Regime Change and the Future of Liberalism | Patrick Deneen, JD Vance Kevin Roberts & Christine Emba
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- From the Modern Age Panel on the Future of Liberalism.
Deneen and special guests Senator JD Vance, Christine Emba, and Kevin Roberts as they respond to Patrick’s argument and discuss strategies for building a virtuous leadership class committed to the common good. The conversation will be moderated by ISI’s own, Dan McCarthy.
Join us for an engaging and thought-provoking panel discussion on the Future of Liberalism, featuring renowned political theorist Patrick Deneen and special guests Senator J.D. Vance, journalist Christine Emba, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. This event is moderated by ISI’s own Dan McCarthy and promises to offer deep insights into the current state and future trajectory of liberalism.
In this panel, Patrick Deneen presents his critical views on liberalism, sparking a dynamic conversation among the panelists. Senator J.D. Vance, Christine Emba, and Kevin Roberts respond to Deneen's arguments, sharing their perspectives and discussing strategies for building a virtuous leadership class committed to the common good. This discussion delves into the complexities of modern political thought and the ways in which we can foster a more just and equitable society.
Don't miss this opportunity to hear from some of today’s most influential thinkers and leaders on one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Become a Member:
isi.org/join-c...
Support ISI:
isi.org/donate/
Upcoming ISI Events:
isi.org/events/
Great stuff from Deneen, refreshing to hear an actual conservative for once. The libertarian death grip on the party needs to be broken.
You have no idea what you, or any at these forum, are talking about. The Republican party is, for the most part, liberal. It has never been in any sense libertarian, if you are judging it by those that win the elections and run the party apparatus. Fortunately you natcons are like libertarians in that you are too few and too weak to matter, so you're going nowhere.
Deneen is a radical leftist. He loves state power and looks back to a mythical golden age which shapes his hopes for a utopia in the present age, rather like radical environmentalists.
Of course, libertarians have also almost never had any purchase on the Republican party.
@@redcatofdeath At the ground-level, they absolutely have. The average "conservative" believes most libertarian platitudes, with slight modifications: small government, free markets, the primacy of the individual, and a skepticism of all collective political action.
@@ScynthescizorSmall government & free market ARE what you had when there was a cohesive social fabric. And milquetoast libertarian ideals are exactly what's gotten us here.
How could the government have destroyed the family unit & civic life without unlimited spending power, all of which stems from the ability to expropriate its citizens at will, a direct result of leaving the gold standard?
You need to read Hoppe & Rothbard to understand libertarian ideas, not some bs from the Cato Institute or Reason magazine.
Always love hearing JD Vance speak about the threat of state and private power’s fusion. It breaks through the libertarianism that has left the GOP effete in the face of today’s challenges.
Deneen’s talk would have been great if he didn’t try to paint a wining and dining bourgeoisie come to political prominence as an aristocracy with aristocratic tastes. As far as I know, neither the Roman senate nor the aristocracy of the Middle Ages ever cared much for trendy restaurants or university degrees.
They threw lavish parties and feasted. They had court poets and were taught to be literate. It’s the same thing for a different era.
JD is very impressive
So to achieve order we have to first have maximum disorder
Rhetorical but serious question: Can this guy Deenan wire a light fixture? That life of luxury that he imagines the elite oligarchs living, how different is it really from the life he lives? Certainly not in terms of values, fair enough, but maybe not in terms of material lifestyle. I don't know, I'm just learning about this guy and am very intrigued by his ideas and especially his critique of liberalism. But the ideal type that he imagines that represents the "many" doesn't match my first impression of this guy. He's argument seems to be based on an imaginary caricature that he seems to be projecting upon. I'm not saying he's a hypocrite - I want to give him a fair chance. And while his quip about getting academics to learn trades (i.e. changing light fixtures) is indeed a fair point, I take one look at this guy and wonder where he fits himself into all this. For all his smack against elitism, that's the vibe I'm getting here too.
