Cato Out Loud – a Cato Institute podcast that brings you the best of Cato’s print publications in an audio format.
Hosted on Acast. See
... moreShare Cato Out Loud
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Cato Out Loud
By Cato Institute
FAQs about Cato Out Loud:
How many episodes does Cato Out Loud have?
The podcast currently has 37 episodes available.
Cato Out Loud episodes:
September 25, 2018Introduction to The Inclusive Economy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
...more September 24, 2018A World Imagined: Nostalgia and Liberal Order Recent political tumult and the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency have driven anxious commentators to lament the collapse of a post‐1945 “liberal world order.” Nostalgic for the institution building and multilateral moment of the early postwar era, they counsel Washington to restore a battered tradition, uphold economic and security commitments, and promote liberal values. On closer inspection, while it is true that the postwar world was more prosperous and peaceful than what came before, the claim that a unitary “liberal order” prevailed and defined international relations is both ahistorical and harmful. It is ahistorical because it is blind to the process of “ordering” the world and erases the memory of violence, coercion, and compromise that also marked postwar diplomatic history. It loses sight of the realities and limits of the exercise of power abroad, the multiplicity of orders that arose, and the conflicted and contradictory nature of liberalism itself. While liberalism and liberal projects existed, such “order” as existed rested on the imperial prerogatives of a superpower that attempted to impose order by stepping outside rules and accommodating illiberal forces. “Liberal order” also conflates intentions and outcomes: some of the most doctrinaire liberal projects produced illiberal results. This nostalgia is harmful because framing the world before Trump in absolute moral terms as a “liberal order” makes it harder to consider measures that are needed to adapt to change: the retrenchment of security commitments, the redistribution of burdens among allies, prudent war‐avoidance, and the limitation of foreign policy ambitions. It also impedes the United States from performing an increasingly important task: to reappraise its grand strategy in order to bring its power and commitments into balance.Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
...more September 24, 2018A World Imagined: Nostalgia and Liberal Order ...more September 24, 2018A World Imagined: Nostalgia and Liberal Order Recent political tumult and the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency have driven anxious commentators to lament the collapse of a post-1945 “liberal world order.” Nostalgic for the institution building and multilateral moment of the early postwar era, they counsel Washington to restore a battered tradition, uphold economic and security commitments, and promote liberal values. On closer inspection, while it is true that the postwar world was more prosperous and peaceful than what came before, the claim that a unitary “liberal order” prevailed and defined international relations is both ahistorical and harmful. It is ahistorical because it is blind to the process of “ordering” the world and erases the memory of violence, coercion, and compromise that also marked postwar diplomatic history. It loses sight of the realities and limits of the exercise of power abroad, the multiplicity of orders that arose, and the conflicted and contradictory nature of liberalism itself. While liberalism and liberal projects existed, such “order” as existed rested on the imperial prerogatives of a superpower that attempted to impose order by stepping outside rules and accommodating illiberal forces. “Liberal order” also conflates intentions and outcomes: some of the most doctrinaire liberal projects produced illiberal results. This nostalgia is harmful because framing the world before Trump in absolute moral terms as a “liberal order” makes it harder to consider measures that are needed to adapt to change: the retrenchment of security commitments, the redistribution of burdens among allies, prudent war-avoidance, and the limitation of foreign policy ambitions. It also impedes the United States from performing an increasingly important task: to reappraise its grand strategy in order to bring its power and commitments into balance....more September 17, 2018In Bernie Sanders vs. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Only Workers Lose Listen to an audio version of Ryan Bourne's op-ed "In Bernie Sanders vs. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Only Workers Lose."Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
...more September 13, 2018Introduction from Romance of the Rails Listen to the introduction from Randal O'Toole's new book Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need.
Read the Introduction from Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
...more September 12, 2018Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power (Audio Edition) Presidential impeachments are vanishingly rare in American constitutional history: in the 230 years since ratification, only three presidents have faced serious attempts to remove them from office. And yet, as President Donald J. Trump’s tumultuous tenure continues, it seems increasingly plausible that we’ll see a fourth.
In ordinary times, in ordinary presidencies, impeachment talk is considered taboo: the “I‐word” is heard only on the political fringes, if it’s heard at all. Yet Trump’s first year in office saw four resolutions, containing a total of nine articles of impeachment against him, formally introduced in the House. Recent polls reveal strong support for an impeachment inquiry among the Democratic base. Should the Democrats recapture the House in the 2018 midterms, even reluctant members may find that pressure difficult to resist.
Read the White Paper
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
...more September 12, 2018Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power (Audio Edition) ...more September 04, 2018The Jones Act: A Burden America Can No Longer Bear ...more June 28, 2018The Jones Act: A Burden America Can No Longer Bear For nearly 100 years, a federal law known as the Jones Act has restricted water transportation of cargo between U.S. ports to ships that are U.S.-owned, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-registered, and U.S.-built. Justified on national security grounds as a means to bolster the U.S. maritime industry, the unsurprising result of this law has been to impose significant costs on the U.S. economy while providing few of the promised benefits. In this paper, Cato scholars Colin Grabow, Inu Manak, and Daniel J. Ikenson examine how such an archaic, burdensome law has been able to withstand scrutiny and persist for almost a century, and present a series of options for reforming this archaic law and reducing its costly burdens.
Read the Policy Analysis
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
...more
FAQs about Cato Out Loud:
How many episodes does Cato Out Loud have?
The podcast currently has 37 episodes available.