Wisdom of Crowds Shadi Hamid & Damir Marusic

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live

This week, Wisdom of Crowds hosts a fluid discussion about violence and sex in movies, where the “shoulds” of life come from, and whether liberal values can be based on something other than religion. The discussion is more meditative than contentious, an exploration prompted by recent pop culture hits and a probing comment from the Crowd.
Violence is entertaining. That’s the conclusion that Damir draws after watching the movie, Civil War, which he thoroughly enjoyed. Christine questions Damir about his taste for violent movies, and wonders whether we are slowly becoming numb to violence, just as we are — as recent studies suggest — becoming numb to sex in film. The discussion moves toward the question of values and where they come from, drawing from a recent reader comment that prompted some soul-searching in the Wisdom of Crowds masthead.
In the bonus section for paid subscribers, Damir asks Christine how she can overcome Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity and its values, while he launches into a defense of liberalism based on what he calls “mystery.” Finally, Damir explains why he believes that most moral truth claims “end up in tears.”
Required Reading (and Viewing):
* Civil War trailer (YouTube).
* Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga trailer (YouTube).
* The Mad Max movie franchise.
* “UCLA Study: Gen Z Wants Less Sex Onscreen, Prefers Platonic Relationships Depicted to Romantic Rollercoasters,” (IndieWire).
* The Hays Code.
* Lauren Bacall movie line (YouTube).
* The Big Lebowski: “Fight a stranger in the alps” (YouTube).
* “Why Give a Damn?” by Samuel Kimbriel (Wisdom of Crowds).
* Reader comment (Wisdom of Crowds).
* Rethinking Sex by Christine Emba.
* Friedrich Nietzsche (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live

Conservatives often argue that liberalism is not a neutral political system. Liberalism, they say, has values of its own. It sneakily promotes these values as normative, and even good, for the citizens of liberal societies — whether those citizens like it or not.
The philosopher and self-proclaimed liberal Alexandre Lefebvre believes that, empirically speaking, this conservative critique is pretty much true. As the title of his new book, Liberalism as a Way of Life, suggests, liberals should own up to the fact that they believe in more than a political system. They believe in a way of life. But a way of life requires values, and where do liberals get their values from?
Christine and Shadi talk to Alex about these questions and more in a probing, contentious examination of Alex’s book. How does liberalism ground its preferences? How does it defend the idea of human dignity? Why is personal freedom a good thing? Moreover, how do religious people, who want to live in a liberal political society without necessarily believing in liberalism as a way of life, fit into Alex’s theory?
In the bonus section for paid subscribers, Alex explains why becoming a true liberal requires overcoming your “inner Karen,” and Christine and Shadi quiz Alex on his list of the seventeen joys of liberalism. How does liberalism lead to playfulness? What about redemption? Find out by listening to this rapid-fire, ideas-packed episode.
Required Reading:
* Liberalism as a Way of Life by Alexandre Lefebvre.
* Alex’s personal website.
* “Natural Law” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
* Justice: Rights and Wrongs by Nicholas Wolterstorff.
* Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland.
* “John Rawls” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
* Ordinary Vices by Judith N. Shklar.
* Disney Princess (tvtropes.org).
* “Carl Schmitt” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
* Irving Kristol: A conservative is a liberal who was “mugged by reality.”
* Surgeon General’s Advisory on Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation (hhs.gov).
* “Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair” (US Senate, Joint Economic Committee).
* “Karen” meme origin.
This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live

The war in Gaza is dividing Israeli opinion, but not along the same lines that it divides American opinion. What are Israeli priorities? How important is the return of hostages relative to total victory? What is Netanyahu thinking? What is the Israeli Left thinking? Is there an anti-war movement in Israel? Do American categories make any sense within the Israeli political context?
Washington Post political columnist Jason Willick joins Shadi and Damir to answer these questions. He just returned from a fact-finding mission in Israel, and the news he brings is complicated. On the one hand, there is more widespread support for the war in Israel than there is anywhere else. On the other, the divisions within Israeli politics run deep, especially regarding the details of a post-war settlement.
As discussion of Israeli views develops into a critique of those views, Jason and Damir question Shadi’s abiding moralism, asking whether ideas like “just war” and “proportionality” are helpful in making sense of war and combat. The debate then turns to whether Hamas is a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Could the Israeli government ever accept Hamas as a negotiating partner in establishing a post-war Gaza? Would doing so give a tacit victory to Hamas, and legitimize political violence? Can anything be resolved without continuing this war? And will this war ever end? Tough questions, discussed with wryness and charm. This is a Wisdom of Crowds episode you will not want to miss.
Required Reading:
* “If Biden thinks Israel’s liberals are doves, he’s dreaming,” by Jason Willick (Washington Post).
* “Hamas’ Bid for Revolutionary Legitimacy,” by Damir Marusic (Wisdom of Crowds).
* “In the Israeli-Palestinian debate, you might be wrong. So be humble,” by Shadi Hamid (Washington Post).
* “Just War Theory” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
* “Occupation and Reconstruction of Japan, 1945–52” (Office of the Historian, US Department of State).
* “Give Peace a Chance,” by John Lennon.
This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets.

