Skip to content
Artwork for Concepts with Shawn Whatley

Concepts with Shawn Whatley

Shawn Whatley

Uncovering the concepts behind current events. Challenging accepted thinking. Offering solutions. shawnwhatley.substack.com

Play
  • 22 episodes
  • weekly
  • Avg 1 hr 6 min
  • English
Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.
  • #106
    Tuesday · 1 hr 4 min

    Post-Liberalism and the Common Good (with Prof. James Wood) #111

    Post-liberalism hasn't been tried and found wanting. It's been found confusing and left untouched in Canada. Post-liberalism has been around since the 1980s in theology and at least since the 1990s in politics. It only became popular in the 2010s. Conservatives need to go deep into post-liberal thought. We need to know what bits align with intellectual conservatism and what elements of post-liberalism may never fit. We need to understand the elements of policy that might flow from different branches of post-liberalism. We can't simply dismiss it as nothing but collectivism. Dr. James Wood is a professor of religion and theology at Redeemer University (Ontario Canada) with a deep interest and understanding of post-liberalism. The article we discuss isn't posted online yet. I will endeavour to add a link when it's available. Let me know what you think! Thanks again Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Professor James Wood about his review of Stefan Borg’s book The Return of the Common Good and the wider post-liberal conversation. Wood recounts how his Christian conversion, dissatisfaction with market logic in finance, and early moral concerns (including abortion) led him to critiques of liberal atomistic individualism and liberal “neutrality.” He traces post-liberal roots to 1980s–90s communitarianism (e.g., Sandel, MacIntyre, Taylor), post-liberal theology influenced by Barth (Frei, Lindbeck), and figures like Milbank and Hauerwas, and distinguishes British from contemporary American post-liberal currents (national populists, common-good conservatives, integralists). The discussion argues liberalism tends toward autonomy maximization, depends on pre-liberal virtues it can’t sustain (the Böckenförde dilemma), and treats liberalism as a political theology and “prodigal child” of Christendom, with Wood emphasizing an ecclesiocentric, church-centered post-liberalism. 00:00 Liberalism And Autonomy 01:01 Episode Setup And Stakes 01:52 Guest Introduction 03:12 Wood’s Postliberal Journey 07:10 Communitarians And Radical Orthodoxy 11:58 Postliberal Theology Roots 16:16 Milbank And Hauerwas Bridge 20:50 Barth And Political Theology 25:15 British Vs American Postliberalism 30:36 Common Good Debates 34:26 Liberalism and Common Good 35:33 State Power and Virtue 36:42 Shared Logos and Dilemma 39:55 Desire and Modernity 44:24 Liberal Separations Critique 48:24 Neutral State Myth 55:12 Heresy and Freedom 01:00:38 Post Liberal Revolutions 01:02:52 Church and Politics Finale

  • #105
    August 25 · 58 min

    Is Western Civilization Already Dead? Danny Randell on Secularization, Tradition, and Renewing the West #110

    Marshall McLuhan said we were sleepwalking through civilizational change. Danny Randell, PhD student in intellectual history at University of Buckingham, says Western civilization is already dead. Conservatives have been telling us to wake up decades before anyone had heard of being woke. But Randell doesn't offer the same old, dour observations. He confronts the most dire predictions, then he gets to work trying to rescue Western civilization from itself. Danny Randell gives me hope. He is part of a new, young cohort of conservative builders and thinkers. Please consider subscribing to his Foundations Forum and check out some of his writing below. And let me know what you think! Thanks again, Shawn Western Civilization is Already Dead In Search of the Public Houses Against John Stuart Mill Chapters and AI summary: Shawn Whatley interviews Danny Randell, a doctoral student in intellectual history at the University of Buckingham and managing director of Foundations Forum, about his claim that “Western civilization is already dead,” arguing that the inherited norms and mores many associate with the West—often remembered as strong in the 1990s—no longer exist in the same form amid rapid cultural change, crime, altered education, and declining affordability. Randell outlines his PhD research on the shift from religious toleration to secular pluralism in Britain and Canada, discusses how axiomatic ideas can drive secularization, and explores breaks from tradition since the 1960s, including the sexual revolution and family breakdown. They debate liberalism, John Stuart Mill, neutrality and the state, factionalism, and civic education, and conclude with Randall’s call for communal “public houses” and his Foundations Forum newsletter and events aimed at recovering Western intellectual, spiritual, and cultural heritage. 00:00 Western Civilization Dead 00:41 Meet Danny Randell 01:33 PhD Secular Pluralism 03:22 Axioms Drive Secularization 04:28 Trends Advertising Fashion 06:09 Why The West Feels Gone 09:36 Nineties Politics Shift 10:54 History Connection Breaks 14:37 Twentieth Century Upheaval 20:30 Freedom Discipline Debate 23:51 Mill Debating Club Rules 27:45 Athens Meets Jerusalem 30:25 Beyond Law and Property 31:08 Hobbes and New Leviathans 32:59 Civic Education and State Role 34:30 Myth of Neutral State 38:39 Conflict and Strongmen 40:14 Factionalism and Shared Good 42:59 Disagree Better in Politics 45:50 Public Houses and Community 52:35 Foundations Forum Mission 57:23 Subscribe and Closing

  • #104
    August 18 · 56 min

    Éric Zemmour’s “The Suicide of France” with Dr. Nathan Pinkoski | Progressivism, EU, and Western Decline #109