Conservative thought doesn't reject the concept of elites. Rather, it accepts the concept of noblesse oblige. The Elite is needed but he is not inherently a better person then someone lower down on the hierarchy. He has responsibilities to that person to conserve their traditions and way of life. Patrick Deneen enjoying a glass of champagne and discussing some philosophy does not necessarily go against Conservative ideals of order and stability.
These politics were stale when Galileo was young.
Listening to this, I hear the following: Leisure, culture, sexual exploration, divorce, and reproductive choice shall be reserved unto the few. The many shall hew to a religiously prescribed norm.
I appreciated the questions posed by the WaPo columnist.
Thanks for this conversation
Vance's comments about parental leave are on point, but to the extent it exists at all, came out of liberal, Democratic initiatives. NY and Calif are among the states that have the highest levels of paid leave. Traditional Red states have the lowest. The same goes for programs like Medicaid where more conservative states mandate work requirements, even if it means placing kids in daycare.
That’s true. But Vance’s voting record has showed that he has pushed for more paid leave. It’s nice to see someone defined by ideas and not by party dogma.
Brilliant stuff.
Traditional Republican focus on growth (free trade, unfettered business activity with limited regulations) seems to be jettisoned here for protectionism. I guess that works if you accept that you'll have less growth (Other nations will retaliate against our protectionism with their own) and higher inflation. To some degree, it's the administrative state and prior Democratic administrations that have created the existing protections that VAnce seems to prefer.
It's not going to be permanent. Maybe when we're done paying off our debt.
The Rust Belt was unacceptable. NAFTA was a mistake.
Dan McCarthy sounds just like William Daniels.
One of these folx is not like the other. One of these folx is just not the same.
Do you mean the heritage foundation guy or the black lady?
@@Scynthescizor One of these folks is not like the others : answer the heritage foundation guy .
1:09:53 The interesting part occurs when Patrick Deneen starts talking freely.
He advocates for a return of government regulated economics ( aka Keynesian Economics )
Recall , Reagan is the poster boy for bringing in a crony version of neo liberal economics ,
which was followed by Bush Sr , Clinton , Bush Jr and Obama .
Then Deneen describes how wokeism is " The wedding between progressive interest of capital , and the progressive interest of the social revolutionaries ... at a time of a visible inequality ... when ordinary people are feeling incapable of achieving basic goods of life . "
.
He continues by saying the elites are using the language of egalitarianism in order to govern .
.
Weird
You listed a supposed breakdown of traditional norms in nearly perfect right wing language, then say framing that list (marriage, abortion, transgender etc) in a negative light is not right wing, and defend that by listing tariffs, economy and jobs. You may giggle, but if you understood your own rhetoric in the political reality we live in now you might reconsider.
He's not arguing that his ideas are not right wing, he just means that under the influence of fusionism and neoconservatism, people have falsely identified classical liberal ideas as 'on the right' and anything that opposes them as 'socialist' or 'leftist'.
Re the introduction from Louise- from resisting revolution from abroad, to the need to resist domestic revolution. It's an age-old problem: as Hannah Arendt once observed, you become what you fight. Unfortunately.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHEN YOU ARE BEING LIED TO OR YOU WILL SUFFER
I personally believe in progress the main areas of society : in economy, socially, technology, politically , in philosophy, in science, etc. an as individual with dignity and with great personality and character, somehow, we may find progress in many issues but there is one thing that I myself cannot find progress, in woke culture what find on it is IDIOCY
He's going to say we need the Ancien Regime
Explain
I have to say I feel your presentation of the value of going back centuries in rights for women and gay people is one of the most dangerous I have heard from academia.
Not sure what lecture you watched but he didn't say that. Lol
@@LawGarithmic @35: - 36: he lists divorce, abortion, sex used for other than procreation and transgender people as negatives as harmful as public pornography.
They are. They are destroying this country. Whatever comes after liberalism will have to find a compromise on these issues.
Have you read his book, 'Why liberalism failed'? His thought is contiguous with an intellectual tradition spanning from Plato and Aristotle all the way to de Maistre, Burke, de Jouvenel, the realist, even the Kantian tradition.
