This podcast now routinely gets more listeners in the first day of a new episode than it used to get in the first month. Thanks to everyone for making a habit of checking in. And I know this is repetitive, but: telling your friends, in real three-dimensional talking conversations, that you like what you find here is the best way to grow the audience for everything I do.
Bit of a Catch-22: If you think Al-Gharbi's full of it, you're probably the ideal target market for his book. Unfortunately, most people don't read a book because it'll be good for them.
It was a good listen. I had been meaning to pick this book up anyways because it was a book recommendation on Ezra Kleins podcast.
And yes, it was not a comfortable listen. It's always easier to recommend self improvement for others than to wonder about how my lifestyle and actions might be contributing to problems that I want to see fixed.
One question I did have, but haven't read the book, is about the premise that many or most of the symbolic capitalist are Democrats or progressives. Maybe that's the case in university or journalism (although even that I am not sure about) but I don't think that this is the case in policy think tanks or lobbyists or other groups. Maybe it is just my feeds. But I see so much of that part of the keyboard elite as right wing or conservative. Not extreme on either side.
The only difference I think that makes is to me this is more about class than ideology or politics. But maybe that's the argument he is trying to make.
What I totally agree on is that I, as someone who views myself as a progressive should never lose sight of those in situations that don't mirror mine, and if I want to be part of the solution and not just part of the problem, I need to listen to people and not presume I know what is best for them and what they want.
Noted contrarian on matters of race, former roomy to JD Vance, and newly minted federal Conservative candidate Jamil Jivani was hosting his Bell Media radio show in Toronto by way of a Q & A with his audience a couple of years ago. The topic was race, and because Mr Jivani’s opinions on the topic were quite close to those of John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Larry Elder and of course, Thomas Sowell he was taking a lot of heat from the vast pool of progressive thinkers available to anyone in Canada with a platform.
One man in particular was drilling down on Jivani’s beliefs when the host interrupted him to ask how he, the caller, being a white man, could tell Jivani, a black man, how racist society Canada is when he’s never experienced it as black people do. The caller responded that he and his cohort had license to do so because of how much better educated he/they are.
“You see? You see?” exclaimed Jivani, “This is the way progressive liberals think! They’re educated and I’m just a dumb black guy.”
Jamil Jivani has a law degree from Yale University.
A couple of days before Lisa LaFlame was let go from CTV, Jamil Jivani was fired from his Bell Media perch. To me, the story of an ambitious contrarian losing his job was far, far more interesting than the corporate dismissal of another millionaire news anchor. The legacy media disagreed. Even a recently established Substack that I had financially subscribed to and which you Mr Wells have admitted to spending a fair amount of time reading, went full bore on La Flame, with both a long winded recording (they were pre-podcast technically) and an even longer written instalment that promiscuously tossed around words like misogyny and white people.
In response I asked a simple question in their comments section: you’re an upstart media effort, so why did you cover Lisa and ignore Jivani?
The response was extremely defensive, as if I had accused the pair of racism. Which is ironic given Jivani’s opinions on these matters. But their bottom line was that the La Flame “no new contract” story was more newsworthy. I’m still not convinced that is so.
Anyway, all this to underline al-Gharbi’s theses about what is driving people to Trump. Add to that the complementary idea of “luxury beliefs,” promulgated by Paul Henderson (also while at Yale!!) and the picture gets even broader.
Let me add one more thing. Eight years ago the people I read and listened to who were critical of trans rights ideology and advocacy were by and large left wing feminists and left leaning evolutionary biologists. Every major media organization in the Anglosphere ignored them and/or called them bigots. The CBC still does. But what they said was true: sex based rights for women, guardrails for children, and guardrails against a broad spectrum of paraphilias (largely practiced by men) would be loosened and could perhaps be destroyed. To see how thi has affected the lesbian communities will make you weep.
The legacy media helped turn a warning from smart people into a “right wing talking point”. And Trump used an ad critical of trans ideology to swing Pennsylvania.
