I want to suggest another interview Monique did on her site with a Member of the European Parliament named Sophie In't Veld a few weeks back. In full disclosure, I have done some work with Sophie's office on and off over the years-long before the Cosmopolitan Globalist was even started. What I found intriguing about the interview as I always pictured Sophie as someone who like, myself wouldn't necessarily get along with some of the Cosmopolitan Globalists. Sophie is very a much a Euro-enthusiast and I think that is often viewed as being in conflict with trans-atlanticism. She also knows all of the ends and outs of the European Union in a way that few others do.
Anyways when I suggested this to Monique on Twitter she thought I was completely wrong and Sophie would get along fine with the political philosophies of people like Claire and Jon Nighswander but you can decide for yourself at the link below.
Hi Everyone, actually I had written that I thought Claire and Sophie would have a great conversation owing to the fact that both are highly articulate intelligent people. Whether they agreed on anything at all remains to be seen.
I'm very much in favour of the EU, and the changes uniform legislation in certain areas has brought to my own country were highly effective. If Italy is lagging behind in key sectors, it's due to historic problems within Italy and its inability to reform these inadequacies as well as a lack of vision, or rather, it's still a democratic state grappling with democracy. That we are a haven for populism on the radical right and left is no secret or a surprise.
Thanks for the response, Monique. Some of this ties back to an article I myself have been trying to write for the past few months which is basically about what are the impacts of Brexit and who has been helped and who has been hurt. At the moment I don't think we have enough evidence to come to that strong of conclusions which is why I have kept putting off writing my own article on the subject. However, I do think Brexit has damaged the idea of a more trans-Atlanticist Anglo-Saxon EU that is fairly deferential to the United States. Simply put post Brexit I do think the US in terms of pure power politics in Europe has had its interests hurt by Brexit. For example, I don't have the smoking gun evidence to prove it but I have strong reasons to believe that Britain's exit from the EU has made it more difficult to stop the NordStream 2 pipeline in Brussels. Another example that is fairly complex to explain but I think Deutsche Bank would have been in a lot more trouble over its ties to Trump and Russia if Britain had remained an EU member state.
On the other hand in the medium term, Brexit has probably made the idea of a more Federal EU one that takes on the characteristics of a nation-state or even a superpower more plausible(i.e. the type of Europe someone like Sophie In't Veld has long campaigned for). So I guess the question what type of Europe do you want or do you think the world should want.
Having now read Adam's piece in National Affair, I'm really trying to work my head around the historical role of Protestantism in deep literacy, versus the modern, very loud, Protestant voices who seem to be resistant of it. How have we gone from Luther's theological study to the shrieking Christian nationalists of January 6th? Adam's piece seems to suggest that a failure to engage with books could have dragged the American South to this dreadful place, stripping away the intellectual bravery of the early movement, leaving us with the trappings and baggage of religion but none of Luther's ingenuity and commitment to the individual. It sounds like this generation might be lost already, if these neural pathways have their foundations placed early. And God help you if you try to improve education in Alabama.
(I am also alarmed by the left fringe and their attempts to destroy books and subsume the individual as well.)
My head was swimming enough that I neglected to answer the question posed. I think value is going to be dictated by the consumer. I have the luxury of both time in my car to listen AND time in a chair to read, so I have the capacity to enjoy both. Without the podcast, I might have missed the articles, so they're interdependent. The greater value is that these conversations are taking place and being made available, regardless of format.
I don't think that Donald Trump says things that other people never even think. Merely, he gives voice to thoughts that many people entertain but are afraid to speak of. It was kind of the same thing with Rush Limbaugh when he first burst upon the scene. This is not necessarily a bad trait, but it is one of the ingredients of political demagoguery. As Hitler well knew, the appeal to people's worst instincts is one key to power. That's why democratic self-government and individual liberty depend upon institutions, checks and balances, the rule of law and so on: The better angels of our nature are all too corruptible. Pure 50% +1 democracy would be nothing more than the dictatorship of base instincts.
Both history and literature provide us with evidence of this—I think of Dostoevsky's terrifying vision—and their decline as academic disciplines is a worrying trend indeed.
