US - Iran Standoff | The NatCon Squad | Episode 267

本站添加: 2026-05-28

[00:00:05]I'm Ben Weingard.

[00:00:06]>> I'm Steman.

[00:00:08]>> I'm Will Chamberlain.

[00:00:10]>> I'm Nathan Mowski.

[00:00:11]>> And this is Naccon Squad, where common good and common sense meet. Nacon Squad is produced by the Edmond Burke Foundation, the home for national conservatism. Subscribe now on Apple Podcast, Stitcher, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast. Well, as always, we've got a diverse array of topics this week. Will is going to kick us off by talking about uh the latest developments in the US Iran negotiations or perhaps lack thereof. I'll speak about an outrageous Supreme Court uh non-deision in connection with illegal alien commercial driver's licenses. And NZ is going to talk about Democrats as autopsy or non-opsy as I might call it from 2024. and then Nathan will talk about the uh Pope's AI encyclical. But with that, let's turn over to Will to kick us off.

[00:01:03]>> All right. So, uh this week has been a very interesting week in terms of what's going on in Iran. We had over the Memorial Day weekend, President Trump skipped going to his uh son's wedding uh in order to stick around and have what I believe was a very very widely attended call with a slew of Arab countries and then a call with Netanyahu. the substance of which was he said that the agreement was largely negotiated but there are a few points that haven't been negotiated. He also on truth social pressed for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab countries to immediately join the Abraham Accords of as part of this supposedly negotiated deal. And there's been a whole slew of rumors about what's in the deal. I saw rumors put out by the Iranians that it would basically be a full concession to most of their demands. the Iranians giving up nothing.

[00:01:51]And then uh I saw a bunch of conservatives reporting um from a background source from the White House saying that on the contrary, it's the Iranians who are going to be mostly meeting the American demands and not vice versa. So it's hard to really know actually if there's any agreement at all. I sort of I I came at this from the perspective of thinking, you know, this sounds a lot like about a month ago when we had a circumstance where like Trump had announced a deal and Aragchi, the foreign minister of Iran, had said that we were, you know, the straits were going to be opened and then nothing of the sort actually happened and and the RGC held on to things. I sort of think we're in this weird situation where the Iranians who come to negotiate over represent their authority. the Pakistan's ha Pakistanis have a habit of misrepresenting both sides positions to the other to make them seem like they're closer than they are and then Trump has a habit of being overly optimistic about these things. So my sort of default assumption is that there's not actually going to be a deal coming here. Uh but the I think the most interesting dynamic that really became clear in the last week is that Saudi Arabia is actually kind of the lynch pin and we've had all this talk about foreign influence with regard to the war in Iran and the negotiations. But if you're looking for like what is the single country who one hasn't really done much of anything militarily. I think they send in a few retaliatory strikes but not much. But yet two seems to be getting their way almost exclusively when it comes to what happens in the Iran war. And the answer to that country is not Israel. That the answer is Saudi Arabia. There's a lot of reporting before the war about how NBS was pressing Trump to go ahead with the strikes that he thought he'd look weak if he didn't do that. But now that a decent amount of Saudi oil infrastructure has been hit. It's Saudi Arabia that's coming back and saying, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't strike. Let's do diplomacy. We want to see a diplomatic resolution to open up the straight." And in both cases, Saudi Arabia has gotten what it wanted. And it seems, I think, that the Americans are a little tired of the Saudis making all these demands without meaningful skin in the game. And so, I think what Trump is doing, which is very interesting, he's he's saying, "Okay, we'll go along with what you want here, like I think we would prefer to strike, but we'll go along with your preference for diplomacy if you sign on to the Abraham Accords and normalize with Israel." So that's a you know that's a a very interesting way of kind of expanding the pie and I think Amit Seagel uh an Israeli journalist had an interesting point that it actually might be necessary to do that because if they don't do that then the problem they face is then there's what reason would Israel have to to stick with a deal that wasn't satisfactory to Israel's interests and the only way to actually do that would be to say well you've gotten a Saudi alliance out of it so maybe that's worth preserving. Uh but it's I think I think that's honestly the most interesting thing that's come out of it. This the the Saudi waffling uh as kind of part a big explanation of why things were so aggressive early on and then have seemingly tapered off kind of mystifyingly and and perhaps Trump is sort of blaming has blamed Pakistan for this and it's a way to insulate Saudi from blaming. It's it's hard to say. Uh but I'm I'm curious as to where things go. I I end up thinking ultimately there will be escalation by the United States because I just don't think the Iranians can meet the American minimum terms. Uh but who knows how much influence Saudi has and what they're willing to concede to in order to try and bring the Americans around to that.

[00:05:01]So my uh initial inclination whenever it comes to whether we're talking about negotiations with Hamas previously or negotiations with the Malocracy to the extent there is one or the IRGC or whoever uh we put as the default uh party on the other side here. My inclination is always basically it's not worth reacting one way or the other until you actually see the document that codifies whatever is being discussed and then whether it's agreed to or not. And then you have to ask the question, well, is it worth the paper it's printed on?

[00:05:38]How is it to be enforced? Who is the party that's actually ensuring that it's holding up its end of the bargain or not? And under what potential penalty and how do you exact that penalty, etc. So with all that said, I think probably the most important point that Will brought forth and obviously we could talk about, you know, raising the stakes with the Abraham Accords aspect of it and are the Abraham Accords beneficial with to the extent new parties join who are doing so essentially unwillingly and with their hearts not really in it. Uh you know what does it reflect about the US position in the region and does it ultimately sort of box out China from the region? And we could talk about all those different layers and aspects to this, but I go back to uh the couple main points purportedly uh regarding the negotiations which is about highlyenriched uranium and nuclear capability. Uh and of course there's lots of parsing about the words here about what uranium are we talking about and under what process would you potentially be removing it etc. Uh, and then the straight of Hormuz. Would the Iranian regime, and let's assume it's an IRGC controlled regime, and it's the IRGC calling the shots at this point, would they ever give up the straight of Hormuz choke point willingly, which seems to be the one US condition? And another is, would they ever give up their nuclear materials or capabilities willingly? And I just think it's enimyical to them to do so. Uh and that ultimately the negotiations to the extent there are negotiations for them are really about buying time uh potentially funding positioning assets accordingly and trying to do what they always do which is string us along b their time uh where necessary make nonstrategic putitive concessions at least on paper uh in a bid to create financial lifelines to ensure their exist down the road. And until I see a change in behavior, let alone rhetoric otherwise, it's it's Iran being Iran at the end of the day under uh the revolutionary ideology and regime that's been there for 47 plus years. So to me, I I I don't think it pays to be bullish. I don't think it pays to overly react in one direction or another until we know what final terms are and where things shake out. But the notion that we're going to get, you know, a two-month extension and maybe unfreezing of some funds potentially, I think looks like a pattern that we've seen historically.

[00:08:14]Now, again, they're doing so at the point of a gun. Everything that Iran is doing is at the point of a gun, which is a massive improvement over prior American administrations, but I think the question comes down to could they ever meet the terms that we're talking about? Why would they given their ideology and how they've acted in the past? And then from the US point of view, what is in our national interest at this point? What is achievable? And how do we best go about achieving it? Uh those are all questions that I think remain open questions at this point.

