ReImagining Liberty

Now in early access for patrons. Unlock by becoming a patron here: https://www.patreon.com/cw/AaronRossPowellThe ideologies that shape our world can be awfully weird. The one that combines the most influence with the most weirdness is arguably Rationalism, which grew out of backwater blogs to have the ears, and influence the minds, of people like Elon Musk and JD Vance.To talk about what Rationalism is, why we should care about its beliefs and arguments, and the impact it's had outside those strange corners of the internet, I've brought back Samantha Hancox-Li. She's a writer, game designer, editor at Liberal Currents, and host of the Neon Liberalism podcast.Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

Regimes falter when opposition media is strong. But America's legacy media has failed to live up to the dangers of the political environment and the authoritarianism of Trump's administration. We need stronger opposition media, making full-throated defenses of liberalism. But what does that look like?I'm joined today by Adam Gurri, founder and editor-in-chief of Liberal Currents, which is currently fundraising to take their indispensable publication to the next level. Adam and I talk about the state of media, what it means to carve out principled opposition, and how stronger opposition media can see us through the coming years and towards a future for liberalism.Liberal Currents fundraiser: https://gofund.me/be2b76bf9Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

Welcome to ReImagining Liberty, a show about the emancipatory and cosmopolitan case for radical liberalism. I'm Aaron Ross Powell.It's still possible Trump succeeds in his project of authoritarian consolidation, but between the dramatic losses the GOP suffered in the elections on November 4th, the infighting in the conservative coalition, and the Epstein scandal, the prospects for that consolidation are looking more remote.All this makes the "How do we rebuild when Trump is behind us?" question feel less like a pipe dream. Which is why I was so happy to see my friends at The UnPopulist launch their new "Reconstruction Agenda" project, headed by frequent ReImagining Liberty guest Andy Craig. Andy is mapping out what that reconstruction should look like, and what reforms present the best opportunities to strengthen and rebuild the institutions of liberal democracy. Joining me today alongside Andy is Shikha Dalmia, founder and editor of The UnPopulist.Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

Today's episode is about the Constitution. It's a clear-eyed assessment of the assaults on it by the Trump administration, and a deep discussion of how we should think about constitutional interpretation and constitutional defense. Things aren't good. There's no denying that.But things also perhaps aren't as bad, at least not yet, as the most shrill of the doomers insist. To dig into all this, I'm joined by Evan Bernick. He's a law professor at Northern Illinois University and has been one of the most thoughtful, persistent, and effective critics of the risible scholarship the Trump administration is using to justify its assault on birthright citizenship.Produced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

The future of liberalism depends upon the coalitions liberals can build, both to defend institutions now and to reform them when the time comes. As my friend, and past ReImagining Liberty guest, Jason Kuznicki says, "The future is a conversation." So today I've brought on two smart liberals, with very different ideas about what liberalism means in practice, for a conversation about common ground.Matthew McManus is an assistant professor at Spelman College, author of The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, and frequent ReImagining Liberty guest. Matt Zwolinski is a first time ReImagining Liberty guest, an omission I'm thrilled to rectify. He's a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego, co-author of The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism, and founder of the seminal—but now sadly defunct—blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians.This episode is prompted by a review Zwolinski wrote of McManus's book, a review that noted their shared values and dug into why, in each of their cases, those values led them to quite distinct policy conclusions. And that's our topic for today. It's a conversation about agreement, disagreement, and how to have productive conversations about liberalism.Produced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

Today things get particularly radical, with an introduction to left market anarchism. I'm joined by Zak Woodman, host of the Mutual Exchange Radio podcast from the Center for a Stateless Society. We talk about whether we need a state at all, the dangers a powerful government poses, even if its values are arguably good ones, and why the aims of the left are better advanced through free markets than state control of the economy. We end with a call to take anarchist ideas seriously, even if you don't ultimately accept them, because they contain lessons for how to navigate and respond to our contemporary authoritarian moment.Produced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

I've got a special bonus episode for you today. In August, I attended the second annual Liberalism for the 21st Century conference in DC, organized by the Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism. That's the group that runs The UnPopulist, a publication I occasionally guest host for on their Zooming In podcast. I led a special live recording of that show at the conference, a conversation with journalist (and ReImagining Liberty guest) Radley Balko and commentator Charlie Sykes. I framed the conversation around the second Trump administration as vigorous effort to roll back the Civil Rights Movement, legally, institutionally, and culturally. This led to a deep and spirited discussion. I hope you enjoy this very ReImagining Liberty adjacent discussion.