I want to suggest another interview Monique did on her site with a Member of the European Parliament named Sophie In't Veld a few weeks back. In full disclosure, I have done some work with Sophie's office on and off over the years-long before the Cosmopolitan Globalist was even started. What I found intriguing about the interview as I always pictured Sophie as someone who like, myself wouldn't necessarily get along with some of the Cosmopolitan Globalists. Sophie is very a much a Euro-enthusiast and I think that is often viewed as being in conflict with trans-atlanticism. She also knows all of the ends and outs of the European Union in a way that few others do.
Anyways when I suggested this to Monique on Twitter she thought I was completely wrong and Sophie would get along fine with the political philosophies of people like Claire and Jon Nighswander but you can decide for yourself at the link below.
https://moniquecamarra.substack.com/p/renewing-europe-mep-int-veld
Hi Everyone, actually I had written that I thought Claire and Sophie would have a great conversation owing to the fact that both are highly articulate intelligent people. Whether they agreed on anything at all remains to be seen.
I'm very much in favour of the EU, and the changes uniform legislation in certain areas has brought to my own country were highly effective. If Italy is lagging behind in key sectors, it's due to historic problems within Italy and its inability to reform these inadequacies as well as a lack of vision, or rather, it's still a democratic state grappling with democracy. That we are a haven for populism on the radical right and left is no secret or a surprise.
Thanks for the response, Monique. Some of this ties back to an article I myself have been trying to write for the past few months which is basically about what are the impacts of Brexit and who has been helped and who has been hurt. At the moment I don't think we have enough evidence to come to that strong of conclusions which is why I have kept putting off writing my own article on the subject. However, I do think Brexit has damaged the idea of a more trans-Atlanticist Anglo-Saxon EU that is fairly deferential to the United States. Simply put post Brexit I do think the US in terms of pure power politics in Europe has had its interests hurt by Brexit. For example, I don't have the smoking gun evidence to prove it but I have strong reasons to believe that Britain's exit from the EU has made it more difficult to stop the NordStream 2 pipeline in Brussels. Another example that is fairly complex to explain but I think Deutsche Bank would have been in a lot more trouble over its ties to Trump and Russia if Britain had remained an EU member state.
On the other hand in the medium term, Brexit has probably made the idea of a more Federal EU one that takes on the characteristics of a nation-state or even a superpower more plausible(i.e. the type of Europe someone like Sophie In't Veld has long campaigned for). So I guess the question what type of Europe do you want or do you think the world should want.
Great listen, thank you.
Having now read Adam's piece in National Affair, I'm really trying to work my head around the historical role of Protestantism in deep literacy, versus the modern, very loud, Protestant voices who seem to be resistant of it. How have we gone from Luther's theological study to the shrieking Christian nationalists of January 6th? Adam's piece seems to suggest that a failure to engage with books could have dragged the American South to this dreadful place, stripping away the intellectual bravery of the early movement, leaving us with the trappings and baggage of religion but none of Luther's ingenuity and commitment to the individual. It sounds like this generation might be lost already, if these neural pathways have their foundations placed early. And God help you if you try to improve education in Alabama.
(I am also alarmed by the left fringe and their attempts to destroy books and subsume the individual as well.)
My head was swimming enough that I neglected to answer the question posed. I think value is going to be dictated by the consumer. I have the luxury of both time in my car to listen AND time in a chair to read, so I have the capacity to enjoy both. Without the podcast, I might have missed the articles, so they're interdependent. The greater value is that these conversations are taking place and being made available, regardless of format.
I don't think that Donald Trump says things that other people never even think. Merely, he gives voice to thoughts that many people entertain but are afraid to speak of. It was kind of the same thing with Rush Limbaugh when he first burst upon the scene. This is not necessarily a bad trait, but it is one of the ingredients of political demagoguery. As Hitler well knew, the appeal to people's worst instincts is one key to power. That's why democratic self-government and individual liberty depend upon institutions, checks and balances, the rule of law and so on: The better angels of our nature are all too corruptible. Pure 50% +1 democracy would be nothing more than the dictatorship of base instincts.
Both history and literature provide us with evidence of this—I think of Dostoevsky's terrifying vision—and their decline as academic disciplines is a worrying trend indeed.