Backblaze makes backing up and accessing your data astonishingly easy. Go to backblaze.com/factually to start your 15-day no credit card required free trial! Get $15 off a Skylight Calendar at SkylightCal.com/FACTUALLY! Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.com/adamconover See Adam on tour: www.adamconover.net/tourdates/

Its hard to respect and humanize folks that are actively working on taking away my human rights and dont consider people like me human.

Something I always try to remember is that nobody or almost nobody thinks of themselves as the villain of their story

It is interesting to discuss socialism and the Green New Deal as old thoughts. What I struggle with is so many on the left, didn't want that term- socialism. I realize Bernie did. But other left folks would have liked to leave the term behind because of its perception. I don't know how we get away from the whole "say it three times and folks think it is true" when Republicans are walking around saying "the left is communism". What I'd like to hear is more of a focus on "Safety net". I think it can soften the perception common on the right that people "don't want to work". No, safety nets are about the ability to take risks. If your medical care isn't tied to your job, you can change jobs or start a business- without worrying your kids will be without doctors for months. If you know that if your risk doesn't pan out, we'll give you a hand up, this is a good thing. It is why mosh pits can still be fun- because some folks will pull you up when you fall flat on your face rather than stomping you to death. I don't know how the left markets a "hand up", without Republicans marketing it as a "hand out". I also think of it as those Spartan race slip walls - the first person has to be boosted, but once boosted, they reach back and pull other people up. I just don't know how to sell teamwork to the highly individualistic mindset that says "don't give me a hand up, give me a gun to keep you out".

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I grew up in a very rural, conservative, religious community. I went to graduate school and moved to a liberal city, but my heart is in the country and I go back often. I hate how urban liberals talk about rural conservatives, and vise versa. Country folk are usually very kind, loyal, helpful, and clever. They’re good neighbors and hard workers.

We mock them for being clowns instead of looking at projects 2025 with the horror it deserves. We made this mistake with Trump. We have to learn from that.

One of the important things I came to grips with over the last decade or so was just how different some people see the world. You can know it on a surface level, but it's very easy to assume that you all hold certain fundamental ideas in common and only disagree on more trivial stuff. But no, there are in fact people out there who effectively believe that up is down, the grass is blue, the sky is green, etc. And no small number of them, either. The next step is to realize that a lot of them haven't made that same realization themselves; *they* think *you* -- and people in general -- think more like them than you actually do.

Adam needs to do one on busting the myth of democracy in America, and exposing the corporate owned oligarchy.

I would love to live in a world where the issue of homelessness was viewed as a similar moral and pragmatic failure to the barbarity of slavery. The fact that one of the most basic rights of a human being, shelter from environmental harm, is kept from people by virtue of random circumstance or mental health (where treatment is denied or too expensive to access) or education level or otherwise is the most cruel and insane thing I can imagine. People less caring might walk by and yell get a job and then fail to imagine the person in tatters and dirt can’t wander anywhere without being blamed and accosted for their condition and would be hounded to the hills for trying to work without even having a place to clean themselves or comfortably sleep.

I think Corey still misses the point. The job of the Right is to "win" - they treat life and politics like a zero-sum game. If you are to "win" someone else obviously has to "lose" and they sometimes focus very heavily on making sures others lose: if everyone else is losing, then probably you're winning... something... somewhere. That's actually the driving principle of people who live, work, and vote on the right. (and then mix in from time to time a right-driven sense of self-guilt about this that then makes the right want to rally behind a "moral compass" that tries to offset their daily activities in pushing other people into a losing position)

As someone who only recently deconstructed his conservatism (and reconstructed as a socialist anarchist? WTF, me?), this is so true. There is so much determined principled stance’ing on the right, and so much energy goes into dealing with the cognitive dissonance involved in holding positions which are necessarily paradoxical. I was a good guy, kind, helpful, benevolent; I believed in the individualist philosophy, even when it seemed no one around me took it seriously. My shell was cracked from the inside by that calloused disregard for decency shown by my social and religious heroes, and eventually shattered to bits by the raw decency and invested-action of the folk I was instructed to see as diabolical enemy. To dismiss right-wingers as unprincipled idiots is to deny the power that a simple, crystalline, sterile worldview has for folk who have the luxury of holding it.

I’d like to see a video about what the Right gets wrong about the Left. I like what you said - it lurks in the human heart. We all have the same human nature, regardless of political affiliation. This is one of the best conversations I’ve heard on this subject.

