Saving Elephants | Millennials defending & expressing conservative values

The Saving Elephants Podcast features engaging conversations about conservative values with a mercifully modern twist. Tired of political shock-talk and rank punditry on your radio and TV? Curious about what conservative thinkers of yesteryear had to say but don't have time to read some terribly long, boring book they wrote? Want to learn why conservatism still holds value for Millennials today? Join us as we re-ignite conservatism for Millennials!

Episode 80 – The Future of Fusionism with Stephanie Slade 04/06/2021

Episode 80 – The Future of Fusionism with Stephanie Slade “There's a well-worn tale about modern American conservatism,” writes Stephanie Slade in her piece for entitle “It says that the movement as we know it came into being during the mid–20th century as a ‘fusionist’ coalition of economic libertarians and religious traditionalists. These groups, whose goals and priorities differed from the start, were held together mainly by two things: the sheer charisma of National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr., and the shared enemy of global communism. As long as the Cold War endured, the story goes, each wing was willing to cede some ground to the other…But the fall of the USSR meant the collapse of the common foe that had sustained the fusionist partnership. It was able to trundle on for a while, powered by a reservoir of goodwill, but it has long been running on fumes. In the last few years, the alliance's inherent tensions have come to a head.” The problem with this “well-worn tale”, Stephanie contends, is that it isn’t true. Fusionism, as developed by conservative thinkers from William F. Buckley Jr. to Frank Meyer, was a philosophical orientation that sought to advance both virtue and liberty as societal ends whereas the coalition on the Right that formed to combat global Communism was born out of political expediency. As such, fusionism is just as relevant in a world where Communism is no longer the global menace it was in the prior century, in spite of competing voices on the Right calling for a realignment of market-skeptical Common-Good Conservatism, nationalism, and populism. Stephanie joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the true history of fusionism, what it became the dominant consensus on the Right, and why it still remains relevant today. Also discussed are some common objections to fusionism, how fusionism can fit within the broader worldviews of libertarians, conservatives, and classical liberals, what is meant by “liberty” and “virtue”, and the seductive dangers of the post-liberal movement. Stephanie Slade is managing editor at Reason, the libertarian magazine of "free minds and free markets." Prior to joining Reason, Stephanie worked as a speechwriter, a pollster, and a regular contributor to U.S. News and World Report. In 2013, she was named a finalist for the Bastiat Prize for Journalism. In 2016–2017, she was selected as a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. She's a proud graduate of the University of Florida, where she earned a B.A. in economics. She also has an M.A. from American University. You can find her on Twitter @sladesr /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/18597371

Bonus Episode – What is Conservatism? – with Corey Astill and Kyle Sammin 04/01/2021

Bonus Episode – What is Conservatism? – with Corey Astill and Kyle Sammin The Saving Elephants podcast turns three years old today—no joke! To celebrate Saving Elephants is releasing a bonus episode: a re-podcast from the podcast where Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis joined Corey Astill and Kyle Sammin to discuss Frank Meyer’s classic book is a podcast about conservative ideas and thinkers. Hosts Corey and Kyle explore what it means to call yourself a conservative, where conservatism has been, and where it's going. Each week, they select readings and conduct a discussion to share with you our investigation. You can join the conversation by liking them on or following them on Twitter at @consminds. The book contains multiple essays from twelve prominent conservative intellectuals compiled by the father of conservative fusionism himself, Frank Meyer. Just what is conservatism? Many people are groping for answers, especially as conservatives seem to retreat into factions—Tea Partiers, traditionalists, libertarians, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and on and on. But this illuminating book shows what unites conservatives even as it explores conservatism’s rich internal debate. features brilliant essays by such leading lights as: F. A. Hayek, Nobel Prize–winning economist and author of The Road to Serfdom William F. Buckley Jr., founder of National Review and the man perhaps most responsible for the rise of modern conservatism Russell Kirk, whose seminal book The Conservative Mind gave the conservative movement its name M. Stanton Evans, author of the conservative movement’s central credo, the “Sharon Statement” (1960) It also includes a foreword by #1 New York Times bestselling author and The Dispatch founder Jonah Goldberg explaining the influence of What Is Conservatism? on conservative thought and the book’s relevance today. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/18561980

Episode 79 – Turning Left from Right with Calvin Moore 03/16/2021

Episode 78 – Iron Ladies with Leslie Loftis 03/02/2021

Episode 78 – Iron Ladies with Leslie Loftis Women on the Right have an invisibility problem. It’s not that they’re nonexistent, it’s that they’re often overlooked by the Fox News stereotype of what is believed to constitute a conservative woman. So says Leslie