Flux Podcasts (Formerly Theory of Change)

Flux Community Media

Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, Doomscroll, and The Electorette.

  1. 2D AGO

    ‘Abundance’ is neoliberalism redux

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit plus.flux.community Episode Summary  Whether it’s the SwiftBoat Veterans or Moms for Tyranny, right-wing groups are notorious for popping up overnight in American politics, but this past year saw something very unexpected, an organization and collection of people saying they support a politics of “abundance” headed by people who are often perceived as being on the leftward side of the political spectrum, writers Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. With its unhealthy obsession with bipartisanship, abundance politics is yet another example of pathological liberalism, but unfortunately, it’s worse than that. Scratch even a bit beneath the surface and you’ll realize that this endeavor is nothing more than neoliberalism rebranded—and paid for by the same reactionary billionaires who are bankrolling Donald Trump’s fascistic policies. Even worse, far-right activists are using the “abundance” branding as an attempt to market policies that harm Americans and democracy. The guest list at the Abundance Conference in DC earlier in September made this clear, featuring a speaker calling for “deportation abundance,” a governor who banned fluoride in public water, and a talk from an advocate of Trump’s illegal “Alligator Alcatraz” immigrant prison. Warmed-over libertarianism is not the answer to what ails America, but it is nonetheless the case that governments at the federal, state, and local levels are failing to serve the public in many ways. It’s too difficult to start businesses, it’s too difficult to receive public assistance, and it’s far too expensive to get college degrees. Kate Willett, my guest on today’s episode, has done the hard work of digging into the funding and the origins of the Abundance movement. She’s also a standup comedian and the co-host of the Dystopia Now podcast. This audio-only episode is for paid Flux subscribers only. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. Paid subscriptions are available only on Patreon and Substack. Related Content —The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ and the long history of right-wing re-branding —Republicans set up fake left political candidates for decades, here’s how they did it —How the ‘No Labels’ movement tried to divide and conquer Democratic voters —Americans want big ideas, but Trump’s opponents aren’t providing them —Inside the far-right origins of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency 🔒 —After labeling themselves as ‘centrists,’ Silicon Valley libertarians are embracing overt authoritarianism —How centrist elites blocked necessary change and enabled the far right 🔒 Audio Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 07:14 — Major ‘abundance’ figures and the perpetual influence of libertarianism 11:49 — Abundance is the libertarian attempt to re-brand neoliberalism 15:41 — Silicon Valley billionaires have rejected ‘small government’ approach 18:55 — The religious nature of techno-post-libertarianism 24:31 — Peter Thiel’s Antichrist obsession and René Girard 29:21 — ‘Dark Abundance,’ an explicit attempt to include fascism in the movement 39:24 — How corporate interests hijack positive YIMBY movements 43:43 — Building effective political coalitions 48:59 — Toward a fusionist left policies Audio Transcript Available only to paid subscribers

    6 min
  2. 5D AGO

    The Conservative Backlash Against Ballot Measures: : A Conversation with Kelly Hall

    Ballot measures have given voters the power to pass life-changing policies that lawmakers often won’t — from raising the minimum wage and expanding healthcare access, to protecting reproductive rights and curbing predatory payday lending. But now, the process itself is under threat. New Report: ATTACKS ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY DOUBLED IN 2025 Ballot Measure Rescue Campaign In this episode, I speak with Kelly Hall, Executive Director of The Fairness Project, about a new report showing how conservative lawmakers are working to undermine direct democracy. With nearly 150 bills introduced across the country, these efforts would make it harder for citizens to place initiatives on the ballot and harder to pass them once they’re there. We discuss what’s at stake, how these attacks are spreading, and why defending ballot measures is essential to protecting the will of the people. (00:01) Attacks on Direct Democracy Conservative lawmakers are attacking the ballot measure process, threatening direct democracy and silencing voters. (12:57) Undermining Direct Democracy Supermajority requirements, single-subject rules, and bureaucratic hurdles hinder direct democracy and civic engagement. (23:33) Arkansas Advocates Protecting Ballot Measures Missouri's political maneuvers target direct democracy and reproductive rights, including attempts to restrict abortion and gender-affirming care. (35:19) Protecting Direct Democracy Florida's restrictive ballot measures face challenges, but litigation and public support continue to protect direct democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    43 min
  3. 6D AGO

    To stop Trump’s authoritarianism, his opponents must understand and wield power

    Episode Summary  In a generic sense, everyone knows that politics is about power. But when you look at how America’s two major parties use the power that they have, there’s no question whatsoever that Republicans understand power politics while Democrats have a much more passive attitude toward it. This has been true since at least 1964 when a dedicated group of reactionaries took over the Republican party and installed their extremist candidate Barry Goldwater and proceeded to systematically cancel and remove anyone who stood in their way. Now during the second administration of Donald Trump, his extremist administration is pulling all the levers of power it can to cancel budgets, cancel people, and threaten anyone who stands in its way. In response, congressional Democratic leaders have mostly resorted to writing strongly worded letters which obviously isn’t cutting it. But what can be done? Karen Attiah, my guest on today’s episode has been thinking and writing a lot about power and why it’s necessary to protect freedom. And she has direct experience at what actual canceling looks like, having been fired from the Washington Post for accurately quoting the late Charlie Kirk. This came after she had a course canceled by Columbia University following her speaking out against Israel's genocide in Gaza and in favor of racial equality. Since the Columbia incident, Karen has started Resistance Summer School, a new effort to teach the history of democratic rights movements which she started after Columbia University canceled a course she was teaching after the university was targeted by dishonest attacks from far-right activists trying to censor students and instructors. And since being fired by the Post, Karen will be redoubling her writing efforts on Substack, so be sure to subscribe. This is the exactly correct response to authoritarianism. Dictatorship is not inevitable, but it wants you to think that it is. The American people did not stand for Disney’s suspension of its late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, and after millions of people canceled their subscriptions, it had to reinstate him. Important Note: Our conversation was recorded September 10, 2025, before Kirk was shot at a public event in Utah so we do not discuss her reaction to it. The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. Related Content —After centuries of intellectual dominance, liberalism has become uninterested in defending itself —Far-right media will attack the broader left for any reason, even completely fabricated ones —Trump beat Harris because Republicans have an ecosystem while Democrats have a coalition —JB Pritzker’s tough response to Trump’s authoritarian acts and his progressive policies are pointing a better way for Democrats —Americans want big ideas, even if they’re terrible ones —Republicans treat politics like viral marketing, Democrats don’t —History shows that right-wing activists never believed in free speech and that ‘cancel culture’ panic was only about seizing power Audio Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 10:30 — Universities' lost touch with the people is why many keep folding to authoritarianism 16:48 — The political right understands what power can do much better than the political left 22:01 — How living in Texas made Karen not suppose that reactionaries were serious about their ideas 31:01 — Liberals stopped explaining their ideas in an easy to understand way 39:18 — Democratic and other left leaders underestimate the power of religious community and knowing 47:09 — The personal, cult magnetism of Donald Trump 52:23 — There's little need to reach out to right-wing leaders, but some of their followers can be persuaded 59:56 — Fascism isn't inevitable, but you have to have a vision and a realization that power matters Audio Transcript The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: So you've got a number of interesting things you are doing lately, but one of them is you've got a class that was canceled by the actual cancel culture of Donald Trump from Columbia University that you are teaching independently now. So why don't we start off with you telling us about that. KAREN ATTIAH: Sure. Yeah. It's been such a wild time on so many, in so many levels. Yeah, probably most people might know me as a journalist and a columnist and editor for, the Washington Post, but deep down inside have always wanted to teach. I've always wanted to be an academic. Actually, I ended up a journalist, but but yeah, most people might not know. My background is actually in international affairs, so I went to Columbia as a graduate student and wanted to basically like work in the UN or World Bank or maybe, diplomatic service, that sort of thing. But that experience really made me question a lot about our systems, particularly our international affairs development systems. And while I was a grad student at Columbia School [00:04:00] for International and Public Affairs, I definitely questioned like, wait a second. Why aren't we learning anything about how race intersects with development and how we see the world, how people relate to one another? And I definitely was aware that what we were being taught was a very, very, very, not only Western centric, but a very kind of American centric view of the world. And I was going to school with people from all over the world. So I just saw that as a gap. And so ever since then, I was like, man, I would love to be able to teach. What I didn't get taught as a student, so probably in the pandemic. Yeah. Columbia was like, Hey would you teach specifically with the School of International Public Affairs was like, Hey, would you like to come teach? And I, I kind of did the Heisman on him, kept them at arms distance for a little bit because I, I was like, I'm not ready yet. I'm not ready yet. I'm not ready. But I was working on a syllabus on race and journalism. So I developed a syllabus for about two years or so before I finally said yes. Before I said yes to the dress, I guess, and decided to teach in 2020 for the spring of 2024. So a bit of context to that. I decided to come up with a course that explicitly looked at the development of kind of our ideas about race. Like all the way from. So 12th and 13th centuries to today, right? And looking at how this has always been a mediated process. So part of how, at a very basic level, how we develop ideas about who is us and who is them, who is like us and who is not, is through what we read, what we watch through photographs, all that stuff. So I basically explained to my students particularly when it comes to American media development of American media, that there's always been a link [00:06:00] between the relationship particularly of white colonists and European colonists and settlers with writing about non-whites without including them. And there's, there's evidence and, and really great work done about how. These early colonial papers actually made a lot of money pedaling stereotypes basically. So I ask a lot of my students, I'm like, huh, this sounds familiar, right? So fast forward a couple of months, of course went well and over-enrolled great reviews. And then I got a text message saying that my class was not going to be renewed for 2025. And obviously I was crushed. I mean, I never quite got a reason actually, whether it was. I mean, my costs over enrolled. I was also quite vocal about what I saw as Israel's assault on Palestinians during the time of the encampments and the protests that were happening at Columbia. So, and just in general, Matthew, I mean, I, I think I knew I, I cover race, I write about race. I've written about the attacks on critical white race theory and anti DEI, all of these sort of bogeyman attacks on anyone teaching about, and in particular the history of different racial groups. So I think I always kind of had a, I don't know, a bit of a, a, a, not a cloud per se, but just an, an awareness of the political climate, even at a place like Columbia. Right. I'd covered. Anti CRT efforts in Texas, in Oklahoma. And in my, the back of my mind, I think I always knew they're going to try to push this campaign all the way to the [00:08:00] top. And of course, as we've seen, it's reached the Ivys, right? So I think yeah, they canceled the costs. I was told to be quiet about it basically. So I sat on it for a couple of months, didn't say anything. People were like, you're going to hurt your career. Do you want to teach again? Don't, just wait, wait it out. And, then I saw, after Trump's victory and then I saw the attacks on DEI, I saw the, the pressure on campuses to basically, stop any programs on diversity, on DEI stop, anything that could be considered anti-white, basically, if we're going to be-- SHEFFIELD: Or pro Palestinian. Yeah. ATTIAH: Or pro-Palestinian. All of that to me is connected. I don't see these things as, separate issues at all. So yeah, earlier this spring, I just was like, wait, why am I sitting around waiting for permission to basically do, at the heart of what teaching is, me talking to a group of people, like at the heart of it, it's like we all teaching and education is, is just gathering a group of listeners, having a speaker and transmitting, communicating to them. And I'm like, I don't need telling me to do that. I, I can gather people under a tree, like, like, so yeah, I put it on in Bluesky., Would anybody be interested in, in taking this version of this course? And honestly, I would've been happy with 20 people. I would've been happy with 30 people. And something lik

    1h 10m
  4. Why everyone wants a piece of ancient Egypt

    SEP 19

    Why everyone wants a piece of ancient Egypt

    Episode Summary  I don't get to do a lot of ancient history episodes on this show, but I always love it when I get the chance, and that's because history is a mirror of the present. Not because we judge or even fully understand the people who lived in ancient times, but because they were humans just like we are now. Ancient Egypt has always had a magnetic pull. In ancient times, people were very interested in what the Egyptians were doing, and with good reason. In more recent times, Egypt has developed an aura of mystery, especially for followers of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter-day Saint movement. But there’s something even deeper than the hidden tombs and eternal life legends: A lesson of what makes us human, and what justice means. I'm pleased to be joined on this episode by Kara Cooney. She is a professor of Egyptology at the University of California Los Angeles, and she's written a number of interesting books on its history. We’ll be talking about some of the themes in one of these books in particular called The Good Kings: Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern World. She's also the host of the podcast Afterlives of Ancient Egypt, which will soon be appearing in the Flux podcast feed. The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. Theory of Change and Flux are listener supported. We need your help to keep going. Please subscribe to stay in touch! Related Content --Kara’s “Out of Egypt” mini-series --The ancient Greek Skeptic traditions have renewed relevance in an age of misinformation and propaganda --Why pluralism was the biggest Renaissance invention --Inside the demon-haunted world of Christian fundamentalism --The desire to submit to authority is as old as humanity itself 🔒 --Susan Sontag’s essay, “Against Interpretation” Audio Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 04:40 — Ancient Egyptians were regular people, even though it's easy to forget 14:11 — A brief overview of ancient Egyptian history 20:35 — The Exodus narrative and historical evidence 28:33 — The fall of civilizations and modern parallels 32:11 — Mormonism's Book of Abraham and Egyptian lore 38:53 — Religious neo-orthodoxy and Susan Sontag's "Against Interpretation" 45:08 — Akhenaten's religious revolution 52:16 — The Ma'at goddess and wisdom traditions 01:02:17 — Universal human understanding of fairness 01:05:55 — Conclusion Audio Transcript The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: It's great to have you, but for people who don't know you, Kara, tell us give us a little background on some of the research that you've done. What do you do in Egyptology? KARA COONEY: I've been in the field now for 30 years, which is terrifying, but I started my PhD work in 1994. So there we are. My work started with Social competition and rich people competing with each other. And I did that through the lens of coffin research. So I will forever be associated with coffins and I call myself ‘Coffin Girl’ sometimes, which is strange. But, it's amazing what you can learn from a coffin as a social document. And that's been the gift that keeps on giving because I now am embedded in coffin reuse research. So I look at how rich people would take other rich dead people out of their coffins, and they might have been related to them, they might not have been, but they will reuse those coffins for— SHEFFIELD: Oh my God. COONEY: —freshly rich dead people. And it's very much associated with collapse and crisis and ripping up social contracts and, drought and collapse, which I think are very much on the mines. Of people today. And so that work on coffin reuse has been very topical and helped me to see what we're going through, what it means, how long such collapses last, when they're the worst, things like that. [00:04:00] And then the more—I won't say it's happy and fuzzy because it's not—but the more popular side of my work is on women in power. I teach a very popular class at UCLA called Women in Power in the Ancient World. And that has driven me to work on a number of books. One on Hatshepsut, another on six queens of the ancient world, five of whom became king. And then I'm working on a book about Nefertiti right now, which is damn is it hard to get through all of that scholarship and try to determine what my story shall be. I feel the weight of that book as I'm working on it now. So that's me in a nutshell. Ancient Egyptians were regular people, even though it's easy to forget SHEFFIELD: Okay. And then, so all, if you could also talk about just like some of the challenges that are kind of unique about studying Egyptian history compared to some of the more well, COONEY: Yeah. SHEFFIELD: Longer known historical please. COONEY: There, there are so many I, shall start with the over idealizing of Ancient Egypt. By us, by them, by everyone. It's a place that Herodotus said was more religious than any other, that the Egyptians were more religious than any other people. It's a place that perfected political propaganda through religious means. And because of that, we're, it's hard for us to then pull the veil aside and see authoritarianism instead of religious belief and freedom of religion and or to see a more cynical, brutal patriarchal taking rather than a fatherly guidance. And that is indeed why I wrote the book, the Good Kings, which annoyed many of my colleagues. But that book is about how we egyptologists and really the public at large, particularly in the western world, since the discovery of Alman and before that, since [00:06:00] Napoleon entered Egypt and created the description on do we really feel like we, we are connected to these people. But to have me come along and then say, you're drinking the Kool-Aid, you're becoming an apologist for these ancient kings. It's, a problem. So, I am exposing something. That is our positivism of this history at the same time, then what do you do? This is what people will say. Students will say it to me. Other colleagues will say, well, we have all of this documentation, we have these written records. How do you then parse them if what you've been given is not necessarily something that you can trust? and I say to that, well, what do you do with the Romans when they give you, you know that they're lying to you half the time? You know that every speech that somebody is giving, whether it's Mark Antony, or Cicero, has an alternative agenda. So how do you deal with that? And we need to deal with the Egyptians more in that way, but not with the politics we understand in our gut, but with a religious politics that really tries to transcend any sort of worldly grappling. And I think that's been something that I'm very much drawn to working through. But it's not easy. It's not easy to do. It demands a lot of hypothesizing from me, which means. Other scholars are like, well, now you're just making stuff up. And I have to say, well, what do you think you're going to get from King Kim Jong-Un's regime? what do you think you're going to get from a closed authoritarian regime where things happen seriously in a back smoky incense filled room? What do you, how are you going to solve this? And so that has been the really, the purpose of my career, revealing power that does not want to be revealed in a way that breaks many of the rules of scholarly training. And I, take joy in doing that. So, SHEFFIELD: Yeah. And let's talk about this a little bit more though, because, I, I think an [00:08:00] unsophisticated critique of what you're doing, Kara, is that you're engaging in presentism, but in fact, not what you're doing. COONEY: No, it's not. no. I've been, accused of being universalist. And one, it was a very important book review written by Christina Riggs in the Times Literary Supplement of my first popular book on Hot. She, and she even quotes the scene that made her think that I was being universalist, where I talk about Hatshepsut's birth of her daughter. And, I made it a human visceral experience. And I talked about the blood and the shit and the screams and what any birth is like. And tried to imagine hot shep's, it's emotional state when she gave birth to a girl. I can't know any of these things. I say in the text that I don't know any of these things, but I was accused of being universalist, which you take to heart because it means that you're imposing your own scholarly ideals on or present way of living upon the ancient world. And what it instead I am trying to do is to un-fetishize The ancient Egyptians have been wholly separated from us as these people, as Zhi Haas would say. The, most famous egyptologists right now are people of magic and mystery. And, if you're a people of magic and mystery, then you've set them aside and you, don't treat them as we are. They are somehow different. And we do this with the ancient world quite a bit, but particularly with the ancient world, we feel less connected to. We particularize them. We, make the work about that particularism and we demand it. We say that, oh, you can't compare this and that because this is within this space. And these people were of their time and thinking of their time. And then I come up around and say. No, I can use the word harem. I understand it's an oriental imposition. I understand it was created by the Ottoman regime to explain their collection of young women for one man and the intensification of his birth [00:10:00] regime. But I think that the ancient Egyptians had a similar system. Was it different in particularities? Yes. Should I compare it? Yes. Because the same thing is happening to women