    In France, the progressive Left has invented a new history, identity, and legal framework. French people no longer feel at home. The France they knew has disappeared. Sound familiar? We need to pay attention to other countries, especially those in Europe. A similar process is happening in North America. There's no reason, yet, to see why we don't end up in the same place. Dr. Nathan Pinkoski has spent years studying French and Anglo-American political thought. This is his third book translated from French into English, and he offers insights you won't get from other sources. Check out Zemmour's The Suicide of France: The Quiet Revolution That Destroyed a Nation And let me know what you think -- thanks again! Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Nathan Pinkoski about his English translation of Éric Zemmour’s 2014 bestseller The Suicide of France, a 140,000-word political nonfiction “literary event” that sold 500,000 copies in months and helped set the stage for Zemmour’s 2022 presidential run. Pinkoski explains Zemmour’s method of “deconstructing the deconstructors” through 42 episodic vignettes that flip post–May 1968 progressive “moments of progress” into accounts of national decline, rooted in an elite revolt against de Gaulle’s legacy. They discuss why this style fits France’s more unified literary/TV culture, contrast it with North America’s fragmented narratives, and compare it to works like Allan Bloom and Christopher Caldwell. The conversation covers shifts in capitalism, class, feminism, judicial activism, laïcité, the EU as a neoliberal borderless project, loss of political control, and Zemmour’s call for the West to recover Greco-Roman and Christian roots. 00:00 Zemmour Book Phenomenon 01:35 Meet the Guest 03:54 Breaking French Progressivism 07:46 Why It Became a Bestseller 10:33 Could It Work in America 16:54 Events Ideas Method 21:46 EU Neoliberal Dream 33:29 America and French Mimicry 40:19 Laicite vs Religious Freedom 45:52 Universalism and Western Roots 55:48 Closing Thanks

  • #103
    August 11 · 1 hr 46 min

    Jonah Goldberg on Populism, Elites, and Why Liberal Democracy Is “Unnatural” #108

    Jonah Goldberg never leaves you wondering what he thinks. Clear, bold, and exciting, Goldberg makes politics more fun than should be allowed. Goldberg has been a keen observer of conservative politics for nearly four decades. You might say he was the voice of Republicanism in America before President Donald Trump. He thinks deeply, reads widely, and is willing to change his mind. Don't miss this episode withJonah Goldberg, witty, thoughtful, and entertaining as always. From his website: "Jonah Goldberg is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he holds the Asness Chair in Applied Liberty. In 2019, he left National Review magazine after a 21-year stint to cofound The Dispatch, where he is Editor-in-Chief. He has been a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times since 2005 and a nationally syndicated columnist since 2000. He hosts the popular podcast The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg. His syndicated column appears regularly in many of America’s leading newspapers. His first book, Liberal Fascism, was a #1 New York Times and Amazon bestseller and was selected as the #1 history book of 2008 by Amazon readers. His second book, The Tyranny of Clichés, was also an instant bestseller and hailed as perhaps “the best and most fun-to-read primer on the tenets of conservative politics since P. J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores.” His most recent book, Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy, was also a New York Times bestseller in 2018." Thanks for checking this out! Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Jonah Goldberg clarifies his consistent dislike of populism while distinguishing between necessary elites and irresponsible or hypocritical ones. He argues conservatism is rooted in prudence, trade-offs, and Burkean skepticism of one-size-fits-all principles, warning that ideologies claiming all good things align invite authoritarianism. Goldberg critiques technocracy and “value-neutral” pragmatism as rhetorical games used to short-circuit debate, linking moral-equivalent-of-war politics from Wilson through the New Deal to modern progressivism. He explains his idea that “complexity is a subsidy,” rewarding those with cognitive, financial, and social capital and fueling resentment. In discussing Suicide of the West, he argues capitalism, democracy, and rights are “unnatural” historical achievements deserving gratitude. He condemns Trump-era right-wing dishonesty, audience capture, and the erosion of character standards, and briefly addresses Canada’s politics and Trump’s treatment of Canada. 00:00 Populism and Elites 00:58 Poverty Wealth and Complexity 02:52 Trump and Character Test 03:21 Conservatism and Contradiction 05:42 Fusionism Tradeoffs and Prudence 08:51 One Thingism and Triage 13:46 Liberal Fascism Cover Controversy 16:42 New Right and Illiberal Turn 23:10 State Cannot Love You 23:45 Microcosm vs Macrocosm 32:42 Complexity as Subsidy Revisited 36:54 Tyranny of Cliches and Values 38:18 Values in Government 39:05 Liberal vs Progressive Labels 41:30 Word Games and Cliches 43:57 Pragmatism and Technocracy 48:47 Crisis Politics and War 51:12 New Deal as Mobilization 53:09 Elitism vs Populism 56:26 Tea Party Lessons 58:47 Defining Elite and Oligarchy 01:04:34 Institutions and Staying Lanes 01:06:21 Unnatural Miracle of Modernity 01:12:05 Hockey Stick Prosperity 01:14:49 French vs English State 01:15:32 Straussian Theology Questions 01:16:29 God And Rights 01:18:29 Locke And Liberal Origins 01:22:59 Culture Over Intellectuals 01:24:41 Ideas Lag Reality 01:28:44 Trump And Right Wing Capture 01:38:00 Power Corrupts Intellectuals 01:42:47 Canada And Trump Fallout 01:46:13 Closing Thanks

  • #102
    August 4 · 1 hr 7 min

    Country Before Party: Patriotism, Carney, Anti-Americanism, & Conservative Future w Dimpee Brar & Matt Spoke #107

    Social media posts about conservative debates aim at the sizzle but miss the substance. Dimpee Brar and Matt Spoke invest a ton of their own time and resources into saving Canada from Leftist nonsense. They aren't just offering opinions devoid of effort. Is patriotism a 'conservative value' that demands devotion to Canada, even when Canada is ignoble? Should we defend the prime minister, because his office deserves respect? Do separatists deserve an audience, or should we denounce them outright? The Canadian non-Left is a coalition. It includes people with major differences in opinion. It's what makes the Right more exciting than the Left, in my opinion. Brar and Spoke offer attractive examples of the best in the conservative movement in Canada. Make sure you check out their other work too! A Grateful Canadian's Love Letter to America, by Dimpee Brar Country Before Party, by Matt Spoke Let me know what you think! Thanks again, Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley moderates a discussion with Dimpee Brar and Matt Spoke about whether opposing Prime Minister Mark Carney can be patriotic, how Canadian conservatives should balance “country before party,” and why anti-Americanism is a weak basis for national unity. Brar argues Western patriotism rests on truth, justice, and reason, claims the Liberal project has dethroned reason in favor of resentment, and contends Carney lacks loyalty and has stoked anti-American sentiment while being trapped by it in trade talks; she favors deeper Canada–U.S. alignment and views Trump as a model for pushing back against leftism and relativism. Spoke agrees it’s patriotic to fight flawed domestic leadership but urges a united international posture, rejects both anti-American tactics and separatist/annexation talk, and says Trump widened what conservatives can openly address while warning against importing Trump as Canada’s template. 00:00 Patriotism and Carney 00:26 Country Before Party 02:17 Western Patriotism Explained 03:46 Welcome and Guests 05:07 Twitter Spat Origins 08:47 Truth Above Nation 11:49 Matt’s Loyalty Argument 18:00 Principles Versus Interests 19:29 Carney and Trade Deal Doubts 25:47 Is Anti Carney Patriotic 29:45 Anti Americanism and Annexation Talk 33:24 Who Belongs in the Right 34:59 Conservatism vs Separatism 36:34 Country Before Ideology 37:57 Hyphenated Conservatism Debate 39:23 Relativism and Trump Model 46:29 Can Trump Save Canada 47:42 Overton Window and Leadership 53:11 Trump Space to Build 01:01:11 Outsiders and Patriot Fight 01:03:59 Socrates and Common Good 01:06:38 Coalition Closing Thanks

