 So, as you know, I've been reading a lot of the new right, kind of what the new right is writing. We know kind of the dominance of the left, you know how big of a critic I was of Donald Trump, and your Donald Trump was and to some extent is still quite popular. And one of the things that is really striking, and I've talked about this before and we'll probably be talking about this for years to come, is the fact that the popular ideas out there, the anti-free market ideas, the anti-free market ideas are super popular out there. The super popular out there, not just with the left, that's kind of obvious and that's expected and we all know that. But it's actually the case that the free market ideas are not popular with the right either. You see they used to be, I'd say until 2016 certainly, and you know going back to the 1950s, there was this coalition on the right. It was called the fusionism. It was conservatives of different type, fused together and or didn't really fuse but call us together, lobby together, work together, basically to defeat the left, to defeat communism, to defeat the left, and to bolster America. And even though they disagreed on certain elements, they agreed on enough that they could move the project forward. And really, this is what Buckley tried to do. And it was a fusionism or an attempt to assemble, an attempt to create a coalition around intellectuals and thinkers who are anti-communist but might be fairly left on a lot of other things, very mixed economy, fairly left on social issues, but very anti-communist. And maybe very pro-American. The Neocons were like this. Remember the Neocons started out as Trotskyites. They started out as communists. And then at some point as Irvin Crystal used to say, Irvin Crystal, the founder of the Neocon movement, used to say they were mugged by reality. That is they saw that leftism, communism just didn't work. It was impractical. It was not a good idea. And they basically became American patriots and anti-communists. And they had a little bit of sympathy towards markets. But Irvin Crystal wrote a famous book called Two Cheers for Capitalism. And they gave it two cheers, right? Actually, they don't write for the dispatch, Scott. Now they write for Commentary Magazine. Commentary Magazine is still the Neocon Magazine. So these are people who didn't care that much about social issues. They're probably a bunch of them are atheists. Most of them are Jewish. Again, for the coalition with the religious right, we'll get to them in a minute. But basically they were secular. They were pro a lot of the left's social agenda. They were somewhat pro-capitalism a little bit. But they were really hardcore on foreign policy, on pro-America, anti-communist and bringing democracy to the world. That's one leg of the stool, if you will. No, Kissinger was not one of them. Another leg of the stool was, and this is what the conservative movement was starting in the late 1950s until I think 2016. The second leg of the stool was the social conservatives, the religious right. The people who, what they really cared about, what they really, at the end of the day, cared about was religious tradition, making sure, you know, anti-abortion, prayer in school, but also things like respect for the flag. These are not defenders of free speech. They would be fine with laws against blasphemy. No, this isn't very Goldwater at all. This is more of the evangelical right of the moral majority of people like, I don't know, Rick Santorum and Mike Cuckabee. Although Mike Cuckabee give, again, much more on the capitalist side than, let's say, the Pat Buchanan's of the world who never liked capitalism, never liked capitalism and was in the religious right. So you see, it's complicated. This is the family values, exactly. Family values, crowd and all of that. So you had, you had, that's a third leg of the school stool, right? So you had the new conservatives, you have, oh, second leg of the stool. So you had the new conservatives, you have the religious right. Then you have the, what they call libertarians, right? The ones who, it really don't care about anything, what they really care is about free markets. They care about economic liberty, right? And that's the primary thing that they think is important. Jonathan, thank you, really appreciate the support. That's what they think. And those are the three legs of the stool. All they care about is free markets. Now, all of them kind of gave lip service to the other people's agenda, right? The neocons gave lip service to the social conservatives. The social conservatives gave lip service to the pro-free markets. The pro-free markets gave lip service to their, to their neocons and foreign policy. And they, and given that there was this big threat, the Soviet threat out there, they all kind of agreed to get along and, and, and, and do their thing and, and not worry about it too much, right? National security wing is probably the neocons. National security wing would, would primarily be the neocons. And then there was this other wing in the Republican Party, which you'd call the populist wing, which was