You think you feel uncomfortable now? It gets worse.
I too am a small l liberal, also called a classical liberal. Most these days have left the Democrat Party. Many, including myself, have joined the Republican Party. Today it stands for free speech, merit in assessments, climate sanity, protecting the country and its citizens.
It is the Democrat Party that engaged in illegal censorship, politicizing the justice system, imposed race, sex, and sexuality preferences throughout the land, and turning the educational system into a radical propaganda machine. That is more authoritarian than anything Trump did in his first term or is planning to do in his second term.
Paul, Paul,Paul… listening to this guy made me grit my teeth and so did skimming through the comments.
Anyone voting for trump because they don’t like “woke” is proof that they fell for the clown show. And per your guest’s data, American made the same stupid mistake with trump that they made with nixon. Same mistake, still stupid. Stop looking for milk from a bull. Eventually someone else will have to come in, give you some milk, and clean up the mess.
Very interesting interview. Musa Al-Gharbi made an excellent point regarding U.S's Democrat party's influence, in that ordinary people have lost confidence that the Democrats will deliver for them, as the Democrats have become weirder and funkier the last ten years. Hence, they decide to give the carnival barker another try, as he certainly does not double speak.
The additional linked video was also interesting with Binya Appelbaum mentioning how people are not living their values. Again, so true for the Democrats and now especially with President Biden pardoning his son, Hunter.
People deserve to have their representatives walk the talk!
Had this thought the other day, probably not original, that with the decline of traditional religions, more people now look to politics for their meaning. This can positive — meaningful lives are generally better than lives that people find are without meaning — but I think there are real downsides too.
One thing churches evolve as a signal for group belonging are a set of beliefs that are further and further removed from reality. To ascribe to these beliefs is to signal you belong. Transpose this on to political parties and you see the problem.
Political parties, in addition to being this church-like social and meaning-making institution, are also a vehicle for persuasion and policies to be implemented in real life. The underlying beliefs can diverge only so far from reality before the real costs (political, economic, social, etc) of the divergence make themselves known.
Another downside is that people ensconced in and dependent on their own meaning-making political tribes take disagreement too personally and can’t even imagine how someone else could have a different view on things. Not a great recipe for finding common ground from which we can cooperate to solve real problems and make life better across the board.
A few remedies that follow if this is at all right…
Chill out about our political beliefs and find other sources of meaning in life so that politics has room to breathe and find pragmatic paths forward on real problems and opportunities.
Create new opportunities and institutions for mixing people from all walks of life (though I have little idea what that looks like in practice).
Resist the siren call of overly simplistic and antagonistic rhetoric and solutions in favour of voices that acknowledge nuance, trade-offs and real differences of opinion.
Elevate political unifiers. Building trust in society at large seems like a totally underrated imperative these days as we see country after country fraying at the seams.
“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” — Jack Layton
Thanks for the interview, Paul. I plan to read the book. I hope that his suggestions for improving economic inequality aren't lost in all of the dunking of woke and gleeful accusations of liberal hypocrisy.
It evolved from the neo-progressive movement that was cultured in the halls of Canadian and American educational institutions by European influenced Marxists.
Liberal progressivism that had been founded in American universities during the late 19th century was reconfigured to accommodate Marxist philosophy during the mid 20th century.
By the beginning of the 21st century, Marxist influenced neo-progressives had graduated from these universities and had proceeded to gain significant control over governments and other public institutions.
It was a political movement which was very attractive to the faux social conscience of the elite herd where it subscribing to it was essential to belonging.
To disagree, to question or contradict its tenants was cause to be excluded as a moral and intellectual inferior.
Liberal debate and pragmatism was overwhelmed by subscription to closure and cancellation.
A conceit was cultivated that posited that this morally and intellectually superior elite knew better than its inferiors how society should develop.
This agenda drew heavily on academic theory and formulaic social revision - which would influence the lives of the masses but not so much the elites.
It was an agenda for social revolution designed to victimize the victimizers - the stock in trade stuff of Marxism.
