ReImagining Liberty

Today's episode was recorded a few weeks before the results of the November presidential election, and before an unrelated change I've made to this podcast. So before we jump into my conversation with Matthew McManus, I wanted to take a moment to give some context and talk about ReImagining Liberty going forward.

First, for all of its life, ReImagining Liberty has been a listener supported show, and the way listeners supported it was to become paying members and get early access to new episodes. Starting today, I'm no longer doing that. Every episode of ReImagining Liberty will come out when it's ready, and I've turned off paid memberships. I did this primarily because I had an increasingly difficult time being consistent with the show's release schedule, and I didn't want people paying to get early access to episodes that weren't coming out on time. If you're listening to the show right now, nothing changes for you. You'll continue to get episodes right here--just now at the same time as every else.

That said, if you do want to support ReImagining Liberty, there are three ways you can do it. First, leave a review on Apple Podcasts. This helps Apple to show the podcast to more people, and encourages people who find it to subscribe. Second, tell your friends. If you like an episode, forward it along to someone. If you like the show, tell people about it. Third, I have a free newsletter at www.aaronrosspowell.com. Sign up for that to get my new writing. Any or all of those three is a huge help and does a ton for the show.

Okay, now on to today's episode.

The election results very much have liberalism on the defensive. The Trump years are likely to be quite dark, the darkest most of us have seen in our lifetimes. There's a lot liberals can do to fight back, and we'll explore that in future episodes.

One area we need to pay a lot of attention to is why the arguments we make--and by "we" I mean what we might label "market liberals"--fail to persuade everyone they need to persuade.

Today's episode is very much about that. It's about a position that overlaps with a lot of liberal principles, but also rejects a lot of the free market positions I and other market liberals take.

My guest is my friend Matthew McManus, a ReImagining Liberty regular. He's a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan. In his new book, The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, he argues that not only are socialism and liberalism compatible, but that the future of liberalism depends upon the embrace of certain kinds of socialism.

I'm unsurprisingly skeptical about many aspects of that argument, which is why I wanted to get Matt on the show to discuss it. I think his book sets out clearly a widely believed argument from the left against market liberalism. So I've brought him on to set out and defend his case and to help draw out the primary points of disagreement between his view of liberalism and mine.

Produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

Unless you're an early access supporter of the show, this is the last episode you'll hear before the presidential election, which will profoundly shape the state, or looming absence, of American democracy.

The critical importance of the choice between Harris and Trump has much of the country thinking about getting more people involved in politics—and the question of political participation, and particularly how much of it is reasonable, is what my guest spends a great deal of his time thinking about.

Kevin J. Elliott is a political scientist and Lecturer in Ethics, Politics, & Economics at Yale University. He's the author of Democracy for Busy People, and I've brought him back on the show to discuss the barriers to democratic participation, the "Paradox of Empowerment," and what it would look like to get more Americans interested in the political process.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? ⁠⁠⁠⁠Become a supporter⁠⁠⁠⁠ and get early access and other perks.

Produced by ⁠⁠⁠⁠Landry Ayres⁠⁠⁠⁠. Podcast art by ⁠⁠⁠⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠⁠⁠⁠. Music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠⁠⁠⁠.

An important theme of this show is the role of rhetoric in politics. It's not just the arguments we make that matter, but when we choose to make them, and how we talk about political issues. And we can learn a lot about the people who disagree with us not just by parsing their arguments, but by paying attention to when and how they make them.

This is critically important in a political environment as charged, fraught, and arguably on-the-brink as ours in the days before a presidential election. And the fact is, with the acute threat from the right to the very foundations of our liberal, open, and democratic society, much of our journalism has fallen into a particularly worrying rhetoric, one that downplays these threats, while stirring up resentment towards vulnerable groups.

I can't think of anyone better to talk with about these issues central to our political life than Parker Molloy. She's a Chicago-based writer and author of the indispensable The Present Age, a newsletter about communication in a hyperconnected world.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? ⁠⁠⁠Become a supporter⁠⁠⁠ and get early access and other perks.

Produced by ⁠⁠⁠Landry Ayres⁠⁠⁠. Podcast art by ⁠⁠⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠⁠⁠. Music by ⁠⁠⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠⁠⁠.

We're staring down the barrel of a presidential election, one that highlights deep questions about democracy and political participation. If our goal is radically more freedom, how should we think about democracy's place in achieving that, given that the popular will often isn't for more freedom. And if the system, as it exists, is rather far from fully just, how should we approach participating in it? These are questions libertarians, and others, raise frequently, and they're worth taking more seriously than most people do.

To help us think through them, I'm joined by my good friend Andy Craig. He's a Fellow in Liberalism at the Institute for Humane Studies and an expert on election laws and democratic theory.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? ⁠⁠Become a supporter⁠⁠ and get early access and other perks.