  • #101
    July 28 · 1 hr 10 min

    Rusty Reno on the Crisis of Solidarity, Post-Liberalism, and Quebec’s Bill 21 #106

    Rusty Reno offers insight into "our crisis of solidarity" that I haven't found anywhere else. In his book Return of the Strong Gods, he tackles the post-WWII liberal consensus that Karl Popper called The Open Society. It is an essential resource to help you understand our times. Reno is also articulate on post-liberalism. It's not the simplistic idea you see dismissed in most of the legacy media. We also touch on secularism, and I tried to get him to use the contrast between Catholic and Protestant political theology to explain the issues in Quebec over Bill 21. He's too smart and didn't take the bait. I hope you enjoy this one. Let me know what you think! Thanks again Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Rusty Reno, editor of First Things and author of Return of the Strong Gods (2019; updated 2021), on how liberalism struggles to generate solidarity amid a “meta-crisis” of disintegration. Reno explains his critique of the postwar “open society” consensus shaped by Popper and Hayek and unpacks “neoliberalism” as a left-right, technocratic, globalization-era economic and cultural project that promoted openness, porous borders, and creative destruction, helping set the stage for populist backlash where immigration fuses economic and cultural concerns. They discuss universalism vs particularism, the “order of loves,” and why civic loyalty and a “pre-political we” matter for freedom. The conversation also addresses post-liberalism’s varieties, liberalism’s limits, and Quebec’s laïcité/Bill 21 tensions in a multicultural society. 00:00 Liberalism Lacks Solidarity 00:52 Meet Rusty Reno 01:16 Episode Roadmap 03:45 Rock Climbing Icebreaker 05:13 Introducing Strong Gods 07:04 Praise Words And God Terms 10:07 Neoliberalism And Weakening 15:42 Populism And Open Society 21:47 Universalism Versus Particularism 27:01 Political We And Self Interest 32:39 Crisis Of Disintegration 33:41 Canada And Multicultural Identity 34:34 Freedom and Solidarity 36:07 Critiques of Liberal Mind 37:28 Defining Post Liberalism 38:43 Post Liberal Theology Roots 42:55 Liberalism Not Enough 43:50 War Immigration Nationalism 46:45 Totalitarianism Debate 48:43 Quebec Bill 21 Laicite 55:10 Multiculturalism Managed Diversity 59:41 Republican We and Civic Virtue 01:02:04 Platonism and Real Nations 01:06:38 Metaphysical Density and Youth 01:10:34 Closing Thoughts and Farewell

  • #100
    July 21 · 1 hr 25 min

    Quebec’s Secularism Debate Explained: Bill 21, Laïcité, and Canada’s Two Solitudes w Lisa Richmond #105

    Profound political differences exist between national and cultural traditions. This episode is an introduction to the 4-part audio documentary created by Cardus: The Nation and the Veil: Quebec’s Struggle with Secularism and Religion. A few hightlights: 1. French republicanism carries markedly different presuppositions than English liberal traditions. 2. We cannot ignore the political differences the follow from a Catholic vs Protestant starting point. 3. Language matters, e.g., freedom of conscience implies freedom to think as one sees fit, in French, and it means freedom on understanding of moral issues, in an Anglo-American tradition. 4. Why is Bill 21, Quebec's so-called secularism bill, so interesting today, when it wouldn't have been conceived in the 1960s? Tons of essential political concepts in this episode! Tell me what you think. I hope you get a chance to listen and check out the whole Nation and the Veil series. Thanks for listening! Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Lisa Richmond (VP of Research at Cardus) about Cardus’s four-part audio documentary, "The Nation and the Veil: Quebec’s Struggle with Secularism and Religion," created over three years with Jean-Christophe Jasmyn and Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard to help English and French Canadians better understand Quebec and Bill 21. Richmond explains laïcité as a state-religion framework grounded in four principles: separation of church and state, equality of citizens, freedom of religion, and state religious neutrality. They compare Anglo-American liberalism and French republicanism, discuss how Protestant and Catholic histories shape fears of state vs religious power, trace Quebec’s church-state history through the Quebec Act and the Quiet Revolution, and explore why secularism and pluralism have become defining political questions alongside sovereignty, including differences in how “conscience” is understood in French and English. 00:00 Why Quebec Secularism Matters 03:04 Welcome and Episode Overview 05:17 Inside the Audio Documentary 09:42 Defining Laïcité 13:07 French Republican vs Anglo Liberal 21:19 Locke Rousseau and Minorities 26:38 Catholic vs Protestant Secular Fears 37:48 How Quebec Became Catholic State 42:47 Church Runs Society 43:46 Governance Vacuum After Conquest 45:48 Church Role Reconsidered 47:26 Common Law Versus Civil 49:41 Great Darkness Explained 51:23 Quiet Revolution Reframed 55:11 Laïcité Political Flip 58:23 Bear Pelt Metaphor 01:03:14 Secularism Versus Sovereignty 01:09:40 Conscience And Common Good 01:17:44 Canada Two Solitudes 01:24:16 Closing Plug And Thanks

