

56:59 Saskatchewan Case Begins

01:05:41 Critical Social Justice Claims

01:10:11 Campus Speech Outlook

01:13:09 Protect Legal Tradition

In the meantime, I offer a recap of liberalism and contrast it with conservatism. I also touch on inheritance, myth, and experience as themes within conservatism.

I also tackle a summary of neoconservatism. Neocons remain the main opinion shapers on the non-left in Canada. Their eminence has waned in America, but it remains strong in Canada.

We end with a review of upcoming guests.

Looking forward to hearing what you think!

Thanks again

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley shares a scheduling update amid a busy summer and looks ahead to the podcast’s 100th episode, then continues his effort to define conservatism by contrasting it with liberalism. He critiques George Grant’s thin definition of liberalism and Grant’s claim about the impossibility of political conservatism, and instead uses Fukuyama/John Gray’s four-part account of liberalism (individualism, egalitarianism, universalism, meliorism) to frame key conservative objections: the involuntary obligations of life (especially family), equality before law alongside excellence, particularism over universal political templates, and prudential skepticism about reform. He adds conservative emphases on inheritance, regional myth/self-understanding, and shared experience. He then outlines three waves of neoconservatism—its origins, post–Cold War central-planning and interventionist tendencies, and a 2016-era “never-Trump” internationalist turn—before previewing upcoming guests Josh Mitchell, Tim Hagstrom, and Elizabeth Corey.

00:00 Big Questions Intro

00:14 Podcast Schedule Update

01:26 Defining Liberalism

04:56 Fukuyama Four Pillars

06:54 Conservative Pushback

10:45 Tradition Myth Place

13:51 Thin vs Thick Politics

14:58 Neoconservatism Origins

17:04 Second Wave Neocons

20:53 Third Wave Never Trump

22:41 Guests and Wrap Up

We discuss civics education and whether there’s an increased appetite for first principles.

Thanks for checking this out!

I look forward to your comments.

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary:

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Jodi Bruhn about renewed interest in first principles, civics, and regime analysis in her University of Lethbridge courses, contrasting first-year and fourth-year students’ ability to identify clashing political principles behind current events. They discuss political science versus political philosophy, including critiques of Straussian textualism, and consider thinkers such as Aristotle, Voegelin, Bergson, and Carl Schmitt. Bruhn warns that the Supreme Court of Canada hearing cases involving the notwithstanding clause signals a misunderstanding of legislative supremacy and could provoke a political showdown with provinces like Quebec and Alberta, potentially risking Canada’s dissolution. They examine constitutional change constraints, separatism’s uncertain outcomes, leadership and ethical decay under unwritten constitutional conventions, demagoguery, and Bruhn’s account of Tamara Lich’s University of Calgary talk about the trucker convoy.

00:00 Supreme Court Warning

00:52 Meet the Guest

02:52 Teaching First Principles

05:26 Civics and Regimes

07:37 Political Science vs Philosophy

15:31 Teasing Out Principles

18:03 Notwithstanding Clause Clash

21:14 Charter and Judicial Review

23:34 Can Canada Rewind

25:26 Alberta Separation Scenarios

28:41 Schmitt and Conflict Horizon

29:57 Friendship Course Spectrum

31:29 Canadian Founding Enmities

33:27 Hooker and English Middle Way

35:42 Ideology and First Principles

37:31 Alberta Separation and Reconfederation

39:47 Constitutional Mismatch and Corruption

44:51 Demagoguery and Vital Breakthrough

47:33 Reading Bergson and Courage

49:10 Tamara Lich at University

51:11 Teaching Critical Thinking Finale

Professor Flanagan has taught a generation of political science students at the University of Calgary. He’s informed so much of what the Right assumes in Canada. He’s generous, thoughtful, and resists capture into a neat, political box.

Books mentioned:

Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools)

Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong

Articles mentioned:

Settler-Neoliberalism: Tom Flanagan and Friedrich Hayek on the Prairies | Canadian Historical Review

Was Hayek a Gnostic? - VoegelinView

The long reach of the Calgary School | C2C Journal

Let me know what you think!

Thanks again,

Shawn

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews political scientist Tom Flanagan about Friedrich Hayek, focusing on spontaneous order versus top-down organization and the state’s proper role in enforcing rules without directing outcomes. Flanagan explains spontaneous order through examples like language, markets, common law, and even skiing etiquette, and argues modern governments often create chaos by trying to control systems such as Canadian healthcare through price and quantity setting, producing persistent shortages and waitlists. The conversation explores Hayek’s assumptions about property, justice as a feature of fair process and intention rather than outcomes, and practical questions about unintended consequences in politics. Flanagan also discusses Canada’s formation through sovereignty claims, treaties, and force, defending treaty-making as broadly just for its time. He contrasts Hayek’s limits on “spiritual problems” with Voegelin’s strengths and notes he is not an Alberta separatist.

