Greetings dear listeners this is another exciting truly exciting edition of the

Remnant Podcast. I have someone here who for reasons I'll explain a little later in the conversation is in some ways partially responsible for me becoming a pundit although there may not be reasons that that that he is particularly thrilled about and but regardless I were delighted to have on the Remnant Podcast George Whale. Hi George. Remnant of what? Well remember Albert J. Nock. Of course. Yes. So more as a super, super, gross man. That's right. And my

enemy the state and he wrote a wonderful essay for the Atlantic magazine. I believe in 1936 called Isaiah's job and it's one of the best essays in the history of sort of conservatism liberalism libertarianism in which he basically tells people don't worry about trying to persuade the masses. All you can do is speak to the Remnant of those who hold on to correct thinking. I think as I want to say Walter Benjamin paraphrase.

And when I don't know if you've noticed but when things started to go a little wobbly among the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I returned to my love. Albert J. Nock. I'm a huge fan of and I called the few of us left who haven't hadn't hadn't taken the crazy pills the Remnant and it became the perfect name for my podcast.

And so in some ways you were the titular deity of the Remnant because you actually at a moment where almost everybody else is zagging towards some version of nationalism or collectivism or Catholic integralism, which is the new hot thing or as a friend Matt Kahnetti recently put it post liberal conservatism. You are zicking the other direction towards actual classical liberalism and liberalism rightly, rightly understood.

So your book is called the conservative sensibility and why don't you talk to you some length about your book on C span. We will put a link up to that in the show notes. But why don't you for the sake of listeners who bizarrely didn't tune into that on a weekend night.

What sort of make your basic case. I'm sure you haven't done that yet on the book tour. Well, I have noticed and I think lots of Americans have noticed that things aren't going well. The prestige of government has fallen as the pretenses of government have risen.

I thought it was time for among other things and exercise intellectual archaeology to excavate the foundations of the Republic. And I thought of this as a Princeton PhD in terms of an argument between two Princetonians James Madison of the great class of 1771 and Tommy, as he was known at Princeton, Thomas Woodrow Wilson of the class of 1879.

Wilson being the first president to criticize the American founding, which meant criticizing the constitutional architecture that Madison erected in response to the founders belief in the natural rights, which preceded government.

Wilson rejected this with remarkable forthrightness and it turns out with remarkable success as he and subsequent progressives have made hash of the separation of powers with the predictable consequence of an emancipated president.

So in the long-term listeners as a podcast, no, I consider myself one of the nation's foremost despisers of Woodrow, Wilson. So this is an easy get in line.

And as I said on the CSM thing at conversation, in some ways, my only criticism of your criticism, Wilson, is that it doesn't quite go far enough.

You don't get deep into the political prisoners or attacking the hyphenated Americans or the war on the German language, but it's a good start.

But part of your argument, which I share entirely, is that what Wilson did was he represented the intellectuals' eye-guys of the time, which was besotted with Bismarck in Darwin.

And so part of his critique of the original of the Foundering was that it was too Newtonian and it needed to become Darwinian on adapt to the times.

Now part of your argument, which again I agree with, is that we've never quite gotten over this notion, that's what the living constitution basically comes from, how are we ever going to get rid of it?

Change, change public opinion. At the end of the day, even Supreme Court justices are nominated by elected people and confirmed by elected people.

And so if you understand that public opinion is shiftable sand, you get busy trying to shift it.

So I agree with that entirely. Persuasion is not the ideal tool, but if the only one we've got.

Exactly. But part of your argument, which is a little radical to some years, who is in chapter four, is persuading judges to use their powers to not give a damn about public opinion inside on liberalism or on liberty.

Why don't you sort of explain that for a second?

There comes a point at which judicial deference to democratic legislatures is dereliction of duty, the duty to superintendents, the excesses of democracy.

...