  • #99
    July 14 · 1 hr 18 min

    Eric Kaufmann on Ethical Populism, Woke Extremism, and the Limits of Multiculturalism #104

    The data and demographic argument in support of slowing immigration is overwhelming. Even when people enjoy new neighbours, it takes years to build understanding and trust. Canada, especially, has pretended that demography and assimilation don't matter. All that matters is world-leading levels of immigration. Dr. Eric Kaufmann is another refreshing academic who speaks plainly, and he has suffered for it. We discuss Toward and Ethical Populism, an article he recently published in First Things. And we dig into two of his books: The Third Awokening: A 12-point plan for rolling back progressive extremism White Shift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities I shortened my comments at the start; trying something different. Let me know what you think! Thanks for checking it out Shawn Chapters and AI Summary: Shawn interviews political scientist Eric Kaufmann about his article “Toward Ethical Populism,” arguing the post-Trump right should combine disruption of ideologically captured institutions with Scrutonian respect for norms and due process. Kaufmann discusses his book The Third Awokening, defining “woke” as sacralizing marginalized identity groups and pursuing equal outcomes, which he says harms merit, authenticity, free speech, and national cohesion through measures like affirmative action, DEI, and historical revisionism. He contends Canada is especially susceptible due to moralistic universalism and weak historical attachments, with multiculturalism and political correctness as precursors to woke extremism. Kaufmann defends government action against private censorship in universities and corporations, urges organized lobbying and education reform, and in White Shift argues demographic change drives populism, assimilation is slow, and high immigration—especially in Canada—should be slowed. 00:00 Cancellation And Merit 02:58 Meet Eric Kaufmann 03:55 Ethical Populism Explained 07:43 Foxes Versus Lions 10:39 Deculturation And Woke 16:02 Academic Backlash Story 21:18 Canada And Moralism 28:09 Why Government Must Act 35:40 Private Censorship Lock In 39:05 Common Ground Conservatism 39:32 Free Speech Fabric 40:35 Leviathan Debate 45:13 Ethical Populism Rules 46:50 Twelve Point Blueprint 50:09 Education Culture War 53:34 Canada Identity Crisis 57:36 Multiculturalism Origins 01:04:53 Populism Demography Data 01:08:05 Liberal Ethnicity Future 01:13:30 Fertility Reality Check 01:18:39 Closing Thanks

  • #98
    July 7 · 1 hr 12 min

    Nihilism, Relativism, Western Civilization & Leo Strauss w Dimpee Brar #103

    Conservatism is experiencing a renaissance in the West. It is gaining a new self image beyond its historic passion for economics. Dimpee Brar has entered the scene in high gear. Over the last few months she has written provocative pieces at a rate of roughly one every two weeks. She's been on panels, podcasts, and interviews. I hope she can maintain her output! A few of her articles include: Why Islam seeks shelter under the banner of the Left. The Federalist A NATO that doesn't support U.S. action shouldn't exist. The Federalist Churches are burning, and the the lie fuelling it still holds. The Daily Wire Western Civilization is under siege in Canada, activist warns. National Post Blood & soil vs post-nationalism misses Canada's real identity. Western Standard The tide is turning, and old ideas are resurfacing in the mainstream. Let me know what you think of this episode! Thanks again, Shawn Chapters and AI Summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Diimpee Brar, Director of Engagement at Allies for a Strong Canada and a prolific columnist, about defending Western civilization and Canada’s founding principles. Brar describes moving from studying neuroscience to the humanities, encountering what she calls nihilism in academia, and being “redeemed” by Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, which led her to political philosophy and Leo Strauss. She defines nihilism as meaninglessness and argues that modern democratic decline expresses itself as relativism, erasing distinctions between good and bad and enabling fanatics to rule, particularly in Canada. The conversation covers liberalism versus conservatism, the friend–enemy distinction, and Brar’s view of the 1839 Durham Report as a founding document emphasizing one nation and assimilation through education. They also discuss Islam and the “Red-Green” alliance, and end with Brar identifying Nietzsche as a dangerous thinker and noting debates about Strauss, Judaism, and atheism. 00:00 Mission to Defend the West 01:19 Meet Dimpee Brar 03:40 Why She Entered Politics 05:59 From Neuroscience to Humanities 07:24 Bloom and Strauss Awakening 09:09 What Nihilism Means 10:55 Relativism and Fanatics 12:30 Where She Fits Ideologically 17:39 Friends and Enemies Debate 21:36 Durham Report and Assimilation 28:39 Liberalism Then and Now 31:35 Tolerance and Islam Question 34:49 Is Liberalism Too Thin 37:28 Is Liberalism Still Real 38:53 Natural Rights vs Identity Rights 40:56 Debate as a Sign of Life 43:09 Red Green Alliance Explained 45:40 Islam and Liberal Blind Spots 49:35 Auxiliary Militia and Iran Warning 52:34 Women Freedom and Defense 56:19 Nietzsche and Relativist Language 01:01:20 Strauss Judaism and Revelation 01:04:58 Straussians Political Theology Wrap 01:11:25 Final Thanks and Farewell

  • #97
    June 30 · 1 hr 2 min

    Why Conservatives Need Culture, Harold Innis, and National Cohesion (w/ Prof. John Bonnett) #102

