 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:41:28 |
AEI Fellow, author, and Washington Free Beacon founder Matt Continetti comes back to the program, and Jonah gets to pick his brain about… well, a ton of different things. From his expectations for the Biden presidency, to the shockingly progressive staff of the incoming administration, to the Georgia runoffs and a critical reappraisal of the neoconservatives’ role in deradicalizing the left, Matt provides deep and nuanced answers to the biggest stories of the day as well as the issues of bigger philosophical significance to conservatives. He and Jonah also dial in on some of the upcoming decisions that those on the right will have to make in the near future – decisions that may define basic points of conservative doctrine for a long time to come: What should be counted as a conservative “win,” either in politics or culture? Is conservatism going to be big-tent or selective in its coalition-building? And what should the conservative position on China be, as it becomes clearer that the nation may have grown into a superpower that shares very few of our values?
Show Notes:
- Biden’s campaign manager being… unkind to Republicans
-The Remnant with Andy Smarick
-The Polish Beer-Lovers’ Party
-The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium by Martin Gurri
-The Roots of Modern Conservatism by Michael Bowen
-The Remnant with Carlos Lozada
-What Biden can learn from Nat Glazer
-Conservatism has conserved a lot, actually
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
| 15 | 15 |
Continetti talked about how suburbanites are moving towards the left's culture war position. Do suburbanites love left's cultural positions or do they just hate the right's more? Seems a little early tell. At best, one could conclude that a Republican party built primarily around its current culture war positions will more frequently have to battle in the suburbs (fewer easy wins).
Jonah, do you believe the “Goldwater won but they counted the votes sixteen years late” BS? I tend to think it is self serving foolishness on the part of people who want an excuse to behave badly.
In 64, the big issues were the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. Goldwater and LBJ were both Cold Warriors. Today, we still have all of LBJ’s reforms. 1980 was a great victory, but it was about malaise, stagflation, and a bunch of other issues that weren’t important in 64.
Why not say that FDR lost the election, they just counted the votes 48 years late? At least that would have some trivial basis in policy, in that Reagan maintained a military presence in Europe sufficient to prevent a world war rather than cravenly vowing to Irish and German Americans, briefly restricted SSDI, and avoided appointing a communist VP.
There are some elections that repudiate previous elections. 1880, 1920, and maybe 2008 stand out. The slogan would be unduly glib even then, but would make some sense beyond the emotional claim that getting another guy one likes elected justifies a mistaken belief in an earlier champion.
But, if Jonah believes this, I will accept that there is more depth to the claim. I have a lot more respect for Jonah than for, eg. George Will, who makes this claim in his book with zero support.