The woke fad that arose out of neo-progressivism, however, was blind to the fact that there was a dearth of common sense applied to its objectives.
The elites failed to understand that while the great unwashed may not have been the accomplished moralists or intellectuals they perceived themselves to be, they were not fond of of being dismissed as a second class nor being punished for the colour of their skin because of historical issues over which they had no control.
The woke fad is fast coming apart (with what to will be replaced with is anyone’s guess) and the neo-progressive agenda is coming apart with it.
Hopefully liberal progressivism will be rejuvenated once it is purged of Marxism and social evolution will continue as opposed to social revolution.
WOW this was such an excellent and thought provoking interview.
This helps me to understand the current changes happening over the past few years however I could not piece things together. I will be purchasing Musa Al-Gharbi's book to understand his research more fully. I had not heard of the author and his book before so thank you Paul for bringing this to my attention.
Wow 👌, a read for liberals and conservatives alike. This is on the intellectual spectrum that most commoners like me would say, 'ok I think I get it',. But might be swayed by simpler messaging. Now what does a liberal like me do ?
Well, I really enjoyed this skewering of many of my generation (the phrase silver spoon socialists comes to mind but that may be a bit harsh). I'll read his book too.
I am not sure what impact it would have on your membership base, Paul, but providing well researched critical perspectives is something I would like to see more of.
This podcast now routinely gets more listeners in the first day of a new episode than it used to get in the first month. Thanks to everyone for making a habit of checking in. And I know this is repetitive, but: telling your friends, in real three-dimensional talking conversations, that you like what you find here is the best way to grow the audience for everything I do.
Bit of a Catch-22: If you think Al-Gharbi's full of it, you're probably the ideal target market for his book. Unfortunately, most people don't read a book because it'll be good for them.
It was a good listen. I had been meaning to pick this book up anyways because it was a book recommendation on Ezra Kleins podcast.
And yes, it was not a comfortable listen. It's always easier to recommend self improvement for others than to wonder about how my lifestyle and actions might be contributing to problems that I want to see fixed.
One question I did have, but haven't read the book, is about the premise that many or most of the symbolic capitalist are Democrats or progressives. Maybe that's the case in university or journalism (although even that I am not sure about) but I don't think that this is the case in policy think tanks or lobbyists or other groups. Maybe it is just my feeds. But I see so much of that part of the keyboard elite as right wing or conservative. Not extreme on either side.
The only difference I think that makes is to me this is more about class than ideology or politics. But maybe that's the argument he is trying to make.
What I totally agree on is that I, as someone who views myself as a progressive should never lose sight of those in situations that don't mirror mine, and if I want to be part of the solution and not just part of the problem, I need to listen to people and not presume I know what is best for them and what they want.
He does address this in the book; he says non-progressive or sometimes actively anti-woke symbolic capitalists exist, though they’re outnumbered
Noted contrarian on matters of race, former roomy to JD Vance, and newly minted federal Conservative candidate Jamil Jivani was hosting his Bell Media radio show in Toronto by way of a Q & A with his audience a couple of years ago. The topic was race, and because Mr Jivani’s opinions on the topic were quite close to those of John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Larry Elder and of course, Thomas Sowell he was taking a lot of heat from the vast pool of progressive thinkers available to anyone in Canada with a platform.
One man in particular was drilling down on Jivani’s beliefs when the host interrupted him to ask how he, the caller, being a white man, could tell Jivani, a black man, how racist society Canada is when he’s never experienced it as black people do. The caller responded that he and his cohort had license to do so because of how much better educated he/they are.
“You see? You see?” exclaimed Jivani, “This is the way progressive liberals think! They’re educated and I’m just a dumb black guy.”
Jamil Jivani has a law degree from Yale University.