Cathy Reisenwitz's "Sex and the State" is one of the handful of newsletters I consider indispensable. She writes, from what I'd label a radical liberal perspective, about culture and gender in ways I consistently find illuminating. And she was my guest on episode 50 of this show, on misogyny and the political divide, which remains one of my favorites. So when she and I were recently chatting about the future of the liberty movement, and what's needed in our authoritarian moment, I wanted to get her back on.We discuss her early days in the liberty movement, why she left, what's brought her back, and what she learned in the intervening years. Then we discuss making the case for liberty, and why the right's focus on cultural issues has given it a leg up in persuading many Americans to its side. A strong case for liberty demands taking social issues seriously, and interrogating social patterns and their origins.Produced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

The political right, including more right-wing sorts of self-identified libertarians, are rather down on feminism. For those right-wingers, their hostility is understandable, because feminist insights challenge truths the right imagines to be natural and immutable, about equality, and gender, and hierarchy. But for radical liberals, feminist theory offers powerful tools for understanding and critiquing power and its use by the state.Today I have on my friend Kelly Vee for a discussion of these ideas and their place within a radical liberal framework. Kelly is an individualist anarchist-feminist and a graduate of Tulane University with degrees in accounting and finance, which she puts to good use when she’s not writing about mental health, feminism, and the State.

An introduction to the people and ideas most central to the ideologies of Trumpism and post-liberalism.The last episode of this show was about what ReImagining Liberty is. With frequent guest Cory Massimino, I talked about the values and perspective behind ReImagining Liberty's approach to liberalism, and how it's distinct from right-libertarianism. Today's episode is a nice companion to that. Not just because it also features a frequent guest, this time my friend Matt McManus, but because it runs further with the theme of distinctions. Namely, in this case, the ideas of the anti-liberalism of the far right. Our topic is the contemporary right-wing canon, the thinkers whose ideologies have come to dominate, and whose writings are giving form to the authoritarian fascism challenging liberal values and virtues.Matt McManus is an Assistant Professor at Spelman College and the author of The Rise of Postmodern Conservatism and The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, among many other books.Here's Matt's essay on "The Modern Far Right Canon" that was the spark for today's conversation.

A conversation about the the values underlying radical liberalism, and what distinguishes it from more right-wing forms of libertarianism.You can think of this episode as kind of a soft reboot of ReImagining Liberty. Or a back-to-basics. This is a show about politics, but it's a politics grounded in a particular set of values and a particular perspective, and with the political and policy specifics downstream of those. Ever since the election, I've spent a lot of time on those specifics, as well as on the policy details of what the forces of illiberalism are up to. And that's important. But I want to bring the show back, at least a bit more, to those values and that perspective. What is it about the kind of radical liberalism motivating this show that sets it apart? What are those values? What is that perspective?So today's episode is the start a series of conversations on just that. And it's framed around change. I've brought back my very first guest, and my dear friend, Cory Massimino. He has been, it is fair to say, one of the biggest influences the evolution of my intellectual and moral approach to politics over the last ten years. We talk about how our views have shifted, what it means to be a radical liberal, and what sets the kind of radical liberalism at the heart of ReImagining Liberty apart from the right-leaning libertarianism many are familiar with.Cory is an independent scholar and a Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society, where he hosts the podcasts Mutual Exchange Radio and The Long Library.

Today's episode gets a bit meta. I've done something like ninety ReImagining Liberty shows, and hundreds more on other podcasts, but I've never done one on the place of podcasting itself in the political environment. This even though podcasting has been one of the big themes of politics lately, in many ways blamed for the rise, or at least persistence, of the ideologies that have reshaped our political culture and institutions.I'm delighted to bring on Landry Ayres for that. You probably recognize his name, especially if you're a long-time ReImagining Liberty listener, and especially if you listen all the way through to the end credits. Landry has been my producer for the better part of a decade, going all the way back to Free Thoughts, the show I hosted for eight years before this one. He is also Creative Director at the Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism and Managing Editor and Senior Producer at The UnPopulist.Get early access to ReImagining Liberty, listen ad-free, and get access to our listener Discord community, by joining my Patreon. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