I watched this because I honestly questioned myself, why are smart people for Trump? Maybe there should be one for "What Conservatives Get Wrong about the Left" because conservatives have some pretty vile ideas about liberals.

It's also a mistake Liberals make to focus on the dumb stuff like how cartoonish or irrational or hypocritical Conservatives appear, and then dust their hands off and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. As if pointing those things out and laughing will be so devastating a critique that the Conservative will shrivel up and hide back in the shadows.

The idea that we all are just dismissing conservative people as stupid because we have no idea of conservatives' inner thoughts or philosophies is just not true. A lot of people have family who are deeply conservative and grew up that way so they understand it. I know all the rational I had when I was conservative and I know all the cognitive dissonance required to make the whole cart not tip over. I am willing to show understanding and compassion when I talk to people, but some people will take your intellectual civility and spit on it. I can't even define the term fiat currency without my relative calling me an egghead who thinks he's stupid and yelling at me that I am crazy and stupid and a communist. That is the reality in a lot situations. I might dismissive say so and so is being stupid sometimes because it is shorthand for unwilling to look at ideas; they put some ideas in a box and just won't engage. It is very programed. There are things i used to be able to talk about and then the rightwing media made them bugaboos and now i can't talk about it. Like walkable cities and public transportation! As someone who can't really drive for medical reasons, I care about this issue a lot, but now walkable cities and public transportation is an evil agenda to destroy america or something?! This really all comes down to the tolerance of intolerance. Conservatives want to make some people's lives illegal by calling some human rights unnatural (e.g. women's right to choose, marriage equality, trans healthcare) and then get mad when progressives won't tolerate that intolerance. Too many conservatives act like not censoring free speech means people who aren't racist should stand up and clap when a racist person says something racist. It is nonsensical.

As a person that grew up in the South in a “traditional” working class, religious, moderately conservative (but not unreasonable and often moderate) family, surrounded by moderate to highly conservative, I know “the Right” pretty well. After being a music major and joining the military, I spent a lot of time around both extremes, and started becoming much more grounded with being an independent moderate to highly progressive, I’ve seen both sides even more objectively for a couple decades. I’ve been all over the world and spent time in a lot of different cultures. The biggest takeaway has been that people are more alike than not, regardless of your birth, raised and chosen beliefs. I still spend a lot of time around people I normally wouldn’t choose if it was on me, and all too often, when I’m around conservatives, I’m the most progressive person in the room, and when I’m around very liberal people, I’m the most conservative person in the room. After I started studied science, I felt that trying to take unbiased approach to problems was important to getting the best results. I tired to call myself an independent moderate for as long as I could, but independent progressive is really the most accurate. I do see how so many people box themselves into restrictive and not fully realistic views. With the internet and social media, we seem to have created even deeper and detached bubbles. We all will fall into ridiculous holes of rhetoric and nonsense; it’s just a matter for how long and how deep before we catch ourselves from it. And nowadays, it can feel really isolated and lonely by trying to be so rigid with not getting sucked into either direction it can go. Now that election season is in full swing, with likely yet another election with two candidates that are terrible for uniting a country and a part of systems that are the problem, it’s a frustrating and depressing place to be. I don’t have hope things will go well regardless who the next elected figurehead will be. It’s not that it’s bad to have extreme views, but when you reside in one camp for everything, that when it becomes toxic to a functional society and culture. There are no cookie cutter fixes for everything; that is why an adherence to one political party or set of ideals (as they are most often realized and employed), especially with a mostly two-party system, is terrible for a democratic republic. It is certainly understandable and unpreventable to not get extremely mad and frustrated by “the other side“, but you cannot dismiss them or write them off completely, or it just exacerbates our problems even more. And in an age where we live more in the extremes than in a long time, it allows those with power, influence and money to gain even more control of things, and rig the system against the majority.