[00:08:45]>> Yeah, I mean I largely agree with Ben's assessment of this although and I would double down on his initial comment which is uh you know especially with this administration, especially with this president, um you know there there are a lot of things that will turn out not to be true. the contours of the agreement.

[00:09:02]If there is an agreement may look totally different than what's being leaked or reported in the media, I really don't think that there is that much point in getting ahead of the formal announcements on a lot of these things. Um, so with that massive caveat in mind, I mean I it I if Trump doesn't get the if all he achieves is like status quo anti in terms of the straight of hormuz and uh you know a version a tighter version of the Iran deal um I would call that a loss and it will be a devastating one for him in terms of the game that he's playing uh globally in terms of basically trying to rearrange a lot of America's alliances. They all said this was a bad idea if he proves them right with a really weak deal and essentially does not effectively win the war. Um I think that's going to put him in a very negative position uh in terms of his own prestige. Now again, big caveat, I don't know if that's what's happening yet. Uh but that's if if that really is the case, then to me the the things that will determine whether Trump won or lost this war will be the the the goals that he laid out in the beginning, right? um will be whether we have control uh in some way over uh Iran's nuclear ambitions that make it like actually um impossible for Iran to to go and get a nuke. Uh we know that he's achieved the second aim, right, which is degrade Iran's offensive capabilities. I think that one we can safely check off the list, right? And then degrade its its ability to support its proxies. I think that is also largely has happened militarily. uh maybe not as perfectly as some people would like but it has happened. I think he has an arguable case on that that he's checked that off.

[00:10:44]So really it's it's down to the nuclear issue which is the central issue. Um, and then this the status quoanti thing with the straight of hormuz, right? If if all you accomplish is getting what you what you had, which was a free flowing straight up hermuz before you invaded and before, sorry, not invaded, but before you started this war from the air, then I am hardressed not to call that a loss, right? Unless you get something really substantial on the nuclear side. So, um I I don't know what the contours are. And I guess we'll we'll revisit this when we if we see a deal coming out, but that's that's the fra the framing through which I would see it. If he doesn't get those goals that he laid out uh from the beginning, then it starts to look like like the war was kind of pointless. If it was just this big war was just to take out Iran's uh conventional capabilities, that seems like uh a sort of minor u victory that cost a lot diplomatically and cost Americans a lot at the at the gas pump.

[00:11:41]So I don't think that's really going to be the kind of mission accomplished banner that he wants to fly.

[00:11:46]>> I agree with that. I think two we just have to bear in mind two things. Um, one is that because we don't have a lot of information in the public domain, it's we should be very careful about commenting too much on the on the details and how things moving as as others have said here because we don't know uh we're just not privy to enough information to decide. The second thing though is to go to this question of what the national interest is here. We do have to bear in mind the very or at least relatively speaking the limited capacities or I think will um in the American military ecosystem to keep up protracted strikes if we if we can't put troops in harm's way because there's no public appetite for that that limits a lot of what kinds of actions we can do to gain more than what just laid out for us just the the status quo antia and the downgrading of conventional military capabilities.

[00:12:44]If that's the case and no other grand uh grand objective or more substantial objective is possible then it's better off to wind it down I would think and um and move on to other targets and I think but maybe slight disagreement with Anise here uh on this is that downgrading uh someone's conventional military capacity I think uh can be conceived of as some kind of victory even if it's not the initial terms that you have lined out.

[00:13:19]Um it would be a fairly limit fairly uh typical limited war uh which was fought in times past. I think the the danger that we've had and it goes to habits that we've developed for decades is to assume that regime change is is uh what a proper war looks like and if we fail to achieve that then we drop off. Um we it may not line with the initial objectives to to fall back on that but downgrading the capacity to uh to provide material assistance to proxies to uh to be a kind of agent of chaos in the region is some kind of of uh victory. If that's all that's possible, then the best thing to do is just to move on and concentrate on uh what we've been saying, the other kinds of realignments, the other uh the other serious um uh geopolitical adjustments that need to be made. Of course, all this is to say that one lacks information to uh to provide the proper assessment here and any commentary that we give, I think, just has to bear that in mind. We just don't know. So, it's easy to sit in in an armchair uh in a swivel chair and offer what one's assessment is and even a pessimistic one. But just because we don't have the full amount of information here, we should always bear that in mind, limit our our assessments with that.

[00:14:43]>> I'll I'll add one other uh point to that which is just uh twofold. one, we don't know if this regime to again to the extent it's the IRGC, let's assume that's running things there effectively, not the, you know, puditively democratically elected officials and the like in Iran. We don't know how long this regime as it currently stands will survive, would survive post a deal or not with a deal uh given the financial constraints that it's under, the sanctions, etc. Not to mention the fact that its partners are going to be very careful about their dealings with Iran subsequent to this most likely again unless there's some sort of uh immunization based upon an easing of sanctions and reintegration. It's a global economic order etc. Uh but then also let's assume that the regime does stand as currently constituted. We don't know what its behavior is going to look like subsequently. So if you have a regime that was decapitated to some extent, uh had its infrastructure, you know, military infrastructure, naval infrastructure to a large part destroyed, uh and must rebuild it, uh and then of course under threat of potential future attacks. We don't know what their behavior and conduct is going to look like down the road either. So, it's tough to assess, you know, whether it's a win or a loss and even what the uh terms are that you have to evaluate for determining whether it's a win or a loss. We won't know it, I think, for months, if not years to come. Uh, but it still remains a very fluid situation and I so I don't I think it's hard to render judgment one way or the other. Uh, while sharing um some of the pessimism and then uh some of the more bullish takes on where things are or may be. So, lots of caveing and hedging here, but ought to say it's a very fluid situation, and we're going to keep covering it probably in in pretty granular detail here in the weeks ahead. Uh, but with that, I'll transition myself on something totally different um but also uh somewhat maddening, I would say. uh and that is a recent decision or non-decision from the Supreme Court uh not to take a case brought by the state of Florida against the states of California and Washington with respect to challenging their sanctuary policies and in particular with respect to licensing of drivers. So the backstory to this case uh where seven judges said no uh and they didn't explain why they said no refusing to take this complaint whereas two judges justices Thomas and Aido uh said yes was that there was an Indian national by the name of Hargender Singh uh who had crossed over into the US illegally over to the southern border proceeded to obtain a commercial driver's license made an illegal U-turn on a Florida highway with an 80,000lb tractor trailer uh and leading to a crash with a minivan that killed three uh individuals in the minivan. Singh himself had passed commercial drivers had had failed commercial driver's license tests 10 times in the state of Washington and one time in the state of California before ultimately being granted uh the CDL. He subsequent to the crash was tested for English proficiency and authorities found that he was not proficient in English. So he likely couldn't read the signs that indicated that he should not make this illegal U-turn that he made uh leading to the death of three people.