A couple of days before Lisa LaFlame was let go from CTV, Jamil Jivani was fired from his Bell Media perch. To me, the story of an ambitious contrarian losing his job was far, far more interesting than the corporate dismissal of another millionaire news anchor. The legacy media disagreed. Even a recently established Substack that I had financially subscribed to and which you Mr Wells have admitted to spending a fair amount of time reading, went full bore on La Flame, with both a long winded recording (they were pre-podcast technically) and an even longer written instalment that promiscuously tossed around words like misogyny and white people.
In response I asked a simple question in their comments section: you’re an upstart media effort, so why did you cover Lisa and ignore Jivani?
The response was extremely defensive, as if I had accused the pair of racism. Which is ironic given Jivani’s opinions on these matters. But their bottom line was that the La Flame “no new contract” story was more newsworthy. I’m still not convinced that is so.
Anyway, all this to underline al-Gharbi’s theses about what is driving people to Trump. Add to that the complementary idea of “luxury beliefs,” promulgated by Paul Henderson (also while at Yale!!) and the picture gets even broader.
Let me add one more thing. Eight years ago the people I read and listened to who were critical of trans rights ideology and advocacy were by and large left wing feminists and left leaning evolutionary biologists. Every major media organization in the Anglosphere ignored them and/or called them bigots. The CBC still does. But what they said was true: sex based rights for women, guardrails for children, and guardrails against a broad spectrum of paraphilias (largely practiced by men) would be loosened and could perhaps be destroyed. To see how thi has affected the lesbian communities will make you weep.
The legacy media helped turn a warning from smart people into a “right wing talking point”. And Trump used an ad critical of trans ideology to swing Pennsylvania.
You think you feel uncomfortable now? It gets worse.
Rob Henderson is the Yale graduate who coined the phrase "luxury beliefs."
Paul Henderson scored the most important goal in hockey history.
Goodness. How did I do that? Thanks.
I like how you stated “the most important goal in hockey history”. Brilliant!
I call myself a liberal (small l), but not woke. There are a lot like me, and we have no political home.
I too am a small l liberal, also called a classical liberal. Most these days have left the Democrat Party. Many, including myself, have joined the Republican Party. Today it stands for free speech, merit in assessments, climate sanity, protecting the country and its citizens.
Nah, I understood very clearly where P25 was heading right from the get-go. No thanks, too authoritarian for me.
It is the Democrat Party that engaged in illegal censorship, politicizing the justice system, imposed race, sex, and sexuality preferences throughout the land, and turning the educational system into a radical propaganda machine. That is more authoritarian than anything Trump did in his first term or is planning to do in his second term.
I know exactly what MAGA thinks so don't lecture me.
I hope you find a comfortable place in our contested public arena.
Well written comment.
Paul, keep the great content coming. I really enjoyed this pod!
Musa Ai-Gharbi in one line: Liberals are hypocrites and eventualy people figure it out.
Paul, Paul,Paul… listening to this guy made me grit my teeth and so did skimming through the comments.
Anyone voting for trump because they don’t like “woke” is proof that they fell for the clown show. And per your guest’s data, American made the same stupid mistake with trump that they made with nixon. Same mistake, still stupid. Stop looking for milk from a bull. Eventually someone else will have to come in, give you some milk, and clean up the mess.
Very interesting interview. Musa Al-Gharbi made an excellent point regarding U.S's Democrat party's influence, in that ordinary people have lost confidence that the Democrats will deliver for them, as the Democrats have become weirder and funkier the last ten years. Hence, they decide to give the carnival barker another try, as he certainly does not double speak.
The additional linked video was also interesting with Binya Appelbaum mentioning how people are not living their values. Again, so true for the Democrats and now especially with President Biden pardoning his son, Hunter.
People deserve to have their representatives walk the talk!
Had this thought the other day, probably not original, that with the decline of traditional religions, more people now look to politics for their meaning. This can positive — meaningful lives are generally better than lives that people find are without meaning — but I think there are real downsides too.
One thing churches evolve as a signal for group belonging are a set of beliefs that are further and further removed from reality. To ascribe to these beliefs is to signal you belong. Transpose this on to political parties and you see the problem.