We sometimes talk about technology on ReImagining Liberty, in the context of how it interacts with a liberal society, or how technology can help us defend and advance liberal. The big technology everyone's talking about right now is, of course, artificial intelligence. It's a topic I've written about, but not one I'd yet done an episode about specifically regarding what it means for liberalism.Then I read an essay by Ted Underwood, a professor in the School of Information Sciences, and in the English Department, at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It's titled "A more interesting upside of AI" and you can find a link to it in the show notes. He argues that the framing of AI technology as aiming at "super-intelligence" is misguided, both undesirable and misunderstanding important aspects of society and culture. Instead, he's an advocate of viewing AI as a cultural technology. What grabbed my attention was his further claim that, as a cultural technology, it can help us map and appreciate cultural differences, and cultural similarities, in ways that line up with, and support, liberal principles like pluralism, tolerance, and understanding.It's a big claim, and a fascinating one, and it lead to really fun and illuminating discussion.Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

It's difficult to be optimistic about liberalism's future. Certainly in the short to medium term. We're in an acute period of democratic bacIt's difficult to be optimistic about liberalism's future. Certainly in the short to medium term. We're in an acute period of democratic backsliding and authoritarian ascendency. The opposition party, or at least its leadership, has been largely supine in response. A backlash is rising, but it's an open question whether it'll be enough, and soon enough, to make a difference.But it's also not a time to give up all hope. There is a backlash. The current regime is deeply unpopular. And a ton of Americans—and people around the world watching what's happening to America—are rediscovering the value of liberal principles and values.My returning guest today is Andy Craig, a Fellow in Liberalism at the Institute for Humane Studies. We discuss the blitzkrieg of lawlessness in the first six months of this new Trump administration and why so many Democratic lawmakers have failed to respond to it with seriousness and urgency. But we also talk about the way forward, and how liberalism—true and radical liberalism—can chart that course.

Note: There were some issues with my guest's audio that make a few of his answers difficult to hear. So he kindly wrote out his answers and sent them to me. Those appear below in the show notes. Liberals, particularly classical liberals and libertarians, have too narrow a view of power. They focus on government force, or the threat of government force, and ignore all the other ways power is exercised in society. And the way classical liberals and libertarians imagine the fully autonomous self is at odds with our deep cultural embeddedness and the social construction of our identities, our ways of seeing, and the concepts through which we come to understand ourselves and the world.That's the argument my guest sets out in his new book, which asks classical liberals and libertarians to take seriously the analysis of power, knowledge, and identify set out by the French theorist Michel Foucault. And, as Mark Pennington further argues in Foucault and Liberal Political Economy: Power, Knowledge, and Freedom, taking Foucault seriously strengthens the foundations of liberalism and makes it better able to respond to illiberal critiques.Pennington is Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy in the Department of Political Economy, King's College, University of London, and is Director of the Centre for the Study of Governance and Society.We discuss Foucault's ideas, and introduce them for listeners who know nothing about his theories. And we show how they can point to liberal conclusions, including individual rights and a free market economy. Mark's book is the book I've been wanting someone to write a long time, and it not only doesn't disappoint but is, I think, one of the most import books in the liberal tradition in decades.Produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.Written Answers21:59If we have seen that ideas of scientific truth have changed across different periods that might make us think twice today about thinking that we have got something like access to a scientific truth.25:00Traditions are often historically contingent – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be sceptical about radical ideas about how they might be reformed.26:24Philosophers use the term ‘immanent criticism’27:00It isn’t really a properly conservative approach to say that there are pure ‘natural’ types – that is much closer to what I would call a scientific naturalism which isn’t compatible with ‘true’ conservatism let alone with the sort of liberalism I would like to advocate.32:00Human beings are not like atoms that can be tested in a laboratory. That doesn’t mean we can’t say anything useful about human beings and their relationships, but we have got to have this scepticism about, for example, claims made about human nature – these have often been wrong and that this scepticism is especially important in contexts where those claiming scientific expertise use this to claim to exercise political authority over others. So, a big concern in Foucault is about the alignment between claims to scientific expertise and state power. This is what Foucault was concerned about - as are many Foucauldians. It is not saying you should ignore science but that you should be wary of monopoly claims to that expertise arising. If we look through the history of science and the number of ideas that have been subject to radical change then it should give us reason to be sceptical of anyone who claims today to have discovered some notion of absolute scientific truth.34:35One way to think about social justice might be to focus on the distribution of income and wealth; and another aspect of social justice might be to focus on the identity aspects of it such as issues of cultural status across different groups.  What I think is common across these two discussions is the belief that – or at least this is what I think is the dominant narrative on social justice in today’s world is the belief that society can be manipulated or managed to produce desired outcomes.36:38The first would be a kind of scepticism of the assumption underlying these dominant views that societies are legible or manageable objects in this way.40:12This is all about, in various organisational settings, people being told that they must meet certain targets or goals about the people that they work with or the various practices around speech they should be using – this sort of thing.41:11And in many ways can reproduce some of the categories that people in the gay liberation movement for example and some racial justice movements wanted to challenge. 41:42Some discussions around DEI reinforce certain stereotypes about gay people and other historically disadvantaged groups that reproduce various stereotypes.