[00:18:22]And there are dozens of incidents apparently like that occurred uh just in the last year. And there are thousands likely uh if not tens of thousands of uh aliens who are unlawfully here and have obtained driver's licenses in states across the country. Commercial driver's licenses that is. So Florida basically says look the states of Washington and California uh are are deficient here on two levels. One uh that that they refuse under their sanctuary policies to ask for the immigration status of these drop drivers when they're seeking commercial driver's licenses. And under federal law, they are not allowed to obtain such licenses. And then also, they're not vigorously enough enforcing these tests around English proficiency, which obviously creates a massive danger in and of itself in terms of handing out these licenses. But again, the court refused uh to take up this complaint.

[00:19:19]And Justice Thomas desented and he did it on a principal ground setting aside the merits of this case that and the principal ground is this. The Supreme Court is the only venue that hear these cases that are brought by one state against in this case to other states. And when you look at what the Constitution says, it says that they have original jurisdiction in these cases. And it doesn't say that they can't take these cases or they shouldn't take these cases. But the Supreme Court and its infinite wisdom or lack thereof has said that instead there's discretionary jurisdiction. And this is something that Justice Thomas has challenged in past descents. He challenges it here as well. But then obviously on the merits, we're presented with an absurd situation where you have citizens in some states whose life and lamb are threatened by the sanctuary policies of other states and apparently they have no recourse here. This was a case that I think screamed for the Supreme Court to step in. Maybe others will disagree. uh and that they choose they chose not to here to my mind is a massive dereliction. I question whether it's about you the court's own institutional view about whether it should take up cases and controversies between states like these whether it has to be a really high bar and isn't this a pretty high bar or if this ultimately is about an immigration related issue that the court doesn't want to touch and that's not satisfactory either uh to my mind. So, I I'd open it up to the group.

[00:20:48]What do you make of this case and the court's posture andor how Justice Thomas and Justice Alo responded to it here?

[00:20:56]>> I mean, I I so Thomas really centers his dissent um around what Ben highlighted, which is that there is no other forum to bring this complaint. Um I think it's a reasonable argument that he makes. Uh but there are also other ways to deal with this. Um, apparently California and Oregon and u some of these other states are not in compliance with federal law when it comes to granting these commercial drivers licenses. And that would make sense when you you think about and I I don't know that this is a necessarily an originalist state of affairs, but it's been the the state of affairs for a long time. the when the interstate highway system was essentially built in the 1950s, we saw a bunch of cases that extend extended federal jurisdiction um over all kinds of things that would were previously only state by state because of that interstate highway system where you know you're not you're not stopping on the border. The highway doesn't stop on the border between Oregon and and um California or California, Nevada, right?

[00:21:50]So, um, they they granted the feds a lot more authority in regulating, um, these kinds of standards than you might initially think if you were thinking about how our constitutional and federal system was set up from the beginning.

[00:22:03]Um, so I do think there are things that Secretary Duffy can do about this. Um, of course there are things that Congress can do, but we know that Congress is sclerotic and and basically a vestigial organ of of the American government at this point. Um, so the question then does become like should the Supreme Court exercise way more like just basically take more of these cases because there isn't another venue for a state to sue another state and it's I think I can't remember the other case they cite in their descent but there's this is the second time that both Alto and um Thomas have said we need to revisit this doctrine um in terms of which cases we take up.

[00:22:44]I am sort of agnostic on that question, but I I do worry that we can't we meaning the right now and the political right. You know, we can't rely on the Supreme Court to always solve these questions. That's just by nature, even if they take up cases, they change their doctrine on this case, they take up cases like this about a state suing another state, by nature, you know, nine guys uh and gals, I suppose, um are not going to be able to address all of the conflicts between red states and blue states. we have this is this is what the federal government um has to step in. We have to have a more energetic executive.

[00:23:18]We can't be kind of passing the buck on political questions to the Supreme Court without a very strong basis to do so. I think it was a mistake that the left made um in the 70s essentially using the court to to govern and legislate. Um, now I do think I I do have a pretty aggressive view of what what the court can and should do in terms of enforcing the constitution, but this is much more optional. Like these these kinds of cases are much more optional part of their job. So um overall I mean disappointing in in the sort of substance but on the substance this is not the end of the story. uh the the and I I think the secretary of um transportation is actually working aggressively to deal with this issue and to force states into compliance in a variety of ways withholding highway funds etc etc and ultimately I think that's probably a better way to resolve the underlying substantive problem than kicking it to the Supreme Court.

[00:24:10]>> Yeah, it's interesting. I don't have uh I wouldn't say I have strong views on the question of uh the Supreme Court extending jurisdiction as far as it should go. I think I mean this does seem like a case where based on the law they should take it. They shouldn't be declining cases like this. Um I mean there aren't that many times when states sue each other and moreover they can handle it. They can offload it to special masters which I think they do in the majority of cases because they're they're not usually you know they don't want to be the original finder of fact.

[00:24:38]They want to be reviewing some sort of record. But I I still think it's probably their job and they don't take that many cases so they can probably afford to spend the time to to do important cases like this one. Um, and uh, so that I guess that would be my, you know, my broader my broader thesis here. But who knows, maybe they're just tired of each other and want to spend as little time at the court as possible given how much how tired they are of people like Katanji Brown Jackson.

[00:25:01]>> The only thing I would add to that is that the the path going forward should be to make this a political question and it falls to the executive branch to to uh ensure that and enforce that using the number of tools that it has. If the court won't intervene uh then it is I think uh it provides you a path forward to uh be more aggressive on dealing with recalcitent states in in this respect. So hopefully that's the way that one proceeds uh from this um rather than uh just sitting back and wishing that one had uh a better court or something to that effect. The other case uh by the way was the election case in 2020 uh where it was the same the same division uh where uh Alto and Thomas wanted to rule on the merits although they had a caveat saying we don't want to assess the the actual claims about elector election fraud and so forth but we think that it does fall to our jurisdiction to to handle this.

[00:26:01]Um another you could say political question that uh ultimately is resolved by having better election laws. Um and uh all those aspects are not something that states themselves can be relied to do but require some kind of uh federal government uh action. In the case of the election issue, it's something like the Save Act. In this case, I think there's a number of uh of different tools of enforcement you can use from withholding funds to um to immigration enforcement to uh deal with these problems. And also if one thing one thing you could bear in mind as well uh from this uh one thing that should be borne in mind is other states can uh start assessing the licenses of drivers who come from out of state if this is such a major issue.

[00:26:44]That would be uh a kind of escalatory path that probably would get the court involved in adjudicating some of that.

[00:26:51]But that's something that could be uh could be uh used as a tactic to force a state like California to to um to assess who they've been handing out licenses to. So a lot of tools there, a lot of political tools that are available. And what I think the the optimist in me such that it is uh I think knows or at least can draw attention to those who know uh that this is now becoming a major public issue that people do want the want to ensure accidents like this don't happen and especially when it's such a manifest case of fraud. It's an egregious abuse of of our law. it. There's a public will to uh enforce this and one should uh ride that wave to do as much uh uh as much enforcement as possible and purge these bad actors uh from our uh from our roads.