    Most civilizations prioritize space or time. They either choose empire and expansion (space) or permanence (time). Durable civilizations choose both. Harold Innis was a giant in Canadian academia in the early 20th century, but most people have never heard of him. He offers deep and helpful insights on civilization, progress, and culture. Professor John Bonnett wrote his thesis on Innis and introduces us to his work. We discuss a draft article Bonnett has written on Innis. Once it's published, I'll try to update this with a link. Thanks for checking this out! Shawn Chapters and AI summary: The host interviews Brock University professor and Innis scholar John Bonnett about an upcoming article arguing that conservatives are renewing a focus on culture as essential to Canadian national cohesion, especially as digital technology and AI disrupt society much like the printing press did. Bonnett explains Harold Innis’s importance to Canadian thought (influencing McLuhan and praised by George Grant), his “staples” analysis of Canada’s development, and his communication theory that technologies shape cognition and impose costs. Drawing on Innis, they discuss historical anxieties about new media, the dangers of information overload destabilizing politics, and “monopolies of knowledge” created by space- or time-biased media that can trap cultures and reduce innovation. Bonnett outlines adaptations—expressive and cognitive diversity, combinatorial thinking, democratizing cultural institutions like the Canada Council, and using digital/augmented-reality landscape art to renew culture. 00:00 Why Culture Matters 01:19 Meet Professor Bonnett 05:00 Which Conservatives 08:08 Why Innis Matters 13:17 Where To Start Reading 16:05 This Happened Before 22:07 Too Much Information 26:02 Monopoly Of Knowledge 33:41 Three Ways To Adapt 40:42 Democratizing Culture Policy 48:14 Digital Landscapes Project 57:17 Conservatism And Social Glue 01:00:11 Closing Thoughts And Thanks

  • #96
    June 23 · 1 hr 9 min

    Free Expression, Beauty, State Control. Christine Van Geyn on Maple’s Garden & Pandemic Panic #101

    Christine Van Geyn captured the central debate around freedom of expression vs state control and put it into a children's book. As Interim Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Van Geyn has the deep knowledge and experience required to explain the essential elements of free expression in a short book titled, Maple's Garden: A Canadian Freedom of Speech Story. We also discuss her other books, Pandemic Panic, and Free Speech in Canada. Thanks for checking this out! Shawn Chapters and AI summary Shawn Whatley interviews Christine Van Geyn, interim executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, about her children’s picture book Maple’s Garden, inspired by the Mississauga case involving Wolf Ruck and Ontario rulings that a naturalized garden can be protected expression reflecting subjective views of beauty. They discuss how governments and bylaws can overreach by enforcing aesthetic standards, the difference between harmful invasive or dangerous plants and taste-based complaints, and why free expression protects disagreement. Van Geyn also explains her co-authored book Pandemic Panic as a documented record of civil liberties impacts, cases, and “memory-holed” incidents from COVID-19, including the Freedom Convoy and the Emergencies Act challenge. The conversation ends with a primer on Charter Section 2(b), Section 1’s Oakes test, and concerns about human rights tribunals being used to penalize speech, citing cases in BC and Ontario’s Emo flag dispute. 00:00 Parents vs State Power 00:36 Why Free Speech Matters 01:30 Meet Christine Van Geyn 04:20 Why She Wrote Maples Garden 06:23 The Garden Case Explained 09:43 Kids And The Hidden Animals 11:37 Beauty Versus Weeds Debate 18:53 Invasive Plants And Real Harm 21:25 Where The State Draws The Line 29:33 Teaching Beauty Without Force 30:46 Kids and Creativity 31:29 Who Decides Beauty 33:03 What Is Beauty 34:25 Why This Kids Book 37:56 Illustrator and AI Art 41:14 Pandemic Panic Overview 42:59 Recording Pandemic Abuses 46:44 Charter and Human Rights 48:43 Oakes Test Explained 52:00 Human Rights Overreach Cases 01:01:08 Forced Endorsement by Tribunal 01:05:34 Defending Disagreement 01:08:43 Closing and Call to Action

  • #95
    June 16 · 59 min

    Conservatism as a Coalition: NatCons, Trump, Media, & Bright Lines w Liberalism | Josh Lewis #100

    How do we unify the very different voices on the non-Left? Do our differences mean we are doomed to a soft tyranny of centralized messaging? Josh Lewis has been wrestling with this, and many other issues, for the last 9 years on his podcast, Saving Elephants. He's hosted many of the biggest influencers in American conservatism, including a number of voices from Canada and Europe. The conservative movement is a jigsaw puzzle. Conservatives need to distinguish themselves from all the factions on the Left, while also retaining the distinct shapes of each puzzle piece. For conservatives, this is a conversation without end. If we grow tired of it, the coalition will fracture. Of course, we can't talk about American politics without talking about Trump -- plenty of that in this episode too. Thanks so much for checking this out! Let me know what you think. Shawn Chapters and AI summary: In the 100th episode of Concepts, host Shawn Whatley welcomes back Josh Lewis, founder of the Saving Elephants podcast, to discuss the coalitional nature of American (and Canadian) conservatism and how to handle disagreements within the movement. Lewis outlines enduring conservative factions—libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists—while exploring the rise and uncertainty of NatCon and post-liberal currents, Trump’s role as both aberration and lasting influence, and what Trump reveals about leadership, courage, and cultural “rot.” They also talk about why Lewis chose podcasting, where millennials and younger generations get information, how “bridge” institutions translate ideas, and competence as a key voter demand. The conversation culminates in proposed bright lines between liberalism and conservatism and reflections on how to appropriately mark America’s 250th anniversary. 00:00 Can Ideas Fix Politics 00:22 Episode 100 Welcome 02:06 Conservatism Is A Coalition 02:53 Nash Three Legged Stool 04:47 NatCon Moment And Trump 09:20 Avoiding Sectarian Purges 10:25 Handling The Crazy Uncle 13:49 Why Josh Chose Podcasting 18:34 Millennials News Habits 23:51 Scaling Ideas Beyond Nerds 29:42 Why I Stay Calm 31:02 What Voters Want 32:57 Competence Before Culture 34:35 Populism Versus Leadership 35:34 Trumpism After Trump 39:09 Courage And Character 42:16 Integrity And White Collar Crime 43:24 Ideas Versus Reality 45:22 Liberalism And Conservatism 50:36 Freedom Has A Purpose 54:48 America At 250 58:01 How To Celebrate A Nation 59:40 Closing Thanks

  • #94
    June 9 · 1 hr 4 min

    Identity Politics as an Incomplete Religion | Joshua Mitchell: American Awakening #99