kind of part of the conservative movement, but it was always a minority. It was always a small piece of it, never taken too seriously, never really had a presidential carry, call it the populist wing of the conservative movement. And that would be Papukin. And Papukin would be the dominant voice there. There were others. And that would be a real nativism. So an anti-neocon, anti-interventionist, anti, bring democracy to the world in any kind of sense and, you know, build the walls, stop trade. So there's always been this element of this populism within the Republican, within the Republican establishment, within, within kind of the conservative movement, this very populist agenda. But it was not part of the three-legged stores, not part of what the core of conservatism was. And it was not what where most voters were. Most voters on the right were in one of those three positions. And, you know, that really dominated the discussion in the right for a very long time. And I think it's always been the case, for reasons I'll talk about in a little bit, that it's the, quote, libertarians that always garnered the least support among all these different groups. That there were more religious conservatives, ammoniocons, and more others than there were free market advocates. Really, people passionate about the free markets. The free markets was always tagged on. It was tagged on to foreign policy. It was tagged on to social conservatism. For almost nobody among in the conservative movement. And I go down back to Buckley. And maybe the exception is Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater was the only representative, I think, of this free market site of the conservative movement that ever made it to the presidency and ran on that as an agenda. He's still catered to the social conservatives. He's still catered to the other elements. But mostly he was a free market guy. And remember what happened to Barry Goldwater in the election? So Barry Goldwater was the most free market presidential candidate I think the Republicans have ever had, suddenly in the 20th century. Well, with the exception of Coolidge, right? What happened to Goldwater? He lost in a landslide. He lost in a landslide. There's just no support for that. And of course, Ronald Reagan learned from that. And even though Ronald Reagan's instinct might have been to run as kind of a Barry Goldwater, run an economic issues, run an economic liberty, he didn't. He did some. But a lot of what he ran on was he made sure the socially conservative stuff, because it was the socially conservative element that made it possible for him really to win. It was the evangelicals flipping from 1976 to 1980, flipping from supporter Jimmy Carter to supporter Ronald Reagan that won the presidency for Reagan. Thatcher in the UK is very different, Tasey. UK has a very different dynamic than the United States. But even in the UK, you're seeing a real shift, right? You're seeing populism again rise up in the UK with a complete decline in economic freedom and even Margaret Thatcher. Okay, so let's get to Margaret Thatcher because Margaret Thatcher is a good example as well. Actually, Margaret Thatcher is the same as what I'm saying. Margaret Thatcher ran, I think she won it first time in 1977. She basically ran an anti-left campaign. She ran against labor. And people had had it with labor. They were fed up with labor. And she spent the first administration, the first period being prime minister, fighting and not getting much of her agenda done and being unbelievably unpopular. Until what? Until what? See, free markets are always unpopular or have been in the last 50 years, unpopular. What got, what tipped it from Margaret Thatcher? What made Margaret Thatcher popular? So popular that she could get away with free market stuff. What tipped it was the Falkland War. People forget about the war between UK, the United Kingdom and Argentina over a couple of dinky little islands off the coast of Argentina in the Atlantic Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, that a British, that the Argentinian claimed and invaded and the, the, the British Navy went there and whipped the Argentinians. And Margaret Thatcher's approval ratings went through the roof. And only then, only then, only when she established herself as a farm policy hawk defending the British crown and defending the pride of the Brits, could she get away with her market reforms? Market reforms are incredibly unpopular and have been. Now there's a brief period post Thatcher and post Reagan where it seemed like the world was shifting post fall of the Berlin Wall where people were embracing market ideas and it seemed to be some energy around it. But nothing politically in the West really happened. It was all little things and criminal things. Nothing really huge, right? But the fact is that the libertarian leg of the stool that held up that defined conservatism was always the stepchild was never the core was never what made them popular was never what gave them political power. And therefore it was the most neglected part. It was the one least talked about. And most