    1h 12m
  5. SEP 17

    Has liberalism become pathological?

    Episode Summary  For many years, non-Americans have assumed that the right-wing extremism that has powered the political career of Donald Trump was just an American phenomenon. But this is simply untrue. Far-right parties have been elected in nations like Italy, Poland and Hungary, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government is a coalition of openly racist and genocidal parties. And for the first time in modern history, far-right political parties are placing first in public opinion surveys in the UK, France, and Germany. These trends aren’t in place in every country, of course, but they do suggest that there is something deeply wrong with left liberalism as practiced in many nations. That’s especially true in the UK where Labour Party prime minister Keir Starmer has been systematically ceding policy ground to reactionaries like Nigel Farage in a way that would make even Chuck Schumer blush. Both Democrats and Labour seem to be operating under the impression that making concessions to the right wing will somehow mollify voters but the voting data keeps showing that this does not work. How has liberalism become so moribund? Is it a misunderstanding of how politics works, simple cowardice, or something deeply pathological about liberalism’s philosophical approach to governance versus politicking? I’d argue that it’s all of these things, and joining me in this episode to discuss is Toby Buckle, he’s host of the Political Philosophy Podcast and columnist who’s written recently about the lingering negative impact of the philosopher John Rawls. We also discuss the concept of “reactionary centrism,” a term that some American progressives have been using to describe people who self-describe as liberal but seem to almost never criticize the radical right. I don’t think it’s an accurate term, even though I agree that it describes something very real. The video of this episode is available, the transcript is below. Because of its length, some podcast apps and email programs may truncate it. Access the episode page to get the full text. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere. Related Content —Democrats won’t be able to defeat Trumpism without constantly telling the public about its awfulness —How far-right Christians replaced Jesus with Nietzsche —JB Pritzker standing up for Chicago and civil rights is the model for Democrats to follow —Politics has become more about psychology than ideology, but the broader left has failed to realize this —Reactionaries will always invent ‘phantom libs’ to be angry at —Republicans treat politics like viral marketing, Democrats do not —Americans want big ideas, but Trump’s opponents aren’t providing them Audio Chapters 00:00 — Introduction 03:48 — John Rawls: A philosopher whose liberalism doesn't work in the 21st century 06:18 — Liberalism's unearned sense of victory 09:25 — Conservatism has lost its post-WWII memory of why fascism is terrible and stupid 18:32 — Immanuel Kant's hollowing out of liberalism 25:23 — An introduction to "reactionary centrism" via UK prime minister Keir Starmer 37:16 — Isn't reactionary centrism mostly just conservatism? 49:44 — Sam Harris and libertarianism masquerading asz liberalism 01:00:53 — The bad politics of popularism 01:09:47 — Most people vote according to values, not according to policies 01:20:08 — Reactionary centrism encompasses conservatism, pathological liberalism, and the amoral 01:25:01 — What the positive liberal case looks like Audio Transcript The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only. MATTHEW SHEFFIELD: And joining me now is Toby Buckle. Hey, Toby, welcome to Theory of Change. TOBY BUCKLE: Hey, Matthew, thanks for having me. SHEFFIELD: Yes, good to have you. Well, so we have a lot to discuss here. I will confess that some of my favorite episodes are the political philosophy episodes. Because, as John Maynard Keynes said, the ideas of dead economists and philosophers animate things much more than people realize. And so-- BUCKLE: "Madmen in authority, hearing voices in the air are usually distilling their their fervor from some academic scribbler." SHEFFIELD: Yep, that is right. Yeah. And to that end though, you published two pieces that I think are, worth discussing together. The first one that you came out with was a discussion of [00:04:00] the political philosopher John Rawls, who is somebody who I suspect a lot of people have never heard of. But this guy has a lot of influence on both the UK and the US. So, if you could maybe give a little background for people who aren't familiar with him and then we can go from there. BUCKLE: Yeah, it's an interesting dichotomy isn't it, in that if you are in political theory, he will be talked about as the most important liberal political philosopher of the 20th century. Possibly the most important