[00:27:45]>> Now to a different topic, which is the notorious Democrat autopsy from 2024 that they finally released last week. So we'll kick it over to Anz for that.

[00:27:57]Yeah, there was some back and forth um about releasing this and not wanting to release this autopsy. So, uh this is the Democratic Party's assessment of why it lost in 2024. Um the document itself is less interesting than some of the the discussion it's engendered in the Democratic Party. Um to me, the document itself is like mostly AI and like gets basic facts wrong. Um, it says that Joe Biden is uh says that Trump it like references Trump as president in 2022.

[00:28:27]Um, it's just it's like a poorly done and confusing bit of slop uh that mostly concludes that messaging is a problem.

[00:28:35]Um, but I think there's a deeper issue going on here uh with the Democratic Party and the future of the Democratic Party. And as we're always doomers here, um I it's important to remember about the weaknesses of your opposition uh as well. When you examine the weaknesses of your own side and feel like you're in despair, then uh remember that the other side is also have has their weaknesses.

[00:28:59]And um in this case, the the political weaknesses or the political problems of the Democratic Party are that they do not have a way to pivot out of key cultural issues where they are out of step not just with the average American, not just with the average swing voter, but like with 80 or 85% of the American public and they have no way of really abandoning those issues um or even pivoting. and they've been struggling to do that. So, um I think a key issue in this regard is is the trans issue, women's women's sports, everything surrounding can men become women and they are continually caught in this trap because they look at voter, you know, uh in, you know, issue rankings and so on and nobody is putting, you know, trans stuff at the top of their their voter issue rankings.

[00:29:52]But what we're finding is, of course, that voters actually do, swing voters in particular, really do care about this issue because they're seeing it as a proxy um for a ton of other crazy cultural commitments that are just completely out of step with the average American voter, even a lot of average Democrat American voters. Um so whether that's on even like on the green agenda, I think that actually falls into this.

[00:30:16]whether it's on crime and um actually, you know, putting criminals in jail and restoring public order. Those are all cultural issues that really resonate.

[00:30:24]It's what Spencer Pratt's campaign is is running on right out in in LA that is resonating, I think, not just within LA, even very deep blue LA, but um the rest of the country, anybody who's in sort of an urban environment or commutes into an urban environment knows about those issues. So, and then add on top of that discrimination, DEI, all of those those cultural issues. Um, there's a certain brand of Democrat that just imagines they can wipe the slate clean on all of those, they can ignore all of those cultural issues and run on so-called affordability. And while that sort of theoretically seems to work out, and a lot of, you know, uh, Democratic consultants think that it should work out that way, the reality is the second that voters see, you know, some of these quote unquote affordability candidates hesitate and hedge and refuse to answer questions like, "Can a man become a woman," they instantly mistrust them.

[00:31:14]And for good reason. These are not irrelevant. I've always pushed back against the the what is it what's the matter with Kansas thesis that people don't actually know that cultural issues are actually in unimportant compared to economic ones. And um they're actually just uh you know sort of dangly um shiny objects being dangled before voters by you know rich fat cats who want to keep more of um you know have lower taxes or whatever it is. Uh voters care about those issues because they matter in our lives. the culture in which we we raise our children matters enormously. It does actually matter as much as quote unquote kitchen table issues. Um and the Democratic Party really doesn't have a way of spitting out of that trap. What what they they've tried a few different ts the so-called moderate Democrats.

[00:31:58]They they basically tried not to talk about it and when they're really pressed on it, they'll say like, you know, something very weasly worded. But the fact is that not I don't think there is a single Democrat in the country that's willing to say a man cannot become a woman.

[00:32:12]um very directly like that. They just won't say it uh because they know that the the activist part of their base um will comfort them uh if if they say that and they just they politically are trapped between their base and 80% of American voters. Um so I think that that does remain an issue for them on the affordability question which is obviously driving a lot of the back and forth between the Republican party and the Democratic party for good reason.

[00:32:40]Um, there is a huge chunk of the American voter base that will vote for whatever party they believe will actually solve some of these longer term financial problems for the American middle class. And I think both sides, honestly, um, are put in the position of trying to sell an economy. I mean, I think Trump has a reasonably good economy to sell. Um but the problem is that I think a lot of those pain points are not actually directly related to unemployment, inflation, right? You can take care of those problems and those were what were taking people from having their nose above water but to drowning, right? Um huge electricity spikes for huge gas gas spikes at the pump, right?

[00:33:21]But the longer term reason that so many Americans feel like they are not they're treading water or they can't get out of of of um sort of a financial uh culde-sac or or crisis is because the foundational goods of middle class life um visav median wages are just way way way more expensive than they used to be 30 years ago or 50 years ago. Here we're talking about housing, talking about higher education and and potentially K12 uh tuition if you because you can no longer assume that you can send your kids safely um to a public school where they're not going to teach things totally antithetical to your values, right? Um so education costs and then health care costs and then for two-income families inevitably childare costs. those four costs are like uh escalated way way way above inflation and they have for many decades um and also have have increased enormously visav the the base median wage. So what you're seeing is like just the basic trappings of having a space to live, paying for, you know, make sure any make sure that your your family has good healthare, making sure you saving for your kids college education. These are things that Americans consider basic staples of middle class life. And those things alone are pushing a lot of people into the the category of being worried about quote unquote affordability. And so what you're seeing is like these of course the Democratic Party and the Mandami party is giving a socialist answer to some of those questions. Um but either one either either party being in the White House, they'll say, "Oh, the unemployment rate is low or wages are going up a little bit." But like they're not fundamentally addressing the disjoint between um the those goods, those like basic staples of what Americans think of as the the you know good middle class life um and the underlying wages. And I think that both parties frankly are going to struggle with that. There's a lot of you know suggestions of how to solve those things. These are like very heavily regulated. ities are not free market areas of of the economy, right?

[00:35:19]Healthcare is not a free market area of the economy. You know, universities are not a free market area of the economy as I've said many many times. So, I think there's a lot of space to for new proposals in those things. But, um anyway, I I think it's it's useful to remember with this autopsy before I throw it out to everybody uh that the Democratic Party has fundamental problems, too. They have problems connecting with the average American voter. they are way culturally out on a limb and those things seem slightly pass uh you know because we're actually the Trump administration is doing some really good stuff on for example DEI um but voters remember those issues and Democrats can't move on from those issues because they won't they won't say the words right they won't say a man can't become a woman and we shouldn't discriminate against white men in the office they can't say those things and as long as they can't say those things in a credible way I think it's going to continue to be a problem for the Democrat ratic party. I don't know what you guys think the future of the Democratic party looks like or the future of the Republican party, but the interplay between cultural and economic issues, but I'll kick it out now.

[00:36:20]>> Yeah. Um, you kind of got ahead of a a final thought I had with the the broad not this the autopsy specifically, but a broader thought because I've been there was a story this morning and I'll just do it now because it's relevant to this discussion. Jake Aen Schllo is a Miss Massachusetts representative and yesterday he went on TV and said that Graham Platner I don't remember exactly what he said but that he he wouldn't vote for Graham Platner that he thinks that his Nazi tattoo and the way he's talked about is disqualifying and that he hopes somebody else wins the Senate primary and you had this overwhelming force of like online third world leftism but really just broader leftism generally. I shouldn't say it's it's not as narrow as like Medi Hassan and people like that. It's it's a broad bass broad-based backlash. And this morning he's like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. I you know, I mean, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary. In the general election, obviously, we have to beat Susan Collins." And it's just like, "Oh, really?" Like, this, you know, another, you know, the American Jew bends his knee to the the Nazi tattoo wearing freak who's running for the main Senate candidate. Is this this is the Democratic party we're going for? And it sort of connects into your thesis that the the hard base left of the party brooks no descent whatsoever on any meaningful topic. Uh and in particular, it's just really remarkable watching people like, you know, Hassan and Medie Hassan are capable of bullying an American Jewish Democrat into supporting someone who's wearing a Nazi tattoo effectively. Like not for the primary, but you know, Susan Collins is just beyond the pale. So clearly the Nazi tattoo guy is preferable.

[00:37:48]>> Well, that that's one example. Another one is that uh you've had Josh Shapiro who obviously has presidential aspirations and he came out with the narrative that Israel led the US by the nose into the Iran war as well. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about where the Democrat party is and how powerful and ascendant the progressive base is, uh, which of course hostile to Israel, hostile to Jews, but also hostile to America and Western civilization, there's there's probably no greater example than that ultimately.

[00:38:23]But I'll say something else about the lack of introspection by the Democrats.

[00:38:28]The the first thing I did when I looked at opened up the autopsy was to just do several quick keyword searches. One of them was for the word immigration. You can find the word immigration two times in the entire document. Border two times. The word crime never appears in the document. Safety appears three times in the document. So what were the the core animating issues really for Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 for that matter? It's obviously uh it's sort of like borders language culture. It's that we have to have uh a an orderly immigration system with territorial integrity and sovereignty and that there ought to be law and order on our streets. Those were a couple of the most basic fundamental issues supported by Trump voters on top of obviously a whole slew of other ones.

[00:39:17]But Democrats wouldn't even put that in their autopsy. And of course the DNC itself was quick to try and distance itself from the document claim it doesn't reflect the party's views etc. But it's very telling that the document essentially talks about talks about tactical failings and it doesn't really seek to explain why there were the tactical failings or of course you know why it is that their ideas fell flat, what ideas defeated their ideas. They don't want to get into that. There is a total lack of introspection. That's a boon for Republicans down the road if Democrats won't openly and honestly admit why they failed, how they failed, and recommend ways to remedy it beyond we got to run better candidates and we have to fight harder against Trump next time, which is sort of part of the kind of highle takeaway as to the document.

[00:40:10]Uh that that's a positive thing if the other side isn't able to openly and honestly evaluate its failings in the eyes of voters. But that said, I I continue to believe progressives run the party. They dominate the party. They're not they may not represent 50% or more of Democrat voters, but in terms of their influence, the party is totally controlled by its progressive base. And I don't see it breaking out of that uh millu anytime soon. And and again, just look at how Spanberger and Mikey Cheryl have governed now in New Jersey uh and Virginia, two non-radical states, at least on their face, even if New Jersey has obviously always been a blue state, but it has typically not been a radical blue state. This is where the party is.

[00:40:57]This is if you look at the positions of the Democrat candidates in the 2020 election in the primaries, they're taking all of the leftist views and and all taking those positions. and jockeying for who can be further left.

[00:41:10]So, at the end of the day, I don't see them breaking out of it. And I assume that the calculation is in part because yes, there's substantial influence from the progressive cohort, but they also must imagine that as the boomers uh essentially die off, that they're going to be a greater and greater percentage of progressives uh in the US populace at large and among Democrat voters as well.

[00:41:33]They think this is where the future, if not the present, is so they're stuck in that box. Uh the the tragic thing is that they're still gonna win around 50% of the time or or more. Uh and certainly represent that percentage of seats uh notwithstanding redistricting and the next census etc. So while it's a problem for them that they take unpopular positions on 8020 issues, it still hasn't led to them being absolutely dominated at every single level of government and for, you know, one decade, let alone a generation. So I think that they're generally pretty shrewd and they follow the math and the numbers and they clearly think that progressivism is a future if not the present.

[00:42:18]>> Yeah, I would agree with that. I think we uh need to bear in mind now that that America is not naturally a center-right country in the sense of it's not 7030 center right. you don't have a you're not going to have a kind of Clintonian atmosphere in the 1990s where there was a successful recalibration of the Democratic party uh coming partly from where the voters were at but also from a party establishment that was capable of of uh perceiving what the landscape was and driving the the party in a more moderate direction. It's just not that kind of country anymore. The Democratic party is the is the most left-wing party major political party uh in the western world I would submit except for the Spanish government uh which is governed now by the by the socialist party. Uh the positions that you just have to look to the Labor Party in Britain to see what kinds of positions that they take say on on immigration. Uh even on the trans question um the Democratic party is way to their left. Even in Canada, okay, the trans issue there is not one that the the the government's very supportive of that. But on immigration, uh they are revoking uh student visas um now which is going right after the the one of the major institutions that has been for decades very much in the camp of the Liberal Party of Canada. So we need to understand now that the landscape we have is a party where is a country um that is not trending center right um and also where by 40 45% maybe even more of the voters in any given election cycle uh will vote for the hard-left political party uh and the people who are running things are not foolish I think they they do look at the at where the the energy is in their own camp uh they are paying attention to what happens as uh the boomer politics fade off and it's it's a it's a bet they're they're making that the future of the country will trend in that direction. Um I sometimes think that the point we should we should bear in mind too here um is is uh yeah just to be quick about it um is that the the political possibilities in the US are are far wider than they are in in other western countries where the spectrum is fairly narrow. You know the next British government for instance will probably be a government that'll enforce some kind of immigration controls. Uh for instance um in this country it's will be all over the place. We might have the continuation of the present policies of the Trump administration. We might have, I don't know, more uh agricultural visas issued or or lacking lacks or relaxing of a couple issues uh on border control or you could have just total open borders. So this is the kind of political environment we live in and we should reckon with that reality.

[00:45:13]>> So with that, we'll go right back to you Nathan to talk about the papal encyclical on AI.

[00:45:18]>> Yeah. So speaking of AI slop and the problem, uh so um the uh Pope Leo the 14th just released a new encyclical over the weekend. Uh Magnifica Manitas is the name of it. Uh the full title the subtitle is on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial uh intelligence. And the the very short thing that I want to say just by way of summary and then we'll go into a couple uh points to have here is that if you if you are to understand this encyclical in one sentence, it's the confrontation with transhumanism uh the the effort to try to articulate from the perspective of the Catholic Church what are are the philosophical theological deficiencies in the transhumanist position and uh to articulate a kind of practical altern alternative to that. So that's the the short summary of what the encyclical speaks to. Um I think a couple broader points that uh could be useful just to uh to reflect on for those of you who haven't had a chance to read it or also if you're if you're not Catholic and wondering what all this is about. um you know the papal social encyclical so the social doctrine of the church is uh first of all addressed not only to believers um but to people of goodwill. So the notion with that phrase that formulation is that anyone you know rational human being open to learning uh curious as to uh as to what an institution like the Catholic Church teaches uh can read a document and appreciate its insights even if you may not uh have uh the faith even if you may not be a believer or may not uh be um uh Catholic. So these encyclicals have always had for since uh since they've since they've worked in this format have always had a a universal audience uh in mind. Um what I will say uh is uh putting on my my uh my my Catholic hat here is that the there was a real energy when in the late 19th century early 20th century when these encyclicals were rolled out um by Leo I 13th uh the very first one in it uh and our present Pope Leo I 14th uh refers to it um the launch document for this was noarum which the word here is a is a good one to to bear in mind what context he was speaking to because noi in Latin is the genative plural noi is is uh literally means new things but it also means revolution and it was in part a response to the industrial revolution and in part of response to the French revolution. So the greatest economics socioeconomic challenge of the day and then of course the political uh challenge of the day which was the French revolution and the kind of governments that had inaugurated across Europe. So, uh, Catholic social thought had a a real energy in the late 19th century, early 20th century and a real coherence, um, around, uh, handling those questions and trying to provide believers and people of goodwill with a path forward to think about that the technological, economic, and political changes of their day, um, and how you would understand it. Um but after the second world war I think it's fair to say um that there it began to lose some of its coherence. Uh this is also a problem and we don't need to go on this but it's of course a big issue amongst Catholics how we understand interpret Vatican 2. Uh suffice to say the council um promised a kind of um opening up of the windows of the church and uh and didn't quite yield that. yielded a lot of division, yielded a lot of confusion. Uh, and you saw some of that uh seep into uh into social doctrine uh of the church. U Pope John Paul II and and Pope Benedict the 16th did their best to kind of keep it coherent and hold it together and put out some very good very valuable encyclicals uh focused on a few precise questions. But the the danger is uh to simplify great uh a great uh a great deal here. But I think it's a worthwhile simplification is a lot of these things by the 21st century uh by the late 20 well at least in the last few years have looked like the product of committees uh where you're just kind of throwing in a bunch of of of different points uh different moral insights some very valuable some you're not really sure what the context is and how to make sense of it. Uh and what I take from this encyclical uh as a as a believer, but I hope what other people can take from as well uh is the sense that that this is uh providing a fresh start for one of the most important problems of our age. I think it's a very very uh valuable as I mentioned for the practical problems but also if you just want uh one of the most I think cogent summaries of Catholic social thought that's been put out um in in some time uh read uh chapter 1 of the encyclical uh just to see where the conversation uh has uh been going and and Pope Leo is able to put that in. Um, four quick little uh points here that I think could just be useful in terms of what the encyclical uh points us away from and I think they speak very well to um to problems that we have or we face in our own AI uh related conversations when people discuss it. Um, one is uh is that uh and by the way what I mean here is is that uh tendencies or ways that people interpret AI where they want it to go and the deficiencies or inadequacies of that. The most the most manifest one you see a couple lines in the encyclical that speak to this is is well is when we asked why are we engaged in this in this project of of developing uh um AI developing artificial intelligence what's it about? Uh and it's almost to build a machine god. Uh that AI is is going to be some kind of superhuman or even god-like being that is uh that is going to un unearth or disclose all these new possibilities. Uh and the the upshot of that is that we human beings will just look to that for whatever we need to do. Uh so it's a kind of model of a super artificial intelligence, a kind of uh omnipotent being that we uh we need to uh uh genulect to and you could make the comparisons if you want to uh that hideous strength CS Lewis' novels to see where the that kind of discourse goes. But I think uh the it is a very the encyclical is very useful for criticizing that kind of of approach uh mostly for the the the the basic fundamental flaw of it which is that we want to be using technology uh for ourselves and for our own benefit not the other way around. And I don't think you you need to be um particularly theologically uh intricate in your thinking to perceive that that's a valuable goal to have and that if you flip things around the other way, you might um be concerned with some of the consequences that arise. Another one is just I think the embrace of of general automation uh automation for its own sake and the encyclical when it gestures towards regulatory framework uh that could uh be valuable I think speaks a little bit uh to that effect at the very least you can't just make labor automation the goal in itself of of why we're developing um uh AI and developing this new technology that doesn't work on its own. Um, the other one that is useful and this fits in with the broader historic framework of uh of Catholic social thought is you have sometimes when people talk about artificial intelligence and why we're developing it just you you're kind of just throwing throwing open the gate and we're not really sure where it's going to go, but we're making vague promises. It's going to do this, it's going to do that. Uh uh and we just need to keep building uh just just keep building more data centers or whatever it might be. Um and all these great possibilities will open up. Well, we have to be precise about what the goals are and especially the benefits accured to the political community. One of the I think very valuable metaphors that the encyclical draws from actually opens with this is a discussion about the tower of of uh of babel uh and or babel and uh that's been uh for theologians um for careful exedites of the old testament that's been an image a very useful image to cap that's been people have discussed for some time to capture the problems associated with unlimited technological progress. Uh it's very uh it doesn't require it doesn't require great leaps of the imagination to read the story of Babel and think about uh this as an allegory for uh for placing know unlimited confidence or uncritical confidence and unlimited technological progress and not giving it any direction. So the encyclical is very valuable for distancing oneself from that kind of attitude. And the last I think is just is the slot problem that I think many people perceive right now the and this is why the polling and I think I think at any rate part of the polling on AI uh has has swung in very very critical direction is because the public isn't seeing a clear uh benefit from this. I think this is different from the way that people in the 1980s and 1990s approached the internet where there was a sense that general enthusiasm about this and we're not dealing with that same environment now. When people think of AI, they think of those uh those data centers and so forth. Um just springing up and not really sure what it's all about. And the encyclical is not a repudiation of artificial intelligence, but it's to say the goals for what it can accomplish need to be uh articulated and need to point for something higher than just generating uh lowbar uh mid uh content. Something higher needs to be um needs to be demanded. And the last thing I'll say just overall uh and this I think speaks a bit to the general philosophy behind uh national conservatism too which is that a lot of the language or concepts associated with with liberal political thought don't really uh help us grapple with the main challenges uh of our times and I think you see this in the present discourse concerning AI where you do have liberal politician icians or or or liberal political theorists who are trying to uh or liberal intellectuals who are trying to tap into the the popular meal about artificial intelligence, but all they say is, "Well, maybe we should move the data center somewhere else or I'm a little worried about misinformation or uh equity concerns." Um where that kind of liberal language is just wholly inadequate to think about um the great technological challenge of the present moment. And what you can get from this encyclical, again, if you're a believer or if you're just a person of uh of goodwill, um what you can get from this encyclical is an alternative, a far richer, a more fruitful way of thinking about this this technology uh and thinking about um the problems of our times in ways that liberal uh uh concepts do not help uh guide us. And that's uh something which hopefully those of you uh haven't read but are interested in you can go into the document uh thinking about that how the how anical like this can help us think about the most profound issues of our times uh without falling into the usual conventions we see in our own political conversations.

[00:56:58]With that I'll open it up to anyone else if they have any comments or hot takes.

[00:57:04]>> Yeah, AI is interesting. I use it pretty regularly. I find it to be on Grock uh like having a extraordinarily talented research assistant for the most part. I think that's like use case number one. I ask it questions, you know, instead of having to Google it and kind of try to figure out what the right search prompt would be. It's literally I can just talk to it in natural language. And I think it, you know, on the one hand, if the more you know about a topic already, the better AI will be because you ask it better questions and it can really answer them in depth and it understands it in detail. And I saw Mark Andre give an interview uh with I think it was on Rogan, but he said something along the lines of there's been a step change in the last year or so to the point that he feels like the answers he gets out of the AR better than the answers he's getting from the worldass experts that he has on call, which is remarkable. Um and he suggested something along the lines of, you know, what if we actually, you know, people have talked about the seeking of artificial general intelligence. He thinks we hit that few months ago. Like it just we we we've we've crossed that line. we have a capability of doing this. And then I mean it I'd have to read the encyclical.

[00:58:09]I'm curious what he what they say because it just you know like any tool it's it's it's ultimately a tool but it's such a capable tool in the in the areas that are so key to white collar work that I don't know how it's not going to be incredibly disruptive uh to employment and it's just going to change things. I feel very good about my decision to do influence and like public advocacy because you can't I can't be replaced, right? I'm confident. I mean, maybe although maybe I shouldn't speak too soon. We'll see about that. Um, but I'm curious what you guys all think.

[00:58:39]>> Well, I think the reason that uh in some sense like we can't be replaced, although writers certainly can be um and and you can easily imagine generating there already are on uh there are definitely like influencers who are AI generated entirely. Um but I think ultimately and influence and and governance and public policy right you're looking for judgment and whether AI can replicate judgment even if it can replicate human thinking is an open question right so that would imply all kinds of questions that I I haven't read this in cyclical but that would would be u metaphysical if not theological uh even in nature right um questions of of whether an AI can have make a moral judgment for example um that that those are those are not really uh technical questions, right? Those those are questions that are a level above a technical. Um so in that sense, I think AI represents both a terminus and a challenge to the let's call it the end point enlightenment of the enlightenment view that man is essentially a mind, right? right? That what makes man man is uh is is uh exactly equivalent to a mind, a brain. There's a brain state and a mind state, right? Um so maybe even mind is the wrong word, but that mankind is made by his brain. Um and by thought that that's that's a that's the view that is either you know um this is the terminus of that view. If you can replicate man's thinking, are you replicating man? Um, so if you cling to I think some of the views or some of the the philosophical or quasi theological views that have become I think if you think about like the new atheist movement in like the 2000s that have for a long time were synonymous with being like vaguely sophisticated, you know, intelligent, educated person, especially on the left.

[01:00:39]Think about like Bill Maher for example.

[01:00:41]Um with that hostility to religion and the questions raised by religion as uh sort of primitive or or man you know sort of dancing around the fire looking at the praying for rain or or whatever.

[01:00:54]um then you kind of have to come to the conclusion if you have that sort of minimalistic view of what man is um you have to come to the conclusion that perhaps the AI is a man right and that lots of people have a a gut instinct against that conclusion right so um you kind of have to start positing things that are non-material uh in order to separate yourself from the AI so in that sense I mean I haven't read this encyclical but I think it's a a topic that is fully appropriate for the world's great great religions to uh to contemplate because it it kind of is not it's not a scientific question in a strict sense. It it is a theological or metaphysical question. That's aside from all the disruption and the fact that we're like going to have like onetenth of the lawyers in 10 years.

[01:01:42]>> So I'll uh I'll open up final thoughts by continuing on this thread and then uh pivot to something minor but also significant as well. Um so I haven't read the encyclical in full but I have skimmed through it. Um and let me start with the mundane stuff that's separate and apart from the much higher conversation here which is I think that as of now and of course the technology is rapidly evolving uh one's experience with it and perspective on AI broadly speaking and we're probably mainly talking about these large language models but there are other obvious tools that are being developed every single day here every single second here uh one's experience is going to be dictated by how you use the tools and then what its impact is on your profession or in your daily life. So our views are obviously going to be skewed based upon how we use these these tools uh you know to whether it's lawyers or other professions as well especially at lower levels or even at senior levels. uh they're going to use these tools and whether it's going to lead to the elimination of jobs or it's going to be you're going to need to hire people who best know how to manipulate and efficiently use these tools. It's obviously yet to be seen. My view has been and this is a with no inside knowledge or insight and relatively uneducated and ignorant about AI is that uh the worst fears of 50% unemployment and people being out of work and then this creates an excuse for a universal basic income and the technology is going to enable that and this sort of dystopic society resulting as a consequence to technology. I wouldn't put my bet on that. I also wouldn't put my bet on the fact though that this won't be very transformative and have all sorts of uses that we haven't even conceived of and that there are going to be merits and demerits that we haven't necessarily conceived of as of yet. Maybe I'm wrong.

[01:03:37]Maybe this time will be different and it'll be different from the horsedrawn carriage being replaced by the automobile and this is a an an exponential change in terms of economy and life as a result of it. But I think usually it's probably somewhere in the middle ultimately is what actually transpires. But again, we'll see. I'm sure people in the comments might differ who know the technology better than I do. But all that said, the broader uh issue that I think is raised in the encyclical is what about the ethical and the moral and the spiritual aspects of this technology? Uh and part of it is you the developers themselves. uh do they have any sort of grounding in anything uh in anything uh or is it ultimately just about uh making the most efficient and super intelligent widget?

[01:04:29]If not, what are the ultimate consequences for the technology? But then obviously sort of to Will's point, you know, the tech comes down to the users, but the tech also influences the users at the end of the day. And is AI made for a virtuous people only or if not a virtuous people or if a percentage of people are obviously not virtuous what is the ultimate impact then? Uh another question also is has the technology developed to such an extent and is it self-perpetuating and improving to such an extent that to the extent there's even been any sort of serious ethical, moral, religious, spiritual conversation about it that the genie can be put back in the bottle. I don't know at this point. Uh I think that the conversation about the morality of it setting aside the utility of it uh the the horse might be out of the barn potentially on this already. uh and so you know you can see dystopic scenarios potentially resulting when adversaries manipulate the technologies when the technologies have an effect on people uh who don't have the critical thinking skills necessary or who suffer from other pathologies and uh there being all sorts of terrible consequences as a result of the development and the usages. So I'm no lite. I believe in, you know, let's let's develop technologies to the greatest extent we can and that these can be great tools in the hands of people to make life more efficient to help us to discover truth to help us pursue problems and solve them more quickly uh and take us from caveman to being, you know, far more uh advanced and putting our brains to higher and best uses. But by the same token, there's obviously going to be massive potential consequences. And then again I go back to you know is it is AI built for a virtuous people only at the end of the day or if not what are the consequences. So I do think those are questions worth grappling with and I do think the encyclical addresses them at least to some extent and I look forward to reading it a little more closely down the road. Uh to pivot to something much more mundane and less spiritually significant certainly. Uh the primary in Texas uh is today as we record this and uh I think uh it look seems pretty clear that Paxton is going to overcome much to the chagrin of the Republican establishment. Uh that Republican establishment has claimed that this is going to be a disaster that there's going to be tens of millions of dollars diverted to this race. Money that could be put to better and higher use uh in other races etc. And my prediction is going to be, and we'll see how it turns out, that Democrats are going to waste a greater percentage, divert a greater percentage of funds trying to win with Tallarico in a losing effort ultimately in a general election, then Republicans are going to needlessly divert funds to the Republican candidate, the nominee, who I believe will be Paxton after today. So, we'll see how that plays out.