If you feel that his ideas are most dangerous, you must either be completely unaware of the history of western though, or think it was completely rotten from the beginning, valuing only the philosophies of the 20th century.
Also, if you think that divorce, abortion, casual sex and the LGBTQ phenomenon are positive developments, Mary Harrington's book, 'Feminism against progress' is great at dispelling such misconceptions.
@@marcuscrassus5229 Deduction from pure reason would tell you that the social realities you list are natural to human life. Divorce isn't desirable, but at times needful, especially in cases of abuse of any kind. This has been true through the ages in human relationships. As you know religious men have even said women who face abuse should stay no matter the harm.
Overuse of divorce overuse is a symptom of our societies inability to to foster emotionally healthy citizens. Too much reliance on consumerism as a end-all, be-all.
Abortion is obviously the same, and a common feature of humanity throughout time.
Casual sex is no "development" in many societies and places it has been as prevalent as we see now. I would agree we are over sexualizing consumers, having nearly bare breasts in your face on magazine covers as you wait in line at the grocery store, is not desirable.
LGBTQ people have been a feature of humanity through out time, they were just attacked and rejected. Now we have outgrown that very low level reasoning.
What is really at play here is re-installing the old patriarchal, religious order using a facade of intellectual thought.
Also, I can't see how you would imagine anything he said was Kantian.
That was a waste of two hours
Yeah--buzz words and shiboleths--talking suits, trying to sell...what? You tell me.
Founded by Emanuel Kant
Women having the right and ability to divorce a violent or abusive partner is NOT a negative. Also, no one "celebrates" abortion, it's interesting that a modern academic believes sexuality should be relegated singularly to reproduction. Isn't a man dictating their values over a woman, removing her right to her own body a social regression?
Abortion is being celebrated, there were actions like shout out your abortion.
@@oo3380 have no doubt some women are happy they own their bodies, but no, no one celebrates having an abortion.
Easy No-Fault Divorce has been the worst thing for women and children. It allows upwardly mobile men to trade in their wife for a younger model just when their famile assets are growing leaving women at an older age with little or no wealth.
@@lisapalermo7130 Can you show that abused women aren't served well by it? Community property ensure property is split evenly.
Strengthing laws to limit divorce would not be towards the goal of keeping women, or men, from leaving abusive partners but from limiting or making it more difficult to remarry so that marriage is seen as a one time life long commitment. Marriage is for the benefit of the child and divorce is almost always a negative for the children involved.
Like you guys KNOW you’re evil right? Like biblical Egyptian royalty evil?
Religious fascists, for sure.
How?
Lol. These are Cultural conservative and economic populist. You really think they are the evil but the lefts degenerate culture movements aren't? It's much worse then just the culture movements actually. Let me explain.
There is a neoliberal fascists globalist cloaking itself and using a postmodern Cultural Marxism. That is the modern left in every single western nation. The elite globalist are using the "equity" useful idiots to centralize power into international organizations such as the UN, WHO, EU. How? By appealing to emotion and using all the Cultural centers such as media, Hollywood, academia, government, multinational corps. This is obvious when looking at covid(WHO medical), diversity (race, gender,trans movements), and the climate agenda by EU/UN agenda 2030.
The end goal is to centralize power globally to control the energy, info, food, and money supply.
Lulz … just because someone writes a best selling book doesn’t mean its contents make good politics.
🇺🇸
Deneen sounds suspiciously socialist… National Socialist.
Howso?
… more like Christian Nationalist.
The guy thinks all American right-wingers are Nazis.
@@stephenpowstinger733 I didn't get that at all, instead that right wing views like abortion rates, divorce rates and transgender rights are a sign of a negative shift, in fact in support of right wing views.
In his new book Deneen argues his sophisticated view of political philosophy. It’s basically the same conservatism as developed by Burke, Buckley and others. Personally, I am more a libertarian because the religious conservatism of Deneen isn’t fair to women. They spend too much time on culture war and not enough on what’s happening in the world and the economy.