    Professor Joshua Mitchell is courageous. He argues for his positions even when they go against the grain of politically acceptable thought. Mitchell says conservatives have done a good job at addressing the debt and tradition economies. We are strong on fiscal policy, and we stand up for the debts we owe to our fathers. But we are almost completely blind to the more profound, urgent, and critical debt of guilt. Conservatives are blind to spiritual debt. The Left understands guilt and spiritual debt. It's their main focus. Criticize them for having bad data or for emotionalizing things, but the Left addresses an inescapable issue that the Right seems to miss entirely. I'd love to hear what you think of this episode. It's deep in places but also pointed and provocative. Thanks again for listening! Shawn Links: American Awakening https://americanreformer.org/2026/03/whither-the-reformation-in-america/ Chapters and AI summary: Shawn Whatley interviews Georgetown political theorist Joshua Mitchell about his book American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time and his article on the Reformation in America. Mitchell argues the West’s turmoil is fundamentally a religious crisis, with identity politics functioning as a quasi-Christian, “incomplete religion” seeking purity and redemption without a Christian solution. He contrasts a “regime of competence” with a post-1989 suspension of history, critiques the feminization of public life as mercy detached from justice, and outlines three “economies” humans inhabit: payment, tradition, and spiritual debt. He contends conservatives focus on the first two while lacking language for the third, leaving the left to politicize guilt, stain, and redemption. Mitchell offers three futures—endless incomplete religions, Nietzschean rejection of Christian categories, or a return to Christianity—and emphasizes America’s covenantal Protestant imagination as key to overcoming identity politics. 00:00 Religious Crisis Frame 00:34 Show Intro Guest Setup 02:05 Is Woke Dead 03:02 Competence After 1989 04:53 Mercy Justice Feminization 07:09 Manliness Debate 09:20 Incomplete Religions Thesis 14:24 Nietzsche Tocqueville Futures 19:20 Three Economies Explained 24:00 Identity Politics As Religion 27:09 Tocqueville Self Interest 33:04 America Protestant Catholic Moment 34:53 Covenantal America Returns 35:56 Protestant Revival Warning 37:41 Host Rapid Fire Topics 41:16 Burke Simplicity Trap 43:37 Purity Stain Politics 47:43 Spiritual Economy Turn 50:20 Religion That Fits 55:00 France Religion Showdown 58:51 Aristotle Versus Plato 01:02:47 Covenant Beyond Nietzsche 01:03:45 Next Book Farewell

  • #93
    June 2 · 1 hr 5 min

    Conservatism’s Drift Toward Battle | Elizabeth Corey on Culture and the Contemplative Life #98

    Professor Elizabeth Corey says conservatism is about far more than fighting. In fact, its major emphasis lies outside politics altogether. Corey offers a thick view of intellectual conservatism. She invites us into something challenging and deep. I tried to push her on whether she was asking too much. Was her approach practicable? Should we never ever fight? What role does conflict play in a conservative philosophy? Professor Corey does not shy from these issues. She sees them as real questions for her students, but also in her own life. Let me know what you think of this episode! Thanks so much for checking it out. Shawn Links: https://lawliberty.org/podcast/conservatisms-lamentable-drift/ https://lawliberty.org/a-quiet-refusal-to-compromise/ Beautiful Losers https://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/pleasure_of_hating/ Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley welcomes Baylor University honors program director and political science professor Elizabeth Corey to discuss her concerns that modern conservatism has become increasingly adversarial, reducing politics to winners and losers and neglecting culture, education, and the “realm of experience” beyond the friends-enemies dichotomy. Drawing on thinkers such as Oakeshott, Scruton, Pieper, Kirk, and Aristotle, Corey argues for understanding tradition as learned “practices” and for balancing the active and contemplative lives, resisting the urge to instrumentalize knowledge. They address internal conservative pluralism and the Philadelphia Society’s big-tent approach, the role of humility and charity in debate, and Corey’s reading of Laura Field’s Furious Minds on MAGA-linked institutions like Hillsdale and Claremont. Corey also discusses Hazlitt’s “pleasure of hating,” her First Things piece on admiring, and her forthcoming book The Heart of Learning. 00:00 Modern Conservatism as Battle 00:31 Meet Professor Elizabeth Corey 04:18 A Drift Toward Conflict 10:07 Hot Button Politics vs Real Life 12:03 Is Culture Enough 14:51 Tradition as Practices 20:54 Active Life vs Contemplation 26:29 Oakeshott on History and Modes 29:37 Defining Conservatism Today 33:25 Big Tent Debates and Economics 36:14 Life Beyond Economics 37:01 Avoiding Sectarian Right 39:04 Humility and Big Tent 41:02 Pluralist Conservative Case 44:32 Do Ideologies Still Matter 48:24 Furious Minds and MAGA 50:46 Hillsdale and Claremont 54:21 Pleasure of Hating 58:52 Heart of Learning 01:02:24 Can Admiration Survive

  • #92
    May 19 · 1 hr 13 min

    Free Speech in Canadian Law Schools? Tim Haggstrom on Runnymede, Rule of Law, and Tim vs U. Sask #97

    Tim Haggstrom doesn't just promote theory. He bears the personal scars of legal practice. He leads an organization focussed on legal theory, while fighting (personally) for free speech. This caught me off guard. I thought Tim was simply an exemplary leader of a noteworthy organization. I had no idea that he was also personally up to his neck in litigation about the legitimacy of race-based scholarship. You won't meet a nicer, more thoughtful guy. Tim goes out of his way to ring-fence his own case from the organization he represents. You need to know about the Runnymede Society. The Society appears even more worth, and necessary, when you hear about Tim's case, at the end of the episode. Let me know what you think! Thanks again Shawn Chapters and AI Summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Tim Haggstrom, National Director of the Runnymede Society, about whether freedom of speech exists in Canadian law schools and how students learn “no-go zones” on contentious issues. Hagstrom explains Runnymede’s founding in 2016 amid concerns about insufficient debate over constitutional change, citing the Supreme Court’s 2015 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision on a Charter right to strike, and outlines the Society’s mission to promote constitutionalism, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms through debates it does not adjudicate. They discuss taboo topics, civil discourse, and competing views of the rule of law, interpretation, legal neutrality, and substantive equality (including the 2020 Fraser case). Hagstrom then recounts his personal judicial review against the University of Saskatchewan after being found guilty of non-academic misconduct following letters defending dialogue and critiquing race-based policies, linking the dispute to university commitments to decolonization and anti-racism training. 00:00 Free Speech in Law School 00:22 Meet Tim Haggstrom 04:23 Why Runnymede Started 07:10 Tim’s Path to Runnymede 09:47 Campus No Go Zones 13:42 Staying Relevant and Civil 16:28 Sacred Cows Debate Example 19:05 Tim’s Lawsuit Teaser 21:53 Why Institutions Matter 25:24 Network Formation and Skills 31:03 Rule of Law Explained 37:26 Law Without Translation 38:53 Bridge Norms Example 41:33 Courts Versus Legislatures 44:13 Thick Rule of Law 45:57 Rodriguez To Carter 48:46 Living Tree Origins 50:19 Can Law Be Neutral 51:09 Substantive Equality Debate 56:05 Runnymede Student Plug 56:59 Saskatchewan Case Begins 01:05:41 Critical Social Justice Claims 01:10:11 Campus Speech Outlook 01:13:09 Protect Legal Tradition