political philosopher sort of period, certainly of the latter half. And yet it's not a household name, right? Rawls has never had the cut through of a Marx, or Rousseau, or something like that. Crowds have never gathered in the streets, chatting his slogans. He has had something of an influence at the elite level. So I use Obama as an example. Obama has clearly read Rawls and cites him a few times. It's also the type of thinking that would show up in, something like Supreme Court judgments. Something like Planned Parenthood versus Casey is quite Rawlsian in its reasoning. So there's a lot going on with Rawls. And I'm sort of happy to get into whatever particular areas he wrote big books like, like Theory of Justice is a doorstopper, Political Liberalism is a doorstopper. These came out in the late seventies and early nineties respectively, to give you an idea of timeframe. But the idea I really zeroed in on is this idea of neutrality. It's actually not how Rawls himself describes it, but it's how we sort of talk about it now. At its simplest, it's the idea that liberalism or the liberal state should be something like the referee of politics, neutrally, fairly deciding siding [00:06:00] between different players in the game, something like that. And I argued, I think that is a way of understanding liberalism that was always a bit confused, but is particularly maladaptive in the current moment. But there's, a lot of other stuff to Rawls as well. Liberalism's unearned sense of victory SHEFFIELD: This idea of neutrality though that it sees, liberalism as sort of having assumed the default position of all of reasoning and society, science, et cetera, and says, okay, so therefore now that we won our job is to manage this situation. And and to, be the, referee, as you said, between the all, between all the sides and all, the constituencies. And to position ourselves as above, above it all in a lot of ways. BUCKLE: Yeah. So one issue I'd take with that, I'm not saying you are arguing with it, but with that characterization is, yeah, I think that's exactly right. We've won, now everyone's playing the same game, and so now will be the referee. I think that's sort of the thought process of, like I say, elite liberals. This probably wasn't something that, like a proverbial man on the street thought, but elite, Supreme Court justices, right? Yeah. Stevens was huge on neutrality, for instance. The problem with that is he didn't win, like people talk about liberal hegemony or the liberal world order, but what, liberal hegemony, what liberal world order, the American constitutional design is partially liberal, but partially influenced by other philosophies are. Society is partially liberal, but partially conservative, partially reactionary. Liberal and what liberal world order, like if you look at the governments around the world, there's only a handful of liberal [00:08:00] ones. They're mostly conservative author or authoritarian regimes. Like liberalism is one power of amongst many. I don't mean to say it's powerless. We have the ability to get our views out there. We have the ability to wield power. We have the ability to fight, but it's not as if we suddenly reached a point sometime in the nineties or whenever one imagines this to be where liberalism just won. I don't think that sort of. Victory is possible, but yet that is one of the things that this worldview imagines, or perhaps to put it more charitably, it imagines a fundamental pluralism of comprehensive worldviews, but that there can be a point in the middle what Ians call an overlapping consensus on which everyone agrees. The center of the Venn diagram where everyone agrees to the basic rules of the constitutional order and that will be stable and permanent. That's sort of the Rawlsian project, and to a degree through like, like I say, maybe the nineties, the early two thousands, you could kind of look at the world and maybe see that like everyone bought into the same set of rules to an extent, but I think it was always a bit elusory to think that consensus could ever be stable or permanent. You get moments of overlap and then moments where they pull apart again. Conservatism has lost its post-WWII memory of why fascism is terrible and stupid SHEFFIELD: You do. And I think the reason that they had this illusion was that, that the political right after Nazim and fascism basically decided, oh, well we can't support these people because they are violent criminals. And so they stopped supporting them. Like that's ultimately what happened. But the, memory of that was lost over time. And you see that pretty much in every country. The further away [00:10:00] we get from World War II and the historical, personal, literal memory of fascism, the conservative mind seems more willing to to make common cause with it. I think this is what we're seeing here. and the problem for, Rawls and other mi

    1h 31m
  6. SEP 15

    The Double Tax: Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman on the Hidden Costs Women of Color Pay

    In the past three months, more than 300,000 Black women have left the labor force. Economist and author Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman calls this the double tax—the compounded burden of being both a woman and a person of color in an economy designed to take more and give less. From higher prices for haircare and beauty products, to childcare that consumes a larger share of income, to systemic barriers in jobs, salaries, housing, and wealth—these hidden costs fall on women of color across the board. But for Black women, they are especially stark, leaving them with fewer opportunities, lower pay, higher living costs, and far less generational wealth than their white counterparts. Her groundbreaking book, The Double Tax: How Women of Color Are Overcharged and Underpaid, shows how these inequities aren’t incidental—they’re structural. And unless they’re confronted, everyone pays the price. (00:01) The Double Tax on Black Women Black women's "double tax" in labor force discussed with author Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, emphasizing solutions and self-advocacy. (07:06) Cost of Hair Emotional and Financial Perceived progress in racial equality, false sense of progress, hair burdens for Black women, generational trauma and societal expectations. (13:58) Navigating Beauty Standards as Black Women Growing up in predominantly Black and white educational environments, facing anti-Blackness and challenges in PWIs, finding representation and redefining beauty standards. (22:01) The Double Tax on Beauty Standards Representation and accessibility in the beauty industry for Black and Asian American women, highlighting the "double tax" and need for inclusive representation. (34:03) The Double Tax in the Workplace Legislation is needed to combat hair discrimination in the workplace, along with addressing white beauty standards and the "double tax" faced by Black professionals. (41:41) Power Dynamics and Motherhood Impact Proximity to power is unequal among races and genders, with white men dominating top professions and Black women facing the most barriers. (47:11) The Burden of Motherhood Motherhood's financial burden, childcare costs, Black women as breadwinners, and the impact of technology on education and employment. (01:01:19) The Cost of Womanhood Empowering women at all stages, advocating for oneself, and the cost of womanhood are discussed in a heartfelt chapter. #DoubleTax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    1h 4m
4.8
out of 5
62 Ratings

About

Flux is a progressive podcast platform, with daily content from shows like Theory of Change, Doomscroll, and The Electorette.

You Might Also Like