Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Professors Victor Davis Hanson and Paul Rahe join us for a spirited discussion on the politics of religion and conservatism, Greece, and what it's like to be a close, personal, friend of El Rushbo. Also, Peter's up close and personal encounter with Newt, Rob's new TV show, and James watches a silent movie but complains about the sound. Listen up!
Music from this week's episode:
- This Is Why We Fight by The Decemberists
- My City Was Gone by The Pretenders
Here's the direct link to this week's episode (but use our new audio player below!), however the best way to hear the podcast is to subscribe! Visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options. Or better yet, use Stitcher.
Thanks, EJ.
The Ricochet Podcast is proudly sponsored by Encounter Books. This week's featured title is Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy by Ibn Warraq. Available at EncounterBooks.com and Amazon.com.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Is this a pilot for a regular 3000-year-stare podcast proposed by some prescient scribbler a while back?
Mar '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Was that a VDH F-Bomb! I love the passion and as usual VDH is spot on!
Jan '12
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Grr, don't blame Hegel for the pseudoreligions of the Progressives. While it's true that Dewey and those fellows got their inspirations from the left-wingers among Hegel's disciples--interpretations that came after Hegel died--Hegel considered himself a Lutheran. Where he departed from orthodoxy was in two areas, and instead of being "progressive," they actually harkened back to a kind of neo-Platonism.
1. Hegel in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion wrote that the object of both religion and philosophy is the same, the (eternally) True. Religion, which is for the many, differs from philosophy, which is for the few, in that it makes assertions couched in images and representations; this it does because "its truth is for feeling." Philosophy thinks through the concept, so its language is starkly intellectual; it regards the image-filled μύθοι of tradition as metaphors that convey truths in picture-language.
2. The individual is not immortal, but the species is.
In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel defined the State as the system of objective law. This is NOT Plato's communistic republic but the system of ordered liberty that, in America, operates under our C0nstitution.
Otherwise, great podcast.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 12:45amNov '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Thanks for delivering a long overdue dose of the wisdom of Drs. Rahe and Hanson, unplugged. Pure delight.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
This just in from Secretary Sebilius! As a direct result of James' rant, this intolerance and hateful screed will be met with the following executive order:
Jan '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Rush did point out that this was a high brow site. VDH supports that characterization.
Mar '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Is anyone else.... disappointed at the defeatism of the people on this podcast? Is anyone else disappointed at the apparent surrender to the idea that the only way to win elections is to pander to people and bury any social concerns? Anyone else dismayed at the apparent acceptance that a candidate with strong social convictions can't win because he'd "scare" voters?
If that's really the case... why even bother? Why even do this, do Ricochet? If we're not willing to lead and fight and argue and convince and try to actually make things better... not just stand still for awhile and then let the inevitable happen... then why not just give up, stop wasting our time, and surrender to the left?
Jan '12
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
@Douglas #7:
I understand your disappointment, but allow me to outline the dilemma as I see it. We constitutional conservatives have very strong convictions. We know at the highest level of conceptuality what is proper for the just governance of our country. On the second level, however, we fall (broadly) into three related and overlapping but distinct and at times conflicting categories, depending on how emphatically each of us asserts his position:
1. Economic libertarianism: here the emphasis is on free enterprise. People who focus primarily on this thrust often generalize the notion of liberty abstractly, so that it overcomes the notion of (a) national citizenship and/or (b) the conviction that our true liberty consists in upholding ethical mores that are founded in the very essence of the human species.
2. Nationalists who see America as a fortress whose military defense is its first concern. This notion of defense is very expansive and may include foreign adventurism.
3. Traditional moralists who first of all believe that ours should be a government of virtue (as understood in a Puritan, 17th-century sense).
Prudential considerations of what is politically possible also intrude but only to exacerbate the conflicts.
Edited on February 17, 2012 at 7:46amMay '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Oh my God, that rant by Dr. Hanson that culminated in the cuss was maybe the funniest podcast moment ever. How was there no laughter? Were Rob, Peter, and James just silently doubled over on the floor?
Btw, as a friend of Ricochet, Santorum needs to hear those critiques by VDH and Rob and James. He's a sweet man -- with a very sweet smile, too -- but he needs to know how desperately he must undo his rep as a scold. Relax and smile, Rick!
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
How much did VDH get fined for violating the Ricochet COC? ;)
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
There was a time when these podcasts got their title from the catchiest line found in them. So this one really should have been called "A Dose of the Drip".
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
At some point Republicans/conservatives have to understand that we have to win over the voter population we HAVE, not the one we wish for.
As a US History teacher, this feels like the election of 1828...the population has changed because most states no longer require property ownership for the elective franchise...JQ Adams may be a better president, but "the people" want Andrew Jackson's populism and his hatred of the wealthy educated elites, like Adams, plays well with those voters.
Santorum = Goldwater....Romney = Nixon. Is it better to win with a squishy compromise or lose with our principles intact? I don't think the USA can afford 1964 this time...there will be no recognizable country for "Reagan" to save.
