Today's episode concludes our "Back to School" series and features two perspectives on issues faced by higher education today. Our interview with Alan Charles Kors, recorded on March 16, 2016, explores issues of free speech and academic freedom. Our interview with Louis Menand, recorded on December 11, 2016, focuses on issues of specialization and graduate studies.

Today's episode concludes our "Back to School" series and features two perspectives on issues faced by higher education today. Our interview with Alan Charles Kors, recorded on March 16, 2016, explores issues of free speech and academic freedom. Our interview with Louis Menand, recorded on December 11, 2016, focuses on issues of specialization and graduate studies.

This interview, recorded on May 16, 2016, features Eva Brann, tutor and former dean at St. John's College. We look at the model of St. John's College as a possible alternative to address issues in higher education today, and we also hear details of Ms. Brann's personal philosophy and history.

This interview, recorded on May 16, 2016, features Eva Brann, tutor and former dean at St. John's College. We look at the model of St. John's College as a possible alternative to address issues in higher education today, and we also hear details of Ms. Brann's personal philosophy and history.

This interview with the Midwestern History Association's Jon Lauck, recorded on June 1st, 2016, explores the often overlooked field of Midwestern history and the movement that seeks to revive it.

This interview with the Midwestern History Association's Jon Lauck, recorded on June 1st, 2016, explores the often overlooked field of Midwestern history and the movement that seeks to revive it.

This episode is going to be just a bit different from the others. We’re going to play for you a series of short presentations by three historians--Raymond Haberski, Paul Murphy, and Natalia Mehlman Petrzela. These historians were on a panel at an April 16, 2016 summit, hosted by the Hauenstein Center, that entertained the possibility of common ground between progressives and conservatives, as we do.

These three presentations were perfect for that summit—as well as for this podcast—because they took up certain relatively recent cultural debates that, in some cases, highlight the value of common ground between the left and right, but in others, reveal how such common ground might not always be possible or even valuable. For instance, in the first presentation, Raymond Haberski discusses what he calls America’s “civil religion of war,” and examines whether common ground between liberal and conservatives about war—particularly the Iraq War—is or has been all that valuable. Following that, Paul Murphy talks about key early 20th century American thinkers, together known as the New Humanists, who embodied the progressive/conservative split as we understand it today. Finally, Natalia Mehlman Petrzela talks about the culture wars, from the 60s to today, as they’ve played out in classrooms and at school board meetings across the nation.

This episode is going to be just a bit different from the others. We’re going to play for you a series of short presentations by three historians--Raymond Haberski, Paul Murphy, and Natalia Mehlman Petrzela. These historians were on a panel at an April 16, 2016 summit, hosted by the Hauenstein Center, that entertained the possibility of common ground between progressives and conservatives, as we do.

These three presentations were perfect for that summit—as well as for this podcast—because they took up certain relatively recent cultural debates that, in some cases, highlight the value of common ground between the left and right, but in others, reveal how such common ground might not always be possible or even valuable. For instance, in the first presentation, Raymond Haberski discusses what he calls America’s “civil religion of war,” and examines whether common ground between liberal and conservatives about war—particularly the Iraq War—is or has been all that valuable. Following that, Paul Murphy talks about key early 20th century American thinkers, together known as the New Humanists, who embodied the progressive/conservative split as we understand it today. Finally, Natalia Mehlman Petrzela talks about the culture wars, from the 60s to today, as they’ve played out in classrooms and at school board meetings across the nation.

In today’s episode, we hear a June 29, 2016 interview with Daniel Oppenheimer, a writer and documentarian, and the author of Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Shaped the American Century. In his book, Daniel Oppenheimer writes about the political conversions of six figures whose names might be familiar—Whitaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens. Though each of these figures defected from the left in one if not all ways, their stories are certainly not identical: whereas Chambers and Burnham were both committed Marxists at one point, Reagan was never really of full-fledged lefty. And Hitchens, though a supporter of the Iraq War and a friend of neoconservatives, always bristled at the accusation that he was in any way on the Right. Still, despite the differences between these figures, studying their respective apostasies can reveal something valuable and instructive about the changing political landscapes of the 20th century. And in a broader sense, the question their stories raise is really about us, today: how and why, our guest Daniel Oppenheimer asks, do we come to believe in certain political positions at all—either on the left, the right, or somewhere in the middle?

In today’s episode, we hear a June 29, 2016 interview with Daniel Oppenheimer, a writer and documentarian, and the author of Exit Right: The People Who Left the Left and Shaped the American Century. In his book, Daniel Oppenheimer writes about the political conversions of six figures whose names might be familiar—Whitaker Chambers, James Burnham, Ronald Reagan, Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, and Christopher Hitchens. Though each of these figures defected from the left in one if not all ways, their stories are certainly not identical: whereas Chambers and Burnham were both committed Marxists at one point, Reagan was never really of full-fledged lefty. And Hitchens, though a supporter of the Iraq War and a friend of neoconservatives, always bristled at the accusation that he was in any way on the Right. Still, despite the differences between these figures, studying their respective apostasies can reveal something valuable and instructive about the changing political landscapes of the 20th century. And in a broader sense, the question their stories raise is really about us, today: how and why, our guest Daniel Oppenheimer asks, do we come to believe in certain political positions at all—either on the left, the right, or somewhere in the middle?