FWIW, I would listen to this 4 person, murderer’s row of talent podcast religiously if it was a regular thing. I’d tell everyone I know to listen to it.
I was disappointed when Josh left but managed to get back into it after awhile. I like the current panel with Mo and Sarah, but it does lack a proper center (David is fine as moderator, but he's no centrist).
Josh, this was a great conversation, so yes, definitely more like this! In addition to being a subscriber and fan, I also really respect McArdle and Pesca, and enjoyed getting to know Dreyfuss a bit, and they made for a good mix in part by living up to the point you made about not always trying to find/force agreement. (I consider myself a very strong First Amendment supporter, for instance, but find the TikTok case not a hard call given the CCP's embeddedness with any major Chinese business... So hearing Pesca was good to push the thinking, even though I still disagree.)
I can see that I’m in the minority here but not a big fan so far. Much of this episode seemed quite glib to me. A lot of self-congratulatory opining The topics are pitched at such an abstract, 30k foot level that it amounts to little more than what might hear on a Sunday morning show.
There are such egregious things happening to people and agencies throughout our government, our civic sector, and even the private sector that you are all just talking over.
I have a particular interest in what’s happening at US AID. It’s not only irresponsible, it’s reprehensible. So much is being destroyed, including people’s lives both here and abroad,without any oversight or recourse.
Try reading through this devex newsletter and then see if you can or dare to just ‘bring the glib.’
I appreciate your feedback. We want to hear from everyone -- negative feedback is actually more actionable than positive feedback. Thanks for listening.
I agree. I am hungry for a program that can ask questions like your, “what might Trump actually do well?” This conversation hit the mark there and in other areas where you had some disagreement or an opportunity to offer varying responses.. Where you all agreed, however, the program became glib.
It seems to me too much agreement is precisely the moment when harder questions are needed. The DEI discussion, in particular, fell victim to too much hollow consensus. Yes there are myriad examples of progressive excess in the DEI arena, and the DEI directives and trainings and political correctness you identified are among them. You are right to call them out. But isn’t that a bit of a strawman at this point? Where was the DEI version of your “what will Trump do right question”?
Among the “DEI” rules Trump rescinded is one that goes back to LBJ. Is it the uniform opinion of all of your commentators that we would have made the same progress in the last 50 years on race and gender issues without gender and racial equality initiatives? I would love to know the answer to that. If so, why and how? If not, then how do we discern good DEI from bad DEI? What do we even mean by DEI? It has become a meaningless boogie man of the right. The moment doesn’t need the “piling-on” of centrists; it needs, what now is our national understanding and hope for “all men are created equal.” Now, that would be a conversation worth having.
Also, please consider the balance of talking time. I kept noticing I hadn’t heard from Megan McCardle for a while, and then Josh, you would “call” on her. Felt like DEI. Hmmm.
Yes, more of this please! An excellent selection for a podcast - I was already a fan of McArdle and Dreyfuss, and Pesca sounds interesting from this (to me) introduction. Great to hear you back talking politics.
I really enjoyed this episode! Ironically, since you left LRC and David Green took over with Isger and Elleithee, my biggest critique has been that the show often feels like CCC-lite, given Isger’s “almost accidental Republican” stance and Elleithee’s focus on fostering unity at Georgetown.
This podcast, though, had a lot more zip and pulled no punches in its critiques of both the left and the right, which I really appreciated. It was also genuinely funny at times, and the chemistry between the four of you was fantastic—top-notch guest lineup!
It might be a long shot, but it’d be amazing if you could bring Bruenig and Lowry back for an episode—sort of a KCRW circa 2018 “reunion pod.” Hearing Rich on Jeff Mauer’s recent show felt like catching up with an old friend I love to disagree with.
This was excellent—so glad to hear you back in the podcasting world with such a dynamic group (and not just Ken! No disrespect to Ken - we love our Popehat).
I enjoyed the pod - I particularly appreciated the callout about how while some of these actions by Trump may seem like performative politics, it's frustrating that we'll have to wait for there to be tangible suffering before people will realize that having an unhinged moron at the helm is legitimately bad for America.
LOVE this. Would definitely love to hear more. The whole discussion was engaging and entertaining while offering some alternative views without falling victim to groupthink. Megan McArdle is also one of my favorite commentators.
This was great. More of this, please. I loved this. Great guests; have them back.
My only criticism is that anyone who says "When I was in college - at Harvard, I went to Harvard by the way - and when I was at Harvard..." should be fired out of a cannon into the sun.
If you think Josh is annoying about having gone to Harvard, I don't think you've met enough people who went to Harvard. He's tame about it by any reasonable standard.
Yes, more like this would be great. The pitch of something affirmatively centrist reminds me of this piece, maybe Trace would be a good guest on a future episode? https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-center-must-rise
FWIW, I would listen to this 4 person, murderer’s row of talent podcast religiously if it was a regular thing. I’d tell everyone I know to listen to it.
Just, thank you! These days, I feel unreasonably excited about an "LRC, now with extra C" supershow.
Wishing the SerioPesca+ team great success! Will be sure to share any spare Attention Units towards the cause.
I’ve super fell off on LRC. The moderation isn’t as good as Josh is, and the guests are far less likable.
I was disappointed when Josh left but managed to get back into it after awhile. I like the current panel with Mo and Sarah, but it does lack a proper center (David is fine as moderator, but he's no centrist).
He's just a little too vanilla
Josh, this was a great conversation, so yes, definitely more like this! In addition to being a subscriber and fan, I also really respect McArdle and Pesca, and enjoyed getting to know Dreyfuss a bit, and they made for a good mix in part by living up to the point you made about not always trying to find/force agreement. (I consider myself a very strong First Amendment supporter, for instance, but find the TikTok case not a hard call given the CCP's embeddedness with any major Chinese business... So hearing Pesca was good to push the thinking, even though I still disagree.)
Keep 'em coming! And thank you!
I can see that I’m in the minority here but not a big fan so far. Much of this episode seemed quite glib to me. A lot of self-congratulatory opining The topics are pitched at such an abstract, 30k foot level that it amounts to little more than what might hear on a Sunday morning show.
There are such egregious things happening to people and agencies throughout our government, our civic sector, and even the private sector that you are all just talking over.
I have a particular interest in what’s happening at US AID. It’s not only irresponsible, it’s reprehensible. So much is being destroyed, including people’s lives both here and abroad,without any oversight or recourse.
Try reading through this devex newsletter and then see if you can or dare to just ‘bring the glib.’
https://pages.devex.com/index.php/email/emailWebview
I appreciate your feedback. We want to hear from everyone -- negative feedback is actually more actionable than positive feedback. Thanks for listening.
I agree. I am hungry for a program that can ask questions like your, “what might Trump actually do well?” This conversation hit the mark there and in other areas where you had some disagreement or an opportunity to offer varying responses.. Where you all agreed, however, the program became glib.
It seems to me too much agreement is precisely the moment when harder questions are needed. The DEI discussion, in particular, fell victim to too much hollow consensus. Yes there are myriad examples of progressive excess in the DEI arena, and the DEI directives and trainings and political correctness you identified are among them. You are right to call them out. But isn’t that a bit of a strawman at this point? Where was the DEI version of your “what will Trump do right question”?
Among the “DEI” rules Trump rescinded is one that goes back to LBJ. Is it the uniform opinion of all of your commentators that we would have made the same progress in the last 50 years on race and gender issues without gender and racial equality initiatives? I would love to know the answer to that. If so, why and how? If not, then how do we discern good DEI from bad DEI? What do we even mean by DEI? It has become a meaningless boogie man of the right. The moment doesn’t need the “piling-on” of centrists; it needs, what now is our national understanding and hope for “all men are created equal.” Now, that would be a conversation worth having.
Also, please consider the balance of talking time. I kept noticing I hadn’t heard from Megan McCardle for a while, and then Josh, you would “call” on her. Felt like DEI. Hmmm.
Yes, more of this please! An excellent selection for a podcast - I was already a fan of McArdle and Dreyfuss, and Pesca sounds interesting from this (to me) introduction. Great to hear you back talking politics.
I really enjoyed this episode! Ironically, since you left LRC and David Green took over with Isger and Elleithee, my biggest critique has been that the show often feels like CCC-lite, given Isger’s “almost accidental Republican” stance and Elleithee’s focus on fostering unity at Georgetown.
This podcast, though, had a lot more zip and pulled no punches in its critiques of both the left and the right, which I really appreciated. It was also genuinely funny at times, and the chemistry between the four of you was fantastic—top-notch guest lineup!
It might be a long shot, but it’d be amazing if you could bring Bruenig and Lowry back for an episode—sort of a KCRW circa 2018 “reunion pod.” Hearing Rich on Jeff Mauer’s recent show felt like catching up with an old friend I love to disagree with.
This was excellent—so glad to hear you back in the podcasting world with such a dynamic group (and not just Ken! No disrespect to Ken - we love our Popehat).
Looking forward to what comes next!
Yes, please… a Centrist podcast with you at the helm would be much appreciated.
This episode had great guests. I really enjoyed your past conversations with:
Jerusalem Demsas
Ross Douthat
Jamelle Bouie
Matt Yglesias
If you could speak with David Brooks and David Frum that would be interesting as well
Thank you!!!
I enjoyed the pod - I particularly appreciated the callout about how while some of these actions by Trump may seem like performative politics, it's frustrating that we'll have to wait for there to be tangible suffering before people will realize that having an unhinged moron at the helm is legitimately bad for America.
Yes please, more episodes like this.
LOVE this. Would definitely love to hear more. The whole discussion was engaging and entertaining while offering some alternative views without falling victim to groupthink. Megan McArdle is also one of my favorite commentators.
A negative number cannot be a unit of measure Josh. Units of measure have to be absolute values and therefore must be positive.
A Scaramucci is still the official unit of measure.
More please
This was great and would definitely like more of this style and format!
This was great. More of this, please. I loved this. Great guests; have them back.
My only criticism is that anyone who says "When I was in college - at Harvard, I went to Harvard by the way - and when I was at Harvard..." should be fired out of a cannon into the sun.
"How can you tell someone went to Harvard?"
If you think Josh is annoying about having gone to Harvard, I don't think you've met enough people who went to Harvard. He's tame about it by any reasonable standard.
Josh, this was a great episode.