  • #91
    May 12 · 25 min

    Conservatism vs. Liberalism (and Neoconservatism) | Shawn Whatley #96

    Update on the quest to define conservatism! After almost 100 episodes, I see a way to articulate conservatism coming into view. I hope to capture it all into a short book/long essay later this year. In the meantime, I offer a recap of liberalism and contrast it with conservatism. I also touch on inheritance, myth, and experience as themes within conservatism. I also tackle a summary of neoconservatism. Neocons remain the main opinion shapers on the non-left in Canada. Their eminence has waned in America, but it remains strong in Canada. We end with a review of upcoming guests. Looking forward to hearing what you think! Thanks again Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley shares a scheduling update amid a busy summer and looks ahead to the podcast’s 100th episode, then continues his effort to define conservatism by contrasting it with liberalism. He critiques George Grant’s thin definition of liberalism and Grant’s claim about the impossibility of political conservatism, and instead uses Fukuyama/John Gray’s four-part account of liberalism (individualism, egalitarianism, universalism, meliorism) to frame key conservative objections: the involuntary obligations of life (especially family), equality before law alongside excellence, particularism over universal political templates, and prudential skepticism about reform. He adds conservative emphases on inheritance, regional myth/self-understanding, and shared experience. He then outlines three waves of neoconservatism—its origins, post–Cold War central-planning and interventionist tendencies, and a 2016-era “never-Trump” internationalist turn—before previewing upcoming guests Josh Mitchell, Tim Hagstrom, and Elizabeth Corey. 00:00 Big Questions Intro 00:14 Podcast Schedule Update 01:26 Defining Liberalism 04:56 Fukuyama Four Pillars 06:54 Conservative Pushback 10:45 Tradition Myth Place 13:51 Thin vs Thick Politics 14:58 Neoconservatism Origins 17:04 Second Wave Neocons 20:53 Third Wave Never Trump 22:41 Guests and Wrap Up

  • #90
    May 5 · 53 min

    Supreme Court vs. Provinces | Jodi Bruhn: Notwithstanding Clause & Canadian First Principles #95

    Jodi Bruhn offers a sobering take on Canada. Professor Bruhn is an expert on governance and constitutional thought. She says we might not appreciate the significance and potential fallout from the Supreme Court wading in the Notwithstanding Clause. We discuss civics education and whether there's an increased appetite for first principles. Thanks for checking this out! I look forward to your comments. Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Jodi Bruhn about renewed interest in first principles, civics, and regime analysis in her University of Lethbridge courses, contrasting first-year and fourth-year students’ ability to identify clashing political principles behind current events. They discuss political science versus political philosophy, including critiques of Straussian textualism, and consider thinkers such as Aristotle, Voegelin, Bergson, and Carl Schmitt. Bruhn warns that the Supreme Court of Canada hearing cases involving the notwithstanding clause signals a misunderstanding of legislative supremacy and could provoke a political showdown with provinces like Quebec and Alberta, potentially risking Canada’s dissolution. They examine constitutional change constraints, separatism’s uncertain outcomes, leadership and ethical decay under unwritten constitutional conventions, demagoguery, and Bruhn’s account of Tamara Lich’s University of Calgary talk about the trucker convoy. 00:00 Supreme Court Warning 00:52 Meet the Guest 02:52 Teaching First Principles 05:26 Civics and Regimes 07:37 Political Science vs Philosophy 15:31 Teasing Out Principles 18:03 Notwithstanding Clause Clash 21:14 Charter and Judicial Review 23:34 Can Canada Rewind 25:26 Alberta Separation Scenarios 28:41 Schmitt and Conflict Horizon 29:57 Friendship Course Spectrum 31:29 Canadian Founding Enmities 33:27 Hooker and English Middle Way 35:42 Ideology and First Principles 37:31 Alberta Separation and Reconfederation 39:47 Constitutional Mismatch and Corruption 44:51 Demagoguery and Vital Breakthrough 47:33 Reading Bergson and Courage 49:10 Tamara Lich at University 51:11 Teaching Critical Thinking Finale

  • #89
    April 28 · 1 hr 9 min

    #94 Tom Flanagan: Friedrich Hayek, Spontaneous Order, Markets, Justice, and the Limits of the State