[01:07:32]Uh, but with that, I turn it over to whoever wants to take the the next parting shot.

[01:07:37]I can go uh just to add a couple things about the AI uh aspect. Um incidentally, yeah, I think you're right on that point. It'll be another of the Robert Oori the third uh massive expenditures uh all for for nothing. Um but just one one thing that is useful to bear in mind on the AI front as well. it's a theoretical insight which you get a little bit from reading the encyclical um as well is the relevance of Marshall McLuhan uh which is to say his point one of his key ideas was about that technology is the extension of man and uh so what it is is we use a tool to extend say our our um capacity we already have and you can think about artificial intelligence I think and think about it in not a catastrophic way um or at least some point that's going to inherently bring disaster when you think about it as an extension of intelligence of human intelligence. But it's also a a useful metaphor, the extension of man uh uh metaphor to make sure that the technology is properly ordered. The other insight though that McLuhan has and this is where his thinking does become a little more shall we say apocalyptic in terms of how what it reveals about the present time we live in is how technology reshapes our environment. And here to use the example of the horse buggy to the car. Uh the issue that we should reflect on is not so much it's speeds up um travel time um but what kind of environment is created by the automobile uh the suburbs the traffic jams uh these sorts of of things become become much more relevant to think about what the full uh effects of technology are. So here it's about how their environment is reordered and restructured. And McLuhan's point on a lot of this was that we lack as human beings the capacity to look ahead. Uh when we when we think about this we are thinking is through rearview mirror.

[01:09:36]It's rearview mirror thinking. We look back to the last technological change.

[01:09:40]Uh and we think about it in those terms.

[01:09:43]um uh when we're trying to think about the environment, the shift in environment. Uh and this limits and this limits what we can grasp going forward and and makes it that when you're going from one era to another with a major technological change, uh things are being revealed or disclosed kind of in real time. And this is the apocalyptic character of technology which can make it quite um uh discombobulating if you're if you're living through it.

[01:10:10]Yeah, I think that kind of backwards thinking applies to wars more than as much as to technology. I think we're always I don't know I think I've repeated on this podcast a bunch of times. I think we're always fighting this war through the constraints of the last war it seems to me and and the Iran um war seems very much within that that fought in the shadow of the last war let's say. Uh but my my final thought uh two brief ones. One just a really good idea I want to circulate. I you know give this to your friends in the administration. I want to see this happen. Um which is somebody speaking of of Catholic references. Somebody was talking about Lord of the Rings. Um and this the two statues of the king of old kings of old that stand in the um I can't I'm not like a Lord of the Rings fan girl enough or whatever to say which which river. Maybe Nathan knows which which river it's standing at, but the the um statues essentially are the kings of old. And somebody suggested online and it went pretty viral, well, we should build great statues to Louisis and Clark, the explorers who of course cut through and and uh went to through to the Pacific Ocean, um great American explorers of of the West. Um we should essentially build statues either in the Missouri River. Um there were a bunch of uh different locations thrown out. Uh also like potentially the Gateway to the Pacific, right? we could do it at um at the the juncture with the Pacific Ocean.

[01:11:30]There's like a bunch of I just think it would be a very um cool and and good uh thing for the country to once again, you know, and then Trump is all aboard usually re-recognizing uh the heroes of American past. Um I think it would be particularly poignant given that there was a beautiful statue um taken down in Charlottesville, Virginia of Louiswis and Clark. Um because there was the third element of the statue of course was Sak Jia um and she's kind of kneeling down. You can see she's like looking at the ground. I mean, it's to me it looks very much like she's finding a trail, which is what they hired her to do, right? Um, but that was considered, you know, sort of unacceptably surviile position for a woman of color to be in in visav these two white explorers. So, uh, that was considered unacceptable in 2020 and 2021. Um, they destroyed, they took it down this this absolutely beautiful statue in in Charlottesville, Virginia.

[01:12:22]Um, I'm sure there are similar statues all around the country that were taken down. So, it would be nice to see uh American uh bravery and uh exploration um re re I guess this is not the right word, but um receelebrated and and statues actually raised to uh some of our our American heroes. I just think that's that's the greatest idea. We should definitely do statues of Louiswis and Clark. Um, and finally, I have a piece at the Daily Wire's new cultural uh kind of beat about my experiences a few years ago going to the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is basically like the summit for the rich wealthy NPR lib. Um, and they have really uh just they've outdone themselves in this this lineup this year. It is a pretty influential festival in terms of the liberal elite.

[01:13:08]Um, and like supposedly it's about mashup of ideas and learning to broaden your mind. And it will not surprise you at all that there's basically nobody who likes Donald Trump uh who was attending this festival that is supposed to be about the broadening of mind. So I have a piece about that over at the Daily Wire.

[01:13:28]>> Oh yeah, we didn't we didn't talk about this cuz obviously last week I was in DC, but uh Thomas Massie lost and that's wonderful. I I I'm think that that's my final thought for today. Thomas Massie lost and that's really good. He ran a really shameful campaign. Uh I mean it was built on really treating American voters as they were complete idiots. Uh he's been doing that for quite some time with the Epstein files and all sorts of other nonsense. Uh and then he you know his his campaign in the last few few days he threatened to sue me uh among other things. And now he lost and he lost by 10 and he lost convincingly and all the libertarians who were saying obviously he would win uh or that you know he's got a really good chance of winning or have egg on their face. I think it's particularly funny because if you looked at the prediction markets even a week out they were giving uh Massie a 75% chance to hold on to a seat which seemed quite silly to me and uh talk about a man not a manipulated market but a market full of uh people with more optimism than wisdom led them to lose a lot of money. So that was really funny too. Uh sorry uh really don't like Thomas Massie. Really don't think of much of him. He he does not reflect a way in which libertarians can cooperate meaningfully with conservatives in politics. what he was doing was extraordinarily antagonistic.

[01:14:37]And I think if the libertarian movement is going to have any meaningful successes, it's going to be within the Republican tent as a minority part of the coalition pulling the party towards liberty, not as super antagonistic part of the coalition calling everybody else a pedophile protector.

[01:14:53]>> On that note, on behalf of Will and as and Nathan, thanks for tuning in. I'm Ben Weingard and we'll see you at the next Nacon Squad.

[01:15:02]Heat. Heat.