00:00 Hayek In A Nutshell

01:00 Show Intro And Guest

04:56 Flanagan Meets Hayek

06:08 Spontaneous Order Explained

07:02 Language As Emergence

09:50 Markets And Simple Rules

11:55 State Control And Healthcare

16:55 Ski Hill Rules And Enforcement

22:20 Property Justice And Tradition

27:49 Colonialism And Civilizing Mission

30:28 International Anarchy And Empire

35:40 Treaties and Education

36:51 Hayek Order vs Organization

38:16 Canada Built by Force

39:22 Morris and Prairie Treaties

42:03 Mirage of Social Justice

47:55 Intentions vs Outcomes

49:29 Weber and Policy Consequences

56:17 Hayek Meets Voegelin

01:03:13 Spiritual Pathology Politics

01:04:46 State Supports Spontaneous Order

01:08:28 Alberta Separatism and Wrap

In spite of powerful reasons to be upset, he still thinks Alberta should stay.

The rest of Canada isn’t paying enough attention to this. Alberta separation wouldn’t be an issue if Canada was well governed. It will continue to be an issue until our governance is fixed.

Here’s the article we discuss: An argument for Canada from an Alberta conservative.

Thanks for listening!

Let me know what you think.

Chapters and AI summary:

Alberta Separatism Debate: Evan Menzies’ Argument for Staying in Canada Host Shawn Whatley interviews Evan Menzies, VP at Crestview Strategy and former Wildrose/UCP staffer, about his Substack article “An Argument for Canada from an Alberta Conservative” and the rise of Alberta separatism. Menzies explains why many Alberta conservatives feel exhausted and unheard—citing issues like equalization, Senate and House of Commons representation, pipeline barriers, and judicial “constitutional adventurism” (including MAID, mandatory minimums, and debates over the notwithstanding clause). He argues separatism is a risky, non-conservative “tear down to the studs” revolution that promises a utopia while forcing Alberta to rebuild institutions and constitutional order from scratch. Instead, he urges reform within Canada, appeals to patriotism and gratitude, warns against victimhood politics, and predicts Alberta’s growing demographic and economic weight will keep shifting Canada’s power westward.

00:00 Alberta Separation Stakes

01:07 Show Setup and Guest Intro

05:05 Why Albertans Feel Exhausted

08:02 Who Supports Leaving

11:50 Senate Imbalance Debate

15:40 House Seats and Time Zones

18:21 Equalization and Quebec Hydro

20:43 Courts and Constitutional Drift

25:04 Charter Pragmatism vs Principle

28:03 Why Stay In Canada

28:35 Three Reasons To Stay

31:05 Blank Slate Constitution Risks

33:04 Revolution Not Devolution

35:41 Communicating Conservatism Again

39:26 Patriotism Over Victimhood

45:05 Gratitude And National Story

49:39 Alberta Story Is Canadian

51:28 Make The 21st Century Canada

51:59 Closing Thanks And Moral Ground

Our conversation tackled technology, ethics, and humanity in professional education. How we can keep clinicians human and prevent them from becoming robots?

Although we situate the conversation in the health sciences, the concepts apply to every corner of society: engineering, finance, public policy, and more.

Dr. Moyse has had some success in helping students see beyond the materialist reductionism of modern science. His work offers hope for other fields.

Let me know what you think in the comments!

Thanks for listening.

Shawn

Book mentioned:

The Art of Living for a Technological Age

Chapters and AI summary

Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Ashley Moyse, associate professor of bioethics at Baylor University, about how technology, markets, and policy language reshape medicine and moral life. Moyse traces his path from neurophysiology and cancer-clinic work to theology and bioethics, including training in Australia and Oxford and creating the Columbia Character Cooperatives to form medical students through virtue-based practices. They critique the market metaphor of “provider,” arguing it distorts the clinician–patient relationship and turns people into producers and consumers of information. Moyse explains his book The Art of Living for a Technological Age and “techno-ontology,” expanding technology beyond devices to include moral and political techniques, and challenges Beauchamp and Childress’ four-principles framework as flattening ethics into efficient tools rather than lived moral struggle, formation, and attention over time.

00:00 Patients Not Data

00:45 Meet Dr Ashley Moyse

05:35 From Neurophysiology To Theology

08:39 Oxford Columbia Baylor Path

13:49 Techno Ontology Explained

14:54 Tools Beyond Gadgets

25:21 Four Principles Under Fire

32:55 Ethics As Struggle

33:46 Medicine as Craft

37:15 Virtue in Clinical Risk

39:19 Ethics Beyond Principles

43:05 Provider Language Critique

47:04 Metrics and Managerialism

49:53 Mentoring Against Positivism

58:32 Phenomenology in Practice

01:03:16 Technology as Principality

01:09:55 Closing Reflections