    Tom Flanagan explains why we need Hayek's ideas about spontaneous order, institutions, and the limits of state control. Hayek will frustrate central planners and also anarchists. Libertarians can't depend on Hayek; he's too supportive of traditional institutions. Professor Flanagan has taught a generation of political science students at the University of Calgary. He's informed so much of what the Right assumes in Canada. He's generous, thoughtful, and resists capture into a neat, political box. Books mentioned: Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools) Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong Articles mentioned: Settler-Neoliberalism: Tom Flanagan and Friedrich Hayek on the Prairies | Canadian Historical Review Was Hayek a Gnostic? - VoegelinView The long reach of the Calgary School | C2C Journal Let me know what you think! Thanks again, Shawn Chapters and AI summary Host Shawn Whatley interviews political scientist Tom Flanagan about Friedrich Hayek, focusing on spontaneous order versus top-down organization and the state’s proper role in enforcing rules without directing outcomes. Flanagan explains spontaneous order through examples like language, markets, common law, and even skiing etiquette, and argues modern governments often create chaos by trying to control systems such as Canadian healthcare through price and quantity setting, producing persistent shortages and waitlists. The conversation explores Hayek’s assumptions about property, justice as a feature of fair process and intention rather than outcomes, and practical questions about unintended consequences in politics. Flanagan also discusses Canada’s formation through sovereignty claims, treaties, and force, defending treaty-making as broadly just for its time. He contrasts Hayek’s limits on “spiritual problems” with Voegelin’s strengths and notes he is not an Alberta separatist. 00:00 Hayek In A Nutshell 01:00 Show Intro And Guest 04:56 Flanagan Meets Hayek 06:08 Spontaneous Order Explained 07:02 Language As Emergence 09:50 Markets And Simple Rules 11:55 State Control And Healthcare 16:55 Ski Hill Rules And Enforcement 22:20 Property Justice And Tradition 27:49 Colonialism And Civilizing Mission 30:28 International Anarchy And Empire 35:40 Treaties and Education 36:51 Hayek Order vs Organization 38:16 Canada Built by Force 39:22 Morris and Prairie Treaties 42:03 Mirage of Social Justice 47:55 Intentions vs Outcomes 49:29 Weber and Policy Consequences 56:17 Hayek Meets Voegelin 01:03:13 Spiritual Pathology Politics 01:04:46 State Supports Spontaneous Order 01:08:28 Alberta Separatism and Wrap

  • #88
    April 21 · 52 min

    #93 Evan Menzies: Alberta Separation. Alberta Should Be Upset, but It Should Stay in Canada

    Evan Menzies shows why Albertans should be furious. As an Albertan himself, he understands. And as a political consultant, he sees even more reasons to be upset than most Albertans have heard of. He is frustrated and doesn't hide it. In spite of powerful reasons to be upset, he still thinks Alberta should stay. The rest of Canada isn't paying enough attention to this. Alberta separation wouldn't be an issue if Canada was well governed. It will continue to be an issue until our governance is fixed. Here's the article we discuss: An argument for Canada from an Alberta conservative. Thanks for listening! Let me know what you think. Chapters and AI summary: Alberta Separatism Debate: Evan Menzies’ Argument for Staying in Canada Host Shawn Whatley interviews Evan Menzies, VP at Crestview Strategy and former Wildrose/UCP staffer, about his Substack article “An Argument for Canada from an Alberta Conservative” and the rise of Alberta separatism. Menzies explains why many Alberta conservatives feel exhausted and unheard—citing issues like equalization, Senate and House of Commons representation, pipeline barriers, and judicial “constitutional adventurism” (including MAID, mandatory minimums, and debates over the notwithstanding clause). He argues separatism is a risky, non-conservative “tear down to the studs” revolution that promises a utopia while forcing Alberta to rebuild institutions and constitutional order from scratch. Instead, he urges reform within Canada, appeals to patriotism and gratitude, warns against victimhood politics, and predicts Alberta’s growing demographic and economic weight will keep shifting Canada’s power westward. 00:00 Alberta Separation Stakes 01:07 Show Setup and Guest Intro 05:05 Why Albertans Feel Exhausted 08:02 Who Supports Leaving 11:50 Senate Imbalance Debate 15:40 House Seats and Time Zones 18:21 Equalization and Quebec Hydro 20:43 Courts and Constitutional Drift 25:04 Charter Pragmatism vs Principle 28:03 Why Stay In Canada 28:35 Three Reasons To Stay 31:05 Blank Slate Constitution Risks 33:04 Revolution Not Devolution 35:41 Communicating Conservatism Again 39:26 Patriotism Over Victimhood 45:05 Gratitude And National Story 49:39 Alberta Story Is Canadian 51:28 Make The 21st Century Canada 51:59 Closing Thanks And Moral Ground

  • #87
    April 14 · 1 hr 10 min

    #92 Ashley Moyse: Techno-Ontology, Bioethics, and the “Provider” Problem in Modern Medicine

    Ashley Moyse is a bioethicist and theologian at Baylor University. In America, he hails from the political left. If he was in his native Saskatchewan, he'd be centre-left or perhaps even right-wing to some people. Our conversation tackled technology, ethics, and humanity in professional education. How we can keep clinicians human and prevent them from becoming robots? Although we situate the conversation in the health sciences, the concepts apply to every corner of society: engineering, finance, public policy, and more. Dr. Moyse has had some success in helping students see beyond the materialist reductionism of modern science. His work offers hope for other fields. Let me know what you think in the comments! Thanks for listening. Shawn Book mentioned: The Art of Living for a Technological Age Chapters and AI summary Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Ashley Moyse, associate professor of bioethics at Baylor University, about how technology, markets, and policy language reshape medicine and moral life. Moyse traces his path from neurophysiology and cancer-clinic work to theology and bioethics, including training in Australia and Oxford and creating the Columbia Character Cooperatives to form medical students through virtue-based practices. They critique the market metaphor of “provider,” arguing it distorts the clinician–patient relationship and turns people into producers and consumers of information. Moyse explains his book The Art of Living for a Technological Age and “techno-ontology,” expanding technology beyond devices to include moral and political techniques, and challenges Beauchamp and Childress’ four-principles framework as flattening ethics into efficient tools rather than lived moral struggle, formation, and attention over time. 00:00 Patients Not Data 00:45 Meet Dr Ashley Moyse 05:35 From Neurophysiology To Theology 08:39 Oxford Columbia Baylor Path 13:49 Techno Ontology Explained 14:54 Tools Beyond Gadgets 25:21 Four Principles Under Fire 32:55 Ethics As Struggle 33:46 Medicine as Craft 37:15 Virtue in Clinical Risk 39:19 Ethics Beyond Principles 43:05 Provider Language Critique 47:04 Metrics and Managerialism 49:53 Mentoring Against Positivism 58:32 Phenomenology in Practice 01:03:16 Technology as Principality 01:09:55 Closing Reflections

Showing 1–20 of 22 episodes