importantly, and we'll get, we'll keep returning to this. Most importantly, it's the one that people are least passionate about. People are very passionate about their social ideas, pro and anti abortion, pro or anti religion, pro or anti gay marriage, the social issues bring out a certain moral fire. People are very, very passionate about foreign policy, about foreign policy, about being patriotic and American identity. And I'm in the same thing again with, with, with Margaret Thatcher and beating, beating Argentina and the Falklands. But on the right, you get no zero passion around economics. The passion around economics all comes from the left because an economics, the left has them all high ground and everybody knows it. And the right is just trying to catch up and the right is just talking economics and the right is just showing the numbers. And the moral passion is just not that. And as a consequence, all the energy and the passion and the, and the, and the, and the real grassroots was all around the social conservatism, the Christian right and the foreign policy stuff. And then the foreign policy stuff was completely destroyed by George W. Bush, his disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in a sense, the one leg of the stool went away because I mean, we're not going to bring democracy to the world. Nobody wants to do it anymore. It failed dramatically. Nobody has passion around that. What does America really stand for given what it's done in the Middle East? And everybody just, you know, there's just, it's just not a political agenda. Nobody cares about it, you know, get out of everything. So with, with the failure of the Bush administration post 9 11, that leg of the stool almost went away. The neocons got completely discredited. The whole foreign policy establishment on the right got completely discredited. So now you've got two legs of the stool left. You've got the religious conservatives, and you've got the so-called free market libertarian wing. Financial crisis destroyed the free market libertarian wing. Republicans who used to believe in free markets suddenly accepted completely the rhetoric that the market is called the financial crisis that this is what happened when you give the market too much. That it was all about Wall Street greed. The Wall Street was anti main street. That inequality was an issue. That inequality was a problem. And basically the financial crisis destroyed and dissipated and reduced the strength and the ability to stand up and the ability to defend the free market wing. And that wing was always weak. Was always weak. Was never strong. They never had them all defensive capitalism. The end of the day, Goldwater's defensive capitalism was religion. But by the end of the Bush administration, there was nobody to defend capitalism. I mean, it was Bush and a Republican House that passed massive legislation of bailout banks and to do all this anti-capitalist stuff. And I mean, this is from the right. So it can't be. It can't be. Capitalism is good. Yeah. Howell just says that he just listened to a David Fumm on a podcast and he completely blames the financial crisis and deregulation. Absolutely. I mean, they don't know what they're talking about. What deregulation? But that's what they blame it on. So the financial crisis knocked out the second leg of the stool. And what happens when you have a stool with one leg? It falls down. And basically, the conservative movement was left with social conservatives with religion and nothing. And that's the void into which Donald Trump stepped in. He stepped into that void with a Padmeucannon-like populism that appealed to the religious right, and of course, he appealed explicitly to the religious right, and established, turned it into a bar stool, established one big foundation for it. The blue dogs and our Republicans, the blue dogs are Democrats, the blue dogs are centrist, the blue dogs are not conservatives. One of the few men keeps asking about the blue dogs. Blue dogs are not conservatives. So they're not part of this. They are moderate Democrats and centrist Republicans who are kind of for the limited, for smaller government, not limited government, for smaller government. They were Democrats. Now they may be Republicans, but they're not conservatives. They don't consider themselves part of the conservative movement. So what you got in conservatism now is basically one stool with one leg. And that one leg combines religion, social conservatives, with nativism, with leftist economic policies. So free market to be abandoned completely. And we get Papukannan type economics, which is pro industrial policy, pro central planning, pro programs to help the working class, pro tariffs, pro trade restrictions, pro walls, anti-immigration of all kinds, complete disengagement from the world. And that's conservatism today. That's the national conservative movement. That's the new right. That's the post liberal right. You know, historically, liberal means pro-liberty. Liberal meant pro-individualism. Liberal meant we trust the individual to live his life as he sees fit. We just create