Produced by ⁠⁠Landry Ayres⁠⁠. Podcast art by ⁠⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠⁠. Music by ⁠⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠⁠.

When Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Harris took over, we witnessed not just a change in candidate, but a change in rhetoric. Harris's campaign began talking in the language of "freedom" and "liberty." Harris's running mate, Tim Walz, contrasted himself with the meddlesome social conservatism of JD Vance by saying he was for "minding your own business."

For those of us who have long championed a politics of radical liberty, this was met by both enthusiasm and suspicion. Enthusiasm, because it's good for the country to have a major party talking in those terms, especially as the GOP has abandoned anything like a commitment to political and social liberty. Suspicion because, despite all there talk, there are plenty of ways Harris and Walz want the government to get in the way of minding your own business.

To talk about this shift, and the opportunities it might offer to better make the case for radical liberalism, I'm joined by Joshua Eakle, co-founder and president of Project Liberal.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? ⁠Become a supporter⁠ and get early access and other perks.

Produced by ⁠Landry Ayres⁠. Podcast art by ⁠Sergio R. M. Duarte⁠. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod⁠.

This, as it says on the tin, is a show about liberalism. But teasing out what that term means can be challenging. Not just because it's philosophically complex, but because common usage of terms doesn't always conform to rigorous conceptual categories, and even when it does, language evolves.

That's the jumping off point for today's conversation. My guest is Samantha Hancox-Li and she's a writer, game designer, and associate editor at Liberal Currents.

We discuss what it means to be liberal, and how that's distinct from being a progressive. Then we talk about what liberals can learn from progressives, and where progressives sometimes go wrong in matching their political actions to their values. It's a conversation about political engagement, political rhetoric, and the right way to change the world.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? Become a supporter and get early access and other perks.

Produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

A liberal society is necessarily an open and diverse one. When people are free to move and free to choose, a country's population and culture will reflect all those differences in tastes, preferences, and ways of living. And that's part of what makes liberalism so great.

But a pluralistic society can be bothersome for those who'd prefer everyone be just like them. And if those sorts get uncomfortable enough with cultural diversity and dynamism, they can turn against liberalism itself.

To help think through these tensions, and how liberalism can defend itself against those who would rather it weren't so diverse, I've brought on my friend Jacob T. Levy. He's the Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory at McGill University and author of the terrific book Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? Become a supporter and get early access and other perks.

Produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I'm joined today by Janet Bufton, Program Coordinator & Co-Founder at the Institute for Liberal Studies. I'm a little embarassed it's taken me this long to get her on the show, because she's one of the most thoughtful advocates out there of the kind of genuine and broad liberalism--and liberal values--that are at the heart of ReImagining Liberty.

We discuss the link between liberalism and liberation, the intellectual history that's led many self-described liberals and libertarians to be skeptical of robust social liberalism, and how we can better position liberalism to meet illiberal challengers.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? Become a supporter and get early access and other perks.

Produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On June 7th, David Boaz died. He was the Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, author of *The Libertarian Mind*, and the most important figure in the libertarian movement in the last half century. He was also my mentor, my close friend, and, for twelve years, my boss.

I had the privilege of holding, for the first two of those years, what is among the most exclusive, challenging, and rewarding jobs in Washington: Staff Writer at the Cato Institute, a role that primarily meant being David's right-hand man and primary conversation partner.

David's life and work are worth celebrating, and his legacy worth cherishing. He set the standard for how to live one's principles, lead a profoundly moral life, and change the world for the better while doing it.

I'm delighted to bring together a group of my fellow staff writers to talk about what David meant to the libertarian movement, what it was like to work for him, and how he enriched our lives.

• Aaron Steelman is a Senior Fellow and Policy Adviser at the Cato Institute, and has the honor of being David's very first staff writer.
• Julian Sanchez has worked as a journalist and policy analyst.
• Maria Santos Bier is the Director of Foundation and Corporate Relations at the Cato Institute.
• Andy Craig is Director of Election Policy at the Rainey Center.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? Become a supporter and get early access and other perks.

Produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Politics gets pretty emotional, and we typically view that as bad. The political scene would be better, we suppose, if more people could set aside their emotions and rationally engage with the hard questions.

My guest today isn't so sure. Jason Canon is a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge in political science, and while he doesn't reject reason, he argues that emotion plays, and ought to play, a much larger role in how we think about and approach politics than it typically gets. Reason doesn't work without emotion, and emotions can lead us to better political outcomes.

Want to listen to new episodes of ReImagining Liberty two weeks early? Become a supporter and get early access and other perks.

Produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.