It was a democratic movement against slavery in the U.K. too. Decades of campaigns, petitions, boycotts etc. There is a brilliant book called “Bury the Chains, the British fight to Abolish Slavery” which details it. It’s incredibly inspiring

The portion about villains was so telling, and I've fallen into that trap so many times. Thinking that the enemy is stupid, because if they were smart (the unsaid portion being "smart like I am"), then they'd have come to the same conclusions that I did. But the realization that those on the right have a fundamentally different worldview, where they believe that equality is the enemy and hierarchy is inevitable and good, was jarring. And when you realize that, all the supposed hypocrisies of the right fall neatly into place. It's not actually hypocritical to them to demonize drug use by the poor while engaging in it themselves; *we* are higher status, *they* are lower status, it's okay when I do it but not when they do it. It's okay when I get a govt subsidy on my mortgage because I deserve it due to my status, when the lower levels get the same it's an unearned handout. It's cruelty, yes, but they don't see it as such. They see it as every member of the ladder staying on their rung and treating everyone above and below accordingly. It's why they're so against taxing the rich even if you frame it as being good for them too. Because if anyone can come for those at the very top, it means their station is just as vulnerable, and they'd rather stay in a system where they're comfortably in the middle than risk losing anything. As much as they shout about strength and courage and fighting against some supposed cultural enemy, it's a worldview defined by selfishness and fear.

I love the comment about putting kids in public school instead of private! I've been having this argument with my in-laws a ton lately. They insist they'll pay for it, and I keep telling them that's not the problem. I want my son to be exposed to many different walks of life, specifically, different socio-economic walks of life. Hence, it becomes much more challenging to dehumanize and reduce those people to a "problem that needs to be fixed."

“We need to understand conservatives to be able to debate them.” Alright finally someone saying something smart. “Immediate 180 into demonizing all conservatives as racists” I guess it was too much to ask.

I was hoping for a conversation more akin to Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind." Where this conversation falls short is in on having someone from the right. There are literally millions of people who would tell you their opinion if you asked for it.

Great conversation! I’m really trying to understand, and to that end I have formed friendships with people who challenge my way of thinking. Still, there are a few points I just can’t seem to get past: 1) they talk about strength, and dominating other people in a way that borders on lasciviousness. 2) they loath preferential treatment. They think people who need accommodations should just graciously exclude themselves from participating. But legacy admissions, using family connections to garner favor, and tax loopholes are fine. 3) they insist that success and prosperity is proof of deservingness. 4). They are terrified of crime, and want to see criminals punished (as opposed to solving the underlying issues that lead to crime.)

Also check out Innuendo Studio's "Alt-Right Playbook" series. It's quite possibly the best and easiest to understand guide to how they think and why. Dumpster Flower's "Dark Side of Liberalism" is excellent to the history of the right as well

The day after the 2016 election, I had to attend a work-related seminar about suicide in the US. The presenter showed a map of the US that depicted which states had the highest suicide rates. I couldn't help myself, I jumped to my feet and stated, "It's the red states! They're all the red states!" The presenter replied, "Clearly these people are struggling." It would appear that our systems are failing them.

I was raised by two conservatives who voted Republican 100% of the time, whereas I've always been liberal/progressive in my views and voted Democratic. We rarely agreed on anything but we could discuss and debate issues in a civil manner-- and we could at least agree on what was reality. They would not recognize today's Republican Party with all its conspiracy theories and fascist leanings. They'd probably just not vote at all. At 64, I will only vote for Democrats and I lean harder to the Left than I did at 18. I'm sorry, but the Right has gone crazy and I cannot reason with crazy. 💙VOTE BLUE!💙

Hard to take Adam's opening comments seriously in light of the clerk who said Thomas, upon taking his seat on the Supreme Court, said he now had 43 years to punish liberals as they had made him suffer. And this in light of his sexual harassment of Anita Hill ... no, I do not think he has a serious view of jurisprudence. We have to take them as a threat, not their ideas as serious.

We're 55 minutes in and Adam hasn't asked about the massive grift ... I'd be interested in hearing how Thomas's beliefs make it okay for him to receive thousands and thousands of dollars in unreported gifts.

I’m a progressive living in conservative West Texas. People here - who lean Trump - are usually really decent and kind. They’re worried about their religion and in their worldview, secular liberals are threatening to destroy their most cherished and beloved ideas. Many of these believers don’t critically assess their own faith - doing so is unthinkable so they don’t see the irony when they’re assholes. To win them over, simply don’t trash talk Christianity. Instead, learn about it and argue from the a different perspective. We can defeat right wingers when we understand their Judeo-Christian worldview.

The caliber, uniqueness, and volume of fresh and nuanced information that this episode provided was exceptional. I genuinely feel intellectually enriched from having viewed this discussion. (additionally, from my heavy heart, PLEASE SUPPORT ANTI GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS & ADVOCACY. NO GUNS IN SCHOOLS.)