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Douglas: Is anyone else.... disappointed at the defeatism of the people on this podcast? Is anyone else disappointed at the apparent surrender to the idea that the only way to win elections is to pander to people and bury any social concerns? Anyone else dismayed at the apparent acceptance that a candidate with strong social convictions can't win because he'd "scare" voters?
If that's really the case... why even bother? Why even do this, do Ricochet? If we're not willing to lead and fight and argue and convince and try to actually make things better... not just stand still for awhile and then let the inevitable happen... then why not just give up, stop wasting our time, and surrender to the left? · 10 hours ago
I declare myself not guilty as charged. If our nominee argues the case skillfully, he can win.
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Scott Reusser: Oh my God, that rant by Dr. Hanson that culminated in the cuss was maybe the funniest podcast moment ever. How was there no laughter? Were Rob, Peter, and James just silently doubled over on the floor?
Btw, as a friend of Ricochet, Santorum needs to hear those critiques by VDH and Rob and James. He's a sweet man -- with a very sweet smile, too -- but he needs to know how desperately he must undo his rep as a scold. Relax and smile, Rick! · 2 hours ago
Nicely put.
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Keith Preston: At some point Republicans/conservatives have to understand that we have to win over the voter population we HAVE, not the one we wish for.
As a US History teacher, this feels like the election of 1828...the population has changed because most states no longer require property ownership for the elective franchise...JQ Adams may be a better president, but "the people" want Andrew Jackson's populism and his hatred of the wealthy educated elites, like Adams, plays well with those voters.
Santorum = Goldwater....Romney = Nixon. Is it better to win with a squishy compromise or lose with our principles intact? I don't think the USA can afford 1964 this time...there will be no recognizable country for "Reagan" to save. · 1 hour ago
You presume that a guy who is uncomfortable being anything other than a robot can win. If Romney shows fire, as he did in Florida, he has a real shot. If he relapses into his customary timidity, repeating poll-tested boilerplate, he is doomed. I am not sanguine. It is very hard for an old dog to learn new tricks.
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Paul A. Rahe
I declare myself not guilty as charged. If our nominee argues the case skillfully, he can win. · 15 minutes ago
Before a nominee can make the argument, he has to believe in the principles he espouses. Romney hasn't convinced the base because he doesn't believe in conservative principles. His claim to be "severely" conservative rings hollow. Santorum, on the other hand, lives by his conservative principles. There isn't any doubt. It remains to be seen if Rick can argue skillfully. I think with the proper coaching he probably can.
Mar '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Paul A. Rahe
I declare myself not guilty as charged.
It was mainly VDH and Rob that I'm complaining about here. Rob seems to think that if it's Santorum, it's over, and VDH doesn't really seem to like anyone. And even though VDH had some very valid points... ones Santorum should listen to... their general tone and spirit was "Go Nixon, or lose". Rob especially seems to think that unless another Reagan comes along, the country simply will not vote for real conservative candidates.
Rob rails against this notion all the time, but I'd truly rather present the nation with a real right wing candidate and lose than win with a no-principle man that will say one thing to the base and then turn around and give us the EPA and school lunch programs. I would rather happily go into battle with someone saying what we believe... and meaning it... than someone who will say anything to get elected, and then proceed to govern as a Democrat. Rob seems to think this is the lesser of two evils. I say that in this situation, there really is no lesser of evils, just evil.
Aug '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Much congrats to Rob on selling a show.
Also, VDH comparing Santorum to a whiny grade-grubber was hilarious.
Jun '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Douglas: Is anyone else.... disappointed at the defeatism of the people on this podcast? Is anyone else disappointed at the apparent surrender to the idea that the only way to win elections is to pander to people and bury any social concerns? Anyone else dismayed at the apparent acceptance that a candidate with strong social convictions can't win because he'd "scare" voters?
If that's really the case... why even bother? Why even do this, do Ricochet? If we're not willing to lead and fight and argue and convince and try to actually make things better... not just stand still for awhile and then let the inevitable happen... then why not just give up, stop wasting our time, and surrender to the left? · 13 hours ago
Everyone on this podcast lives in a state that hasn't been carried by a Republican in a Presidential election since 1988. Living in CA (especially) makes it hard to believe that R's can win-- even against a failure like Obama. Meanwhile, in reliably Republican states, it's hard to believe that pundit-class Republican's think nominating a moderate (again!) will lead to success.
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #106: The Professors
Noesis Noeseos:
Philosophy thinks through the concept, so its language is starkly intellectual; it regards the image-filled μύθοι of tradition as metaphors that convey truths in picture-language.
Why don't y'all talk Yewnited States, fer Pete's sake, 'stead a starkly intellectual philosophy fol-der-ol?
More to the point, Google Translate recognizes μύθος == myth, but just transliterates μύθοι. What is μύθοι?
I usually see Hegel cited as the source of the idea of historical progress, not only that history has an essence, but that history changes the nature of things, both the situation and human. That is the philosophical ground for Wilson's progressive claim that the cautions the Founders wrote into the Constitution are no longer needed.