order. We defend, protect his rights and leave him alone. That's what liberal is always, man, classical liberal in today's world. And what the right today is, is anti-liberal, post-liberal, illiberal, right, illiberal. And that's where the conservative movement is. And that's where the electorate is. That's where they all are. Now, I want to show you a graph. I'll show you. Let's see if I can find this. There we go. See this graph? So this is a graph of the 2016 electorate. In the past, in past elections, I don't have graphs to show this, but in past elections, if you, so red is Republican, blues, Democrats, the x-axis, this axis, the x-axis goes from minus one, which is, I guess, complete statism, communism, complete control by the government, all the way to plus one, which is complete laissez-faire, right, laissez-faire economics. And the y-axis is a social policy. So minus one is, I guess, everybody has to be transgender. I don't know. But complete, you know, complete liberty when it comes to social practices and plus one is the government dictates your gender, I guess, and whether you can't get divorced even. Divorce is illegal. And certainly abortion is illegal. So this is the social, why is social x is economic? And historically, what you'd find is the upper left corner would have the fewest number. And that the most of the dots congregated around the upper right and the lower left. Democrats with the lower left, Republicans with the upper right. And some Democrats were in the upper left, because they were socially conservative in spite of being pretty socialist. So Democrats were there. Some Republicans were in the lower right, so they might be socially liberal and pro free markets in the lower right. That's historically, what you're seeing here is a complete emptying out of that bottom right corner, that pro free market that call it libertarian corner, and not just free market, but individualist corner. That is the idea of living individual free to both pursue the economic interest and the social interest. That corner, the corner where I consider myself to be is empty. There's almost nobody there. And the corner that is suddenly got super populated by both Democrats and Republicans is the authoritarian corner. It's the corner of we want to control you socially and we want to control you economically. And that's the upper left hand corner. And that is the political transition that's happened in the United States. It's emptied out the free market, emptied out voters in the free market corner and moving to the left. I found this, I got this graph in a article by Patrick DeNeen, who is a new right, illiberal, really, really bad guy. But you know, he's the leader, one of the leading intellectuals of the anti classical liberal view. Yeah, we've got some of them. Anoka says individualism is gay and cringe. That's pretty gay, Anoka, whatever the hell that means. Notice individualism, individualism, individualism is bad in America. So he says among his students, Patrick DeNeen says that traditionally, a third world progressives, a third world, you know, Republican fusionists, upper right hand corner, and a third world libertarian. And he started Georgetown and Notre Dame at Princeton. He said Notre Dame right now. And he says he probably got more kind of conservative students, because he is known as a conservative, right? That's not called humor. That's called. So, so James says boomers, it's called humor. No, that's not called humor. You young people have no concept what humor actually is. So he says this year, he's got a third Republican fusionist upper right. He's got a third progressives lower left. And a third, what he's calling post liberals, upper left, anti free markets, anti social freedom, which is where he is. He says, and hardly a libertarian in the room. So that was a long introduction to the point that free market ideas are losing the status, the status of muscle. And the status of soul are winning. The people who want to control both your mind and your body are winning. The people want to control you in the bedroom and the boardroom are winning. Call them the new right, the new left, the whatever the religious left, the religious right. They're the ones winning. Yeah. One of freemen says sounds like Russia today. Yes. And it's not an accident that these people adore Putin. They adore Orban. They adore those autocrats, authoritarians who restrict their people's economic freedom and restrict their people social freedom because that's the dream they have for America. Most of them happen to be Catholic and they'd love to bring about some form of Catholic theocracy to us all, but they'll take whatever they can get. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me, you get value from listening, you get value from watching, show your appreciation. You can do that by going to Iran book show dot com slash support, go to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube, so that you get announcement when we go live. And for those of you who already subscribers and those of you who already supporters of the show. Thank you. I very much appreciate it.