I have never known a single reactionary who's asked the question, "What did *I* do wrong?". What they usually ask is "How can I punish those who (in my opinion) did me wrong?".

It's hard to respect people who blatantly disrespect minorities 😂

He starts off by saying they’re not solely about power. And then immediate says they’d believe a certain group of people are better and they should be ruling. That’s called, “power.” Yes they adapt, into whatever form most keeps them in, “power.” 🤔

I am a moderate conservative and I loved your show Adam ruins everthing. I just recently found your channel and I love it to.

Them being real people makes their atrocities even less forgivable.

While i get that we want to understand the other side, at the end of the day we've gotten to a point, today, where these questions are not very complicated: if you try to overturn an election by force, you must be defeated. If you try to ban an entire religion from entering the country you must be defeated. We're not talking about who had the better tax plan anymore. This is foundational; either we're going to be a Democracy (Republic 🙄) or not.

"Understanding the enemy". Calling someone an "enemy", or a whole group, an "enemy" is the first step to fully NOT understanding anyone or anything. There can never be an unbiased opinion unless and until we stop 'othering' those with different thinking than us. Applies to both "sides".

As a conservative moderate and significant libertarian I can't help but notice the identification of the right is the total government non-libertarian right which to me is as bad as the total government left. Both parties were more libertarian and liberal has its origins in the word libertarian. Our system was setup to prevent the abuses of total government. No longer is the question if we should have total government but a fight over who has that control. There are things we need the government to do and things we don't. The right coversations aren't being had in the right ways. We let the government grab too much power. And now it can't administrate the things that are no brainers like most of the budget so that it becomes a political football. There is nothing that says the whole budget had to be passed at once. That is just something they do. It is madness and about increasing control among politicians.

The issue with clarence thomas not speaking is that he doesn't ask questions. It means he probably formed his opinion before he heard the trial (because he has to do good by his donors)

US politics are so right wing that they believe liberals are left wing.

Bravo! This is a great example of discourse divorced from emotion. This is what we need everywhere, but especially on the national stage. Keep up the great work!

"If you are leaning on the rules it means you don't have that much power..." Well said!

In high school, an atheist friend of mine wanted to read the Christian Bible "to know what their philosophy is, what they're going to use to proselytize to us, etc" It's good to know your enemy, not disregard them.

Soooo... if Clarence Thomas' theory is that Black people should work on lifting up powerful Black men like himself so that those men will then "take care of their own," at what point does he get around to doing that last part?

It's ebbs and flows. The tragic thing is that other disenfranchised people are swept up in these movements, such as those who lost due to globalization, and these people are actually further hurt by the movement they support. Because the conservatives don't really care about them, but they do need them to stay in power.

Ive never thought Clarence Thomas was stupid but ive always thought he was a evil oligarch. Now hearing that story and what he believes just strengthened that belief.

One minute in and why should I care about someone that wants me outlawed or dead?

I’m posting this before watching the whole video at the 2:30 mark, but after listening to that intro I gotta say I get very frustrated at this narrative that the left needs to do a better job of understanding the right. I hear this all the time. What I never hear is a push for the right to do a better job understanding the left. I can’t recall ever hearing someone on the right say “hey guys, we need to understand those leftists better.” Or “rural people need to understand urban people better.” Maybe I’m not looking in the right places, but from what I see, those things absent from the public conversation. And it’s not like most conservatives actually understand the progressive/left perspective. Based on what I see in the news, and conversations with conservative family members and friends, they absolutely don’t. Why should people on the left go out of their way to understand the right, when there’s no effort on the part of the right to reciprocate? Doesn’t that just feed right wing narratives? Personally I think most of our political disagreements emerge from a conservative failure to understand, not from a progressive failure to understand.

I’m a social liberal, fiscal conservative. You can do whatever you want, be who you want, and enjoy what makes you happy… but I’m not spending my life working to pay for it for you. I vote liberal except when it’s an initiative that I and my household will never use. I vote no for school systems, I vote no for social services that help families with children. I vote yes for local parks and resources for adults.

As someone who grew up in a very right wing family, but is now about as hard left as you can get I promise you this guy doesn't understand the right at all.

