Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Marx, Neoliberalism, and the 1619 Project, with Phil Magness

Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy HourSubscribe

Phil Magness of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is one of the most productive—and provocative—working scholars today (with emphasis on working, as his output is prodigious).

This classic format episode features Steve Hayward and Phil in a one-on-one conversation about three of Phil's major areas of current research, starting with his co-authored article that breaks new ground in the history of Marxism, "The Mainstreaming of Marx: Measuring the Effect of the Russian Revolution on Karl Marx’s Influence," published recently in the Journal of Political Economy, one of the premier journals in economics. The article is causing heads to explode on the left, which means he must have hit a nerve.

From there we talk about the history of the intellectual left's favorite epithet today, "neoliberalism," but also about how the term has been embraced with almost the same pejorative meaning by some leading thinkers on the right. Is this a good idea?

Finally, as Phil has been one of the pre-eminent critics of the 1619 Project from the moment it first appeared four years ago, we catch up on the latest iterations of that popular leftist propaganda effort.

Everyone should follow Phil on Twitter, @PhilWMagness, and you'll see how he lives rent-free every day inside the heads of leftists.

Hosts:
John Yoo'Lucretia'Steve Hayward
Guest:
PMPhillip Magness

Discussion (6)

  • Noell Colin the gadfly@Apeirokalia

    Good podcast!

    Consider this perspective: If we, as some brand of Lincolnian constitutional conservatives, accept that the Constitution remained valid after the Civil War, one might question why we cannot embrace Nikole Hannah-Jones's 1619 interpretation of history. One must examine the events during Reconstruction, questioning their constitutionality. Were Grant's Supreme Court rulings on legal tender in accordance with the Constitution? Furthermore, one may ponder the very constitutionality of the Civil War itself.

    Perhaps it would be reasonable to afford Jones's brand of Critical Race Theory some historical grounding, similar to the grounding our interpretations find through Lincoln. Ultimately, both approaches appear somewhat dubious, at best. Why should we impose our beliefs on her? There are ample falsehoods for each of us to contend with.

    I do not wish to overstate this, but it is possible that @JohnYoo ('s) reservations regarding the incorporation of natural law into modern constitutional law stem from a similar line of thinking. While he may personally hold natural law in high regard, it is arguable that it no longer finds a place in contemporary constitutional law, particularly since the time of Lincoln.

Scroll for later comments
+1 more comment
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of six comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.