This podcast is a good example of the limits, or at least challenges, of the Bulwark model. Where much of the network feels like an effort in coalition building and an active reworking of political ideas to meet the moment, Eric and Eliot’s analyses more often amount to criticisms from a conservative perspective that has failed to evolve.
They have some valuable insights and smart critiques of the Trump administration, but they struggle to engage with ideas from outside their political tradition. They can be condescending and even hostile to good faith efforts from the left to change the status quo. Particularly on issues of military spending or rethinking the US relationship to Israel, they’re dismissive of even moderate moves to alter the dynamics that created our situation. I appreciate healthy debate and nuance on these issues, but their tone and casual dismissal of other voices is not constructive.
In other places on the Bulwark, they’ve spoken about how the unwillingness of the political/national security class to take seriously criticisms of the Israeli government’s human rights abuses has alienated people. The quickness with which they label people antisemitic for good faith discussions of the issue pushes possible coalition members to the extreme right or left. This podcast is very much guilty of this. I hope they can at least take a step back and reevaluate how they engage with some of these issues, because I appreciate having folks like this in the discussion, but for now this podcast is not constructive.
While certainly from a particular point-of-view and not stylistically everyone’s cup of tea, podcasts like Pod Save the World and some of the other Bulwark podcasts do a better job of wrestling with ideas and evaluating their own thinking. I recommend checking those out instead.