What does justice mean for animals? Is justice for animals the same as justice for human beings? Why should we care more about the rights of animals when the rights of humans are so often neglected?
Martha Nussbaum teaches philosophy, ethics, and law at the University of Chicago, and is one of the most influential and cited philosophers of our time. She’s written dozens of books on Greek philosophy, the importance of emotions in politics, justice, feminism, and many other topics. She joins the podcast to discuss her new book, Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility.
Shadi begins the conversation by inquiring about the moral motivations behind Professor Nussbaum’s advocacy for animal rights. He also wonders how human beings can, given their finite resources and time, focus on animal rights over other issues, like war or poverty. Nussbaum pushes back, arguing that animal rights is only one part of a web of issues, like overpopulation and climate change, that have to be addressed holistically. Sam provides some philosophical background, placing Nussbaum’s thought within the context of her work as a whole, which is focused on justice, freedom, and human flourishing.
It’s an energetic episode, where three sharp minds constantly challenge each other to clarify their thoughts. Ultimately, the question of the meaning of life—both for animals and humans—emerges, as Nussbaum asks whether death should be perceived as something negative, and Shadi considers the significance of belief in the afterlife.
Required Reading:
* Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility by Martha Nussbaum.
* “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature,” by Martha Nussbaum (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research).
* “The Dilemmas of Living in a Post-Religious World,” by Shadi (Washington Post).
* 1966 Animal Welfare Act.
* 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
* R. M. Hare (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
* Epicurus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
* Lucretius (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).


This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe

Do Arab Americans support pro-Palestine protests because of identity politics? What about American Jewish support for Israel? Are both groups being “tribal” or are they fighting for universal values — as they understand them?
Recently, policy guru and Ur-Blogger Matt Yglesias pointed out that some of the political thinkers who, just a couple years ago, were aligned in opposition to identity politics today find themselves on opposite sides over Palestine. One of the names Matt mentioned was our own Shadi Hamid. What happened?
Matt joins Damir, and Shadi to figure it out. In their conversation, they discuss the demands of pro-Palestine protestors, whether conditioning aid to Israel would be effective, whether global justice claims are “nonsense,” and of course the nature of identity. Why do we believe what we believe, and how do come to hold the positions that we hold?
Towards the end of the episode, the conversation gets more personal, when both Shadi and Matt go deeper on how their own religious identities have been affected by the Gaza war. Matt, a liberal Jew who supports a two-state solution, says: “Playing dice with the existence of Israel is dangerous, it’s a lot for my heart.”
NOTE: We felt the final 20 minutes of the conversation with Matt were fascinating and surprising in the best way possible, capturing something important about this American moment — so we are dropping the paywall and making the full episode available for all subscribers. We hope you enjoy it.
Required Reading:
* Slow Boring, Matthew Yglesias’ Substack.
* “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” AKA “The Harper’s Letter” (Harper’s).
* Martin Luther King, Jr. and Israel (Washington Post).
* “Israel’s Two Wars” by Matthew Yglesias (Slow Boring).
* Shadi’s tweet, drawing on his book The Problem of Democracy, on how U.S. support for Israel undermines Arab democracy: “Our relationship with Israel distorts U.S. policy in the Middle East. We support Arab dictators in part because they are more likely to accept Israel's dominant position in the region. Democracy, however, would elevate anti-Israel parties to power.”
* Matt Yglesias on X: “It’s interesting that a bunch of people who I read who four years ago were in agreement about the perils of identity politics now sharply disagree about Israel/Palestine and the disagreements exactly track Jewish vs Arab or Muslim backgrounds.”
* The Mexican-American War.

This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets.


This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live

Last December, the highest court in the State of Colorado ruled that Donald Trump’s involvement with January 6 disqualified him from holding the office of president. On May 4, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to overturn this decision, clearing the way for Trump to appear on the ballot in all fifty states.
Naturally, at Wisdom of Crowds these events got us thinking about the big questions. When it comes to eligibility for office, who should have the final say — the Supreme Court, or the voters? What is more important for a democracy: Elections or rights? And where do rights come from, anyway?At the moment, these questions are mostly being discussed on the Left side of the aisle, so we invited two prominent left-wing writers to argue about them in a live show. Osita Nwanevu is a journalist for The New Republic, currently writing a book about American democracy. Samuel Moyn is a law professor at Yale University, whose latest book is titled, Liberalism Against Itself: Cold War Intellectuals and the Making of Our Times. For paid subscribers, the bonus content includes a raucous Q & A session with our live audience.
Enjoy a highly informed discussion about the most important political questions of our time, find out why Damir considers both Osita and Sam to be “revolutionaries,” and think about which branch of the US government really deserves to be called “a Council of Elders.”
Required Reading:
* The Colorado ruling.
* The Supreme Court decision.
* “Resisting the Juristocracy” by Samuel Moyn (Boston Review).
* “The Constitution is the Crisis,” by Osita Nwanevu (The New Republic).
This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Governance and Markets.