Political parties, in addition to being this church-like social and meaning-making institution, are also a vehicle for persuasion and policies to be implemented in real life. The underlying beliefs can diverge only so far from reality before the real costs (political, economic, social, etc) of the divergence make themselves known.
Another downside is that people ensconced in and dependent on their own meaning-making political tribes take disagreement too personally and can’t even imagine how someone else could have a different view on things. Not a great recipe for finding common ground from which we can cooperate to solve real problems and make life better across the board.
A few remedies that follow if this is at all right…
Chill out about our political beliefs and find other sources of meaning in life so that politics has room to breathe and find pragmatic paths forward on real problems and opportunities.
Create new opportunities and institutions for mixing people from all walks of life (though I have little idea what that looks like in practice).
Resist the siren call of overly simplistic and antagonistic rhetoric and solutions in favour of voices that acknowledge nuance, trade-offs and real differences of opinion.
Elevate political unifiers. Building trust in society at large seems like a totally underrated imperative these days as we see country after country fraying at the seams.
“My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” — Jack Layton
Thanks for the interview, Paul. I plan to read the book. I hope that his suggestions for improving economic inequality aren't lost in all of the dunking of woke and gleeful accusations of liberal hypocrisy.
That’s up to political actors, politicians and citizens alike, to reorient around issues of material well-being and chill out on cultural issues.
Being ‘woke’ was a fad.
It evolved from the neo-progressive movement that was cultured in the halls of Canadian and American educational institutions by European influenced Marxists.
Liberal progressivism that had been founded in American universities during the late 19th century was reconfigured to accommodate Marxist philosophy during the mid 20th century.
By the beginning of the 21st century, Marxist influenced neo-progressives had graduated from these universities and had proceeded to gain significant control over governments and other public institutions.
It was a political movement which was very attractive to the faux social conscience of the elite herd where it subscribing to it was essential to belonging.
To disagree, to question or contradict its tenants was cause to be excluded as a moral and intellectual inferior.
Liberal debate and pragmatism was overwhelmed by subscription to closure and cancellation.
A conceit was cultivated that posited that this morally and intellectually superior elite knew better than its inferiors how society should develop.
This agenda drew heavily on academic theory and formulaic social revision - which would influence the lives of the masses but not so much the elites.
It was an agenda for social revolution designed to victimize the victimizers - the stock in trade stuff of Marxism.
The woke fad that arose out of neo-progressivism, however, was blind to the fact that there was a dearth of common sense applied to its objectives.
The elites failed to understand that while the great unwashed may not have been the accomplished moralists or intellectuals they perceived themselves to be, they were not fond of of being dismissed as a second class nor being punished for the colour of their skin because of historical issues over which they had no control.
The woke fad is fast coming apart (with what to will be replaced with is anyone’s guess) and the neo-progressive agenda is coming apart with it.
Hopefully liberal progressivism will be rejuvenated once it is purged of Marxism and social evolution will continue as opposed to social revolution.
WOW this was such an excellent and thought provoking interview.
This helps me to understand the current changes happening over the past few years however I could not piece things together. I will be purchasing Musa Al-Gharbi's book to understand his research more fully. I had not heard of the author and his book before so thank you Paul for bringing this to my attention.
Wow 👌, a read for liberals and conservatives alike. This is on the intellectual spectrum that most commoners like me would say, 'ok I think I get it',. But might be swayed by simpler messaging. Now what does a liberal like me do ?
"Now what does a liberal like me do ?"
What many have already done: leave the Democrat Party.
Great episode. Made me think a lot about the movie Get Out and the pretensions of rich white liberals.
living wages
Well, I really enjoyed this skewering of many of my generation (the phrase silver spoon socialists comes to mind but that may be a bit harsh). I'll read his book too.
I am not sure what impact it would have on your membership base, Paul, but providing well researched critical perspectives is something I would like to see more of.
We live and learn, right?
Johnny Harris, in the linked NY Times video, is one of the most underrated journalists in the world.
His YouTube channel is must subscribe.