What's happened to Twitter, or now X, is the clearest example of why it's actually not great that so much of our digital communication is controlled by just a few firms and, through them, the whims of guys like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg. These single points of control not only mean a product we love today can be unlovable, or just gone, tomorrow, but also give more dangerous actors, like governments, avenues to use that centralization against us.The alternative is to revive what the internet once was: a decentralized and much more open place. I think this is really important, not just because it makes our digital communication less subject to arbitrary will, but also because it enables us to carve out communities for ourselves.My guest today wrote what is probably the most important essay about this need for decentralization, called "Protocols, Not Platforms," which inspired some of the most exciting current developments, including Bluesky. Mike Masnick is an expert in technology and technology policy and the editor of the indispensable blog, Techdirt. He's also on the board of directors of Bluesky.

The government's power to see is its power to oppress. The more the state knows about us, the more levers it has to control us. Understanding that connection, its history and its application, is critical if we are to secure our liberties in the face of authoritarian threats, such as the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the federal government in Los Angeles.I'd scheduled this episode—with returning guest Patrick Eddington about his new book The Triumph of Fear: Domestic Surveillance and Political Repression from McKinley to Eisenhower—before ICE set off protests in LA. But what's happening there highlights the need for conversations like the one that follows, because the tools we give the state to protect us are the tools a rogue administration can use to destroy our freedoms.Patrick Eddington is a senior fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute. He was formerly a CIA analyst, but left the Agency in 1996 after he and his wife Robin, also at the CIA, became whistleblowers, publicly accusing the CIA of hiding evidence that American troops were exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons during the Gulf War.Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

Equality is central to the liberal project. Thomas Jefferson failed, dramatically and unforgivably, to live up to this ideal, but he stated in correctly when, in a letter, he wrote that "the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately." Liberalism views us as equals, and demands the law treat us as such.The illiberal project, then, is the denial of this equality. And the failure to notice inequalities, or to view the inequalities afflicting some as less worthy of concern than the inequalities afflicting others, is how nominal liberals can slide into illiberal politics without realizing it.My guest today has spent his career reminding liberals of their blind spots, and calling for the principles of a liberal society to be applied consistently, leaving no marginalized groups marginalized.Jonathan Blanks is a writer and editor who has spent the bulk of his career focusing on constitutional law, civil liberties, due process, and criminal legal issues. After more than 12 years at the Cato Institute, Blanks has spent the past few years writing about American culture and the effects of police policy.Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

The Trumpist right has a very clear picture of what they imagine masculinity to be, and are quite upset that it's not a picture all men find all that appealing. It's one of violence, belligerence, and professions of heavy labor. Anything else, including the whole of the knowledge economy that has made the developed world rich, is inauthentically masculine, the result of corrupting feminization.As someone who earns his living communicating ideas, and is pretty happy doing so, I find their argument unpersuasive. So too, I find the politics of reaction, exclusion, and domination that accompany that argument quite a bit less desirable than a free and open and liberal society.That's what my guest and I discuss today. Toby Buckle is the host of the Political Philosophy Podcast, an excellent show that explores the intersection of politics and ideas. We talk about what men want, whether the story the right tells has any grounding in reality, the fundamentally adolescent nature of far-right masculinity, and how liberals can better pitch finding meaning in a liberal world.Toby's article about what men want: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/most-men-dont-want-to-be-heroes-and-thats-okay/Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

The authoritarian right loves to talk about how they're upholding democracy. Trump didn't lose the 2020 election, because if he had, democracy would've been against him. So instead it was stolen from him, his loss a subversion of the democratic process. Now, as a deeply unpopular second-term president, he and his loyalists pretend they are executing the will of the people, instead of horrifying most Americans while circumventing the people's elected legislature.My guest today has written a terrific book, The Reactionary Spirit, about this odd contradiction in contemporary autocratic rhetoric: On the one hand, far-right anti-democratic regimes speak in the language of democracy and popular will. On the other, they are, well, anti-democratic regimes. Zack Beauchamp is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers challenges to democracy in the United States and abroad, right-wing populism, and the world of ideas.Join the ReImagining Liberty Patreon to get episodes a week early, listen ad-free, and become part of the Discord community. Learn more here: https://www.patreon.com/AaronRossPowellProduced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.