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.
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.