I don't think liberals take that for granted at all. I CONSTANTLY see discussions about why conservatives act and vote the way they do. In fact I see it in FAR more detail than any conservatives seem to even CARE about 'liberals', they not only seem to not be interested in 'why' liberals act the way they do, they seem to hate them SO bad that they dont 'even LISTEN to them. Frankly in states where abortion is now illegal its NOT worthwhile to sit and ponder the reasons why conservatives, let alone the far right, act the way they do. All you can do is oppose, because thats just effed up. Understanding the philosophy behind being mysognynistic really doesn't get you far.

This was a great discussion that exceeded my expectations. I think one thing that gets lost in the discussion of intellectual leaders on the right is the base appeal to the masses. Most people, regardless of their voting history, don't have a coherent political philosophy. I truly don't mean that as an insult per se and it absolutely applies to people on the left and center as well. But it's important to delineate a thinker/leader like Thomas or Gorsuch from your aunt or uncle that are literally brainwashed by FoxNews and FaceBook, and aren't reading theory.. or anything (not even a newspaper anymore). However, I do think Corey really honed in on the common thread of those reactionary leaders and your average R voter, and that's the pessimism. The concrete belief that things can't change for the better in a meaningful way. They don't believe that any politician can make things better for everyone. Maybe, at best, they can make things better for them or people very similar to them. And boy howdy to the modern Democrats do a great job of proving those people right when they repeatedly fail to acknowledge or address economic inequality despite expansive rhetoric. This messaging from the Republicans and the similar pessimism shared by neo-liberal centrist Dems inoculates voters against a message like Bernie's. In 2016 Clinton said, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass." Her and Obama ran a pessimistic messaging campaign in 2016 that was a galaxy away from Hope & Change. It was much more about the path being set, and not needing to deviate from it. I truly believe that messaging hurt Clinton in the general. It was not optimistic, and even Obama's 2012 campaign still used that optimistic framing. In 2023, we feel far away from it. Biden didn't really run on that kind of message, and won't again in 2024.

Corey Robin’s “The Reactionary Mind” is what got me into left-wing politics and analysis. He has a great talent at cutting through nonsense and delivering concise understanding

We tried Respecting them Adam And they Went and elected a fascist anyway we tried respecting them and they attacked the capital. The time to turn the other cheek is over. We're all out of cheeks! Adam how long do you let a bully push you around adam? The authorities wont help us the law refuses to acknowledge!

Hey Adam I think you would delight in knowing you're the one that set me down the leftist path. Adam Ruins Everything started me on a path of "Hey this stuff suck and maybe it shouldn't". What really stuck out to me was that the show always showed it's sources and I knew from school how much that mattered and how much it meant you probably weren't lying. The. I started to watch other stuff that did the same like Last Week Tonight and Some More News. Little by little my recommendations were different and at one point I realized I was hard left.

"A reactionary movement to equality and freedom" so I do understand the right perfectly 😂

Off topic of the show, but on topic of set design... Whoever choose that reflective trophy or doodad on the shelf behind Adam, such that it shows the guest's reactions when they're not on camera, well placed. ❤

What I take from this description is that the issue is FAIRNESS and what everyone sees as FAIR. It is both not fair that people should be oppressed or exploited AND not fair that people should lose their advantages, especially if they are not personally oppressing others. How do we draw together a social movement around a negotiated consensus of fairness?

18:34 this is funny, I was talking to my dad a couple days ago (who doesn't know I used to live in a tent myself, long story), and he suggested basically this. I tried to gently suggest how bad that would actually be for homeless people, but he didn’t get it lol

I'm sorry, saying "don't think conservatives are stupid" doesn't sway me when you then explain that they believe in some really stupid things. Even if their approach to make that belief real can be smart.

This man is wrong in his fundamental premise. Right wing values tradition (no change) vs the left wing which values progress (yes change). Even from the beginning with his assertion about the french. The right wing french wanted monarchy and a strong state because thats what they already had traditionally. Both sides of politics can be authoritarian, and we should all watch out for it.

The more I listen to actual educated and rational leftists, the more I realize that I align with them. I have no idea how the political left can be flooded with so many incompetents with no idea of how to successfully spread a message.

The biggest determinant of whether someone is liberal? The more concentrated the population is where they live. Geographical determinates of political persuasion are legitimate. And our political system gives more power to geographical area than population density, so that’s why conservatives have so much disproportionate political power in our country.

The biggest problem I have with conservatives is there willingness to forego reality that they don’t like in preference to ideology that they do. This for me is what has allowed the far/hard right to claw its way back into mainstream politics when, after the last century, it’s clear it should never do again.

I want to chime in here and mention that I suspect that our language is failing us when we're talking about "privilege" and wealth. The word "privileged" doesn't realiy describe someone who can, in broad daylight, steal a thousand retirement savings accounts worth hundreds of millions and not do a single day in jail, or even much time in a courtroom. You need a new, bigger word for that. The word "Wealthy" comes nowhere near adequately describing someone who's personal fortune would make Mansa Musa or Quianlong weep with jealousy. You'd call someone with a pickup truck full of hundreds "Wealthy". What do you call a multibillionaire whos cash income would require a fleet of tractor-trailers to haul off? A modern right-winger isn't just "defending privilege and wealth". They're defending something you'd need 40ft-high granite letters to adequately relate. Just a thought.

And there is the first mistake people on both sides make. We are not enemies! We are all Americans. This is the reason why we are a great country. It takes ideas from all three sides ( left, right, and middle) to accomplish this. By having rational conversions, and trying to understand each other’s points of view is the only way for us to survive. Basically one side balances out the other so that we don’t go off the rails.

I wrote a paper in the 90s for my Early Modern Political Philosophy class that aligned the views of Rousseau, Locke, David Hume, and others into what I thought was a decent summation of liberal and conservative views. There is really one big assumption and the rest are derived. What is man in a state of nature? Locke (liberal) - They are happy and the social contract is made to protect private property. Hume - Man in a state of nature is in a state of war and the job of government is to stop man from being at constant war with each other. With Hume you can get there through religion or not. That leads to the question of what is more important, security or liberty. The liberal line came out with liberal and the conservatives security. That leads to a third question that are people improvable through policy? While in reality this question is really answered on a per case basis, the normal conservative answer is no. Policy can't lead to improvements in people. If we can't improve people through policy, then social programs don't work. If we view security over liberty, stronger police forces are favored, if man in a state of nature is at war, strength is the only way to any freedom or security. That is not me agreeing with these policies, that is just what I came up with at 18 (oh so long ago) after working my ass off in my Political Science undergrad. I have since become reformed and have a masters in Information Systems so I make my money in tech.... cause no one cared about that paper and being a lawyer seemed odious.

I had an idea for a homeless camp in the desert. It would have an urgent care clinic, a psychiatric center, a state services center, a socially trained sheriff's station, an employment and training center, free pharmacy, support workers, financial classes, and much much more. It would be in a valley in Arizona in the farming area and would have a large, organic, and old fashioned farm that starts everyone $2 above minimum wage. There would also be a hearty business that would draw people from the camps and use the food that would directly support the camp. People would live there free and be helped to save up to get a regular home. Don't think it would be able to afford much more than tiny homes tho. I want them taken care of and helped, not treated like animals.

I haven't heard the word "co-opt" yet. Gingrich was really good at "cribbing from the left" as you say. In my vague recollection it was the left that was big on owning the language, and boy did the right learn from that one. Turning anti-abortion into pro-life being the biggest example.

I'm going to say this, because I feel like I need to do so. Just because someone has a reason they behave how they do, that does not mean that they are then excused for their behavior. I do not owe respect or understanding to any individual who believes that being in control of someone else's body, or life, is in any way acceptable. You do not deserve to be respected or understood if you show you don't respect or attempt to understand others. We can fight back, sure, but what is that going to really accomplish? Fighting doesn't solve anything. At best it delays the problem, and at worst it can make the issues exponentially worse. You get what you give, and if all you can give is pain and suffering, that is all you will eventually get. I do understand that these people are human, but I also understand that the actions you make have consequences, and it seems that is something that many government officials seem violently allergic to, as they look for anything they can to push the responsibility or blame onto someone else. TL:DR - Respect is earned, and understanding isn't something that should be attempted when the individual has made it very clear that, regardless of reason, they are willing and ready to force their own perception onto others.

As a person on the left interested in this subject, I'd rather read a conservative going in depth on this kind of analysis for his own side.

Im from Oklahoma and I'm the furthest left person I know. Single payer healthcare and free state college, etc. Lots of arguments with coworkers lol Im surrounded by conservatives and I think a lot of them are scared people who don't trust anyone outside of their family. And they want some strong man Daddy figure to be in charge and make things the way they want them by force and keep the "good" people safe and the "bad" people in cages.

Such a necessary discussion. It's so easy to dehumanize people who disagree with your political views, no matter what those are. Real progress is made when people stop treating each other like evil cartoons.

I maintain that Jordan Peterson's characterization of "conservatives" and "liberals" is the only characterization I have ever found even remotely productive or helpful. He asserts that conservatives primarily seek to create and maintain hierarchies, while liberals seek to challenge and dismantle hierarchies. He proposes that you _must_ have both groups in order for a society to function properly. He says that without the liberals fighting to challenge and dismantle the existing hierarchies, the hierarchies themselves become ossified and corrupt. Without the conservatives seeking to create and maintain hierarchies, society descends into chaos. I appreciate this model, because it recognizes the value of the entire population, rather than attempting to cast one side as better or more correct than the other.

Conservation of the Monarchy. That's what Conservatism is. That is the so-called "Tradition".

Huh. Ive tried for years, ive spoken with Right side freinds, co-workers, acquaintances etc. The thing you don't consider is those people have no interest in using critical thinking for ANYTHING. go talk to them, see if im wrong. They aren't stupid, they just don't care about anyone not in their tribe. Period.

Republicans talk forgetting video is being recorded and rope is for sale in every jurisdiction in the United States.

The rights love of capitalism was/is to preserve the nobles/ruling class.

I've found Robin's book quite enlightening. For example, it explains why they seem to punch down so often, since it gives those at the lower-tiers of the movement someone to feel superior too. But while I can intellectually get it, I can't quite grok how they think. In my value system, that's like making a conscious choice to be an a-hole, and I can't quite grasp why someone would _want_ to be that.

I think the naysayers in the comments are missing a pretty important point in who Adam has chosen to interview. His guest, being associated with the left, models what it looks like to actually look at differing opinions and engage with those idea and the people in a serious way. Adam’s audience is much more likely to take that to heart and into the world

Wow, imagine being a professor, doing all this research, going on a podcast and showing the world how you know nothing. The 'right' is not obsessed with power or privilege or who should rule. What the the 'right' believes is that the person who can make the best decision for yourself and your family is you. You are person who knows best how to defend yourself, what you should listen to, how you should make your money, and how you should spend it.

I've been saying this for ages: the thing that is the right's foundation in America isn't limited government or frugal spending or strict border control: it's white Christian nationalism.

Sun Tzu: ‘Know the enemy and know yourself in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.’

Glad that you cover that there are conservatives that started on the left, but I think it was left incomplete. Many move from the left as they get older because they achieve what they wanted and then want things to stay the same. And now with the oversized cohort of the boomers they are keeping the power longer than usual which means we (and other countries) have moved to the right and stopped progressing forward.

Diminishing returns of racist populism will just ensure that Republicans have greater incentive to eradicate voting rather than abandon racist populism

Of course two leftists are trying to understand the way right wing people think without the grossness of having to talk to one of us undesirables.

If this episode is anything, it’s “How people on the Left view the Right”.

_"It's not enough that I succeed... it's that others must fail."_ 😬

Both the "Right" and the "Left" are wrong, and mostly in the identical fashion--it's two teams wearing different colors but playing the exact same game in the exact same way. Politics/Government is an evil religious cult, and the struggles between the two opposing factions over which will control the cult are pointless and stupid.

I've never heard of this show before. Thanks for bringing on Robin. He's fantastic. Love his books.

“How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political power to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the twentieth century.” Aneurin Bevan, MP and founder of UK NHS

I live in a rural area where there's more republicans than democrats (nearly every democrat is a student or union member). My father is a butcher so I'm familiar with death but also doing things you don't enjoy for the sake of making a living / ensuring survival (FYI cows eat agricultural byproducts and generally things people wouldn't want to eat; you can't grow high-value crops on the same land year after year, especially without heavy use of artificial fertilizer). My father passionately hates weakness, I see it as something to work towards reducing without stigma. I'm against big business but also governments as we know them. Politicians will inevitably direct taxpayer money to businesses owned by themselves or their friends or their campaign donors (at an inflated price of course). I think what we need is a combination of socialism and some form of direct democracy. VSauce put out a video once suggesting a jury-duty-like system where people are randomly selected to vote on one or two things that they are given (paid) time to learn about. This eliminates career politicians as well as election campaigns. I worry about modern liberals because many seem to worship weakness, dependence, and being different for the sake of being different. They don't seem aware of the harsh realities of how the world works. Some support Hamas without realizing that Hamas would happily rape and kill them for being gay or simply not Muslim (as a note I do not support the Israeli government). At the same time, I hate Trump (FYI I also hate my father). I'm fine with marijuana legalization but I don't believe people should smoke it or tobacco and they shouldn't drink alcohol.

As a libertarian, I'm technically on the fence between the Left and the Right (although, by all accounts from the Left, I am 100% considered in the "enemy" camp, as I do not ascribe to the ideological purity of the Left). Corey Robin still doesn't get conservatives--and in many cases, he's WAY off base. But kudos to him for trying. Kudos to Adam Conover (of whom I've always been a fan, even when he's completely wrong about some topics). And kudos to all of you on the Left for, at the very least, TRYING to understand your "enemy." You've got a long way to go to bridge the understanding gap to be on par with the Right, as described in Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind," but taking those first steps is a VERY big deal. The first thing you might want to do is to stop referring to people with differing viewpoints as "the enemy...."

Here's the issue with this debate. I don't doubt that they have principles and beliefs- I know for a fact they do. The question is when they engage in political action, do they engage in good faith? The answer I think is at this time they do not. There was a time within my lifetime where they did and we saw things like bipartisan bills, and 5-4 decisions on issues that weren't necessarily blockbuster controversies but had legitimate grievances in the law. They come into a negotiation and they have a position, a goal, and they refuse to accept anything less than success unless the consequences are ruinous to them by not making a deal. The only thing that can be achieved by obsequious appeasement of their bad faith negotiation is the return of "american values" to the salem witch trials. Alito laid the game on the table by quoting Matthew Hale in Dobbs, the goal is to return to a pre-enlightenment state and everything they do is in service to that goal. Look at Merrick Garland, then at Amy Coney Barret and tell me they act in good faith. I dare you. Even someone as principled as Neil Gorsich, it seems his principles only extend insofar as it is not diametrically opposed to the party in a way that isn't ruinous.

I grew up in the south around conservatives, I know them just fine.

Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is a philosophical razor that suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.

I have always understood that the right wing in politics is pro hierarchy and the left wing is for more equality

I am a physicist, and I know that global warming will be a big problem for my children and grandchildren. I would like to have a national discussion about this so we can adopt agreed upon policies based on the best understanding of the problem. Science tells you what is happening in the world, policy tell us what we will do about it. The right, rather than discussing policy, attacks the science. This is an act of extremely bad faith and will make the future worse for everyone.

I live in a republican area, coal country in Sw Virginia. Very few democrats, and the few we do have are republican, but hate trump. Anyway, i try to have meaningful conversations with republican voters all the time. MOSTLY, we all agree on most of the basic policies, money out of politics, higher wages, less monopolies, less bullshit in the news. That last one is where it goes off the rails. I had no less than 6 full grown adults tell me "they just can't be ok with litter boxes in school's". I had to try and explain how none of that was true. No one could tell me anything substantial ie: who,what,when,where,why. No actual facts. How do we discuss serious facts and issues to get past the cult following of trump? We arent even living in the same reality. Most republican voters believe that crazy shit from far right media. Not to mention the way evangelical pastors say trump is the 2nd coming. Its a cult dude. Few of them might not believe, but the majority believe some form of crazy shit. I interact with them everyday, trust me. 26:32 lets be honest, it was the republican party that started the end of slavery, but since then the parties have changed positions.

Back in the day, I read a good explanation of Reactionary: " If the Left is For it, the Right is Against it."

I work at a liquor store with Indian bosses, one of whom is a Trump supporter. I was amazed to learn that he is pretty smart and reasonable most of the time, except that he thinks Trump's is a good thing for this country. Not all Trump supporters are stupid, which honestly makes it more puzzling all the things they believe about Trump or Biden. I always found it especially mind boggling how so many minorities end up supporting Trump. You can't tell them any different about him. But they are people, just like anyone else. Trump supporters just absolutely believe certain things like if you told me the sky was always pink and grass is red. It's an infallible truth. So this was an interesting talk. I do appreciate not just bashing conservatives as that's the easy way out, but not very productive. It just makes them hole up even further. It would be interesting to see how this whole modern conservative movement around Trump will be analyzed decades in the future. Anyways, thanks for this discussion. I always appreciate your talks.