It’s a dog days of summer special! This week, we are releasing a live interview from last April, that’s more timely today than when it was first recorded. Dictators and their sychophants; democracy imperiled by foreign policy misadventures. Sound familiar?
For almost a century, American intellectuals of different political stripes have been in thrall to dictators. They’ve either projected utopian ideals on to them, or been seduced by their charisma and alleged effectiveness. The story of left wing intellectuals falling for figures like Stalin or Castro has already been told. In a new book, America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators, Jacob Heilbrunn, author and editor of the National Interest, tells the story of the American political right and its dalliances with overseas despots. Joining Damir as co-host is friend of the pod Professor Jennifer Murtazashvili, head of the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets, which graciously supports our work.
As usual, Damir veers the discussion towards first principles. Are people more likely to be seduced by dictatorships when liberalism is perceived to be failing? Is liberalism perceived to be failing more often during wartime or peacetime? Just what is attractive about despotism? Should liberals accept that a certain amount of “ineffectiveness” is part and parcel of the liberal order? Tune in for a riveting discussion of these questions and more.
Required Reading:
“Apologists without Remorse,” by Jacob Heilbrunn (American Prospect).
America Last: The Right’s Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators by Jacob Heilbrunn.
“Trump’s anti-Ukraine view dates to the 1930s. America rejected it then. Will we now?” by Robert Kagan.
U.S. Military Interventions since 1890 (Evergreen State College).
This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets.
Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!
I was relieved to discover that the mention of a new Robert Kagan piece in the Post did not in fact refer to a new Robert Kagan piece, as this podcast was recorded months ago. We are spared--for now.
Pretty confident Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken wouldn't have identified as conservatives. To lump them as such is putting too neat a bow on the complicated politics of the 1920s and 1930s.
I enjoyed this and really want to read the book. I was wondering do you think there is something inherent in conservatism as an intellectual movement to produce 'crank' or ultra reactionary ideas and people? Someone, such as Corey Robin for instance, would argue this is inherently a part of conservatism. Now, I don't like Robin's description of conservatism and thought his book 'the reactionary mind' was a really poor attempt at fusing together altogether different traditions under the rubric of conservatism.
But there could be an argument that if regimes have a claim to reimagination of the past or a demand for a challenge to the established liberal order makes one sympathetic to really bad ideas. I was wondering as well was someone like Mark Lilla's approach a bit of an example of how to proceed forward? We see this in extreme circumstances on the left too with a good case study being Malcolm Caldwell. Caldwell, a lecturer at SOAS, defended the Khmer Rouge and not only defended them but went to a state sponsored tour of Cambodia where he was ultimately murdered by the regime.