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

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://amzn.to/4ea9GnK] https://americanreformer.org/2026/03/whither-the-reformation-in-america/ [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

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/podcast/conservatisms-lamentable-drift/] https://lawliberty.org/a-quiet-refusal-to-compromise/ [https://lawliberty.org/a-quiet-refusal-to-compromise/] Beautiful Losers [https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2026/03/100463/] https://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/pleasure_of_hating/ [https://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/pleasure_of_hating/] Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics [https://amzn.to/4e6Qvvc] 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

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 [https://runnymedesociety.ca/en/team/], 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

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

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