The Bob Zadek Show

Kevin Vallier on restoring Trust in a Polarized Age

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

According to a certain t-shirt slogan, “Politics ruins everything.” Yet it somehow still manages to insert itself into conversation almost as frequently as the weather. And like the weather, it’s the conditions of our politics that dictate whether not it does indeed "ruin everything "or, instead, support other activities of a healthy society.

Kevin Vallier is a Professor of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University, a Bleeding Heart Libertarian, and a student of diverse thinkers from F.A. Hayek to John Rawls. He joins me this Sunday to discuss the “Mandatory PPE” needed for engaging in any political conversation in the coming weeks of Total War between the two dominant factions of the American political landscape. No masks or gloves are required. Rather, we will be discussing a different kind of PPE – the interdisciplinary study of Philosophy, Politics and Economics – which seeks out a higher caliber of discussion, and better ways to disagree.

Vallier, whose previous book asked "Must Politics Be War?," has a new treatise: Trust in a Polarized Age. His research, combining philosophical rigor with observational data on the body politic, aims to reverse the decay resulting from an across-the-board decline in social trust. Divergent norms and bad-faith dialogues have split Americans along tribal party lines. In a sense, Vallier argues, we are wired for war against the political other. More optimistically, however, he explains how awareness of this fact can lead to the creation of institutions that allow for healthy disagreement on ultimate values.

Some say that we are already in a kind of civil war. If our national politics is this broken, we might think that a pluralistic society is impossible. However, Vallier affirms that political peace and a broad consensus on basic liberal rights is still possible if we elevate the values of reason, liberty and freedom of association above war, tribalism, and the desire to dominate those we disagree with.

Attorney and author Bradford R. Kane joins the show of ideas to discuss his
book *Pitchfork Populism: 10 Politcal Forces that Shaped an Election and
Continue to Change America

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

This week, the Senate is scheduled to kick off confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. The stakes are high, with the seat of the most prominent liberal Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, potentially being filled by a conservative in the mold of her mentor, Antonin Scalia.

Georgetown Constitutional Law Professor Randy Barnett argued before the late Justice Ginsburg, and knows Ginsburg’s prospective replacement personally. While he was on the opposite side of the ideological divide from Justice Ginsburg, he honored her recently in a Washington Post column as a gracious presence, who assisted him in an oral argument before the Supreme Court. And while Barnett and Barrett’s judicial philosophies are more closely aligned, Barrett debated some of the finer points of Professor Barnett’s book Our Republican Constitution insofar as he argues against judicial restraint when it comes to defending economic liberties.
While a full discussion of judicial philosophy is beyond the scope of a single hour on my show, I was delighted to have Professor Barnett join me to discuss why the Supreme Court has become so heavily politicized and how the stakes have gotten so high.

Many believe that a future Justice Barrett could be the divisive vote on a number of key issues – not just Roe v. Wade but also Obamacare. Since when did nine unelected officials determine the fate of our entire lives?

Don’t miss this special edition of the show of #ideasnotattitude.

Constitutional lawyer Randy Barnett weighs in on the looming battle over
ACB’s confirmation hearings, beginning this week.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

[NOTE: My new book *Essential Liberty: Finding Freedom in a Post-COVID World* is now available on Amazon. Buy it now or read more below.]

The English poet and literary critic Samuel Johnson is often remembered for his exclamation, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” A Washington Post journalist recently channeled this sentiment in comparing President Trump’s proposal for a national patriotic education commission to authoritarian propaganda taught in China, Turkey and Hungary.

In fairness to patriots, Samuel Johnson was only criticizing false patriotism used to cover up for ulterior motives. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead behind the NY Times' controversial 1619 Project, levies this accusation against the Founding Fathers. She claims the American Revolution was not really about independence, but rather slavery. This same narrative has been embraced in California's new ethnic studies curriculum, but not everyone is having it.

Williamson M. Evers Ph.D is the Director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Educational Excellence. A founding member of the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education, Evers has been warning about the watering down of educational standards in the name of diversity. Evers will join me this Sunday to explain the bewildering vocabulary being taught to schoolchildren, from "Hxrstory" to "Master narrative." This is a must-listen for those who were perplexed during this week’s Presidential debate, when Biden claimed that "critical race theory" was really just another term for racial sensitivity training.

Trump’s “1776 Commission” represents a challenge to the apparent bias of the 1619 Project and related ethnic studies classes. Where the media sees signs of a spiral towards fascism in the attempt to dictate a national curriculum, conservatives see an effort to reverse decades of indoctrination by public schools.

The unpopularity of America’s founding ideals within academia has trickled down to the elementary and secondary school curricula, where students in California, for example, spend little time learning basic civics or American history. Meanwhile, the left seems to once again be rediscovering the principles of Federalism – arguing that the federal government should stay out of the business of local school districts.

To his credit, Governor Gavin Newsom recently vetoed the latest bill, which would have required all California high-schoolers to take an ethnic studies course to graduate.

Does the President's commission represent the true patriotism of the American founders or is it, as Johnson put it, the last refuge of scoundrels?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Williamson Evers of the Independent Institute on California’s Educational
Propaganda

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Josh Blackman on the future of the Supreme Court

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

As if the stakes of the election weren’t high enough, the added complication of a Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg has turned divisive politics into an all-out war. President Trump is set to nominate a candidate on Saturday, and on Sunday morning (8-9am PACIFIC), I’ll discuss breaking news with analysis from Josh Blackman – a law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and prolific blogger at Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy.

Blackman says “This is like a game of eight-dimensional chess,” because of all the moving parts. First, there are questions of legality. Second, questions of legitimacy. Third, questions of practicality and political gamesmanship.

With Kamala Harris presiding over the Senate Judiciary Committee, the sparks will fly in the nomination hearings. If a new justice is confirmed, what will happen after the election? Some have dared to consider the dread possibility that the Supreme Court must intervene to decide a contested election. In that situation, would the new justice have to recuse him or herself? And what about Clarence Thomas? He has certainly not forgotten the mistreatment he suffered at the hands of then-Senator Joe Biden during his confirmation hearings.

As I told Craig Roberts recently, this is the stuff that Academy-Award movies are made of. It might be entertaining, if it weren’t so anxiety-provoking.

I’m thrilled to welcome Professor Blackman to my show for the first time to discuss his recent writings and commentary on the vacant Supreme Court seat. We’ll discuss the precedent for appointing a nominee in the final month’s of a president’s term, as well as the political calculations for Republicans and more importantly, Democrats, who have entertained the idea of packing the courts should they return to power.

Joe Biden himself has said this is a slippery slope, but how long can he withstand pressure from the rest of the Democratic Party? Is court packing a foregone conclusion if the Democrats take power?

Joe Quirk and Tom W. Bell on Private Governance: Free Ports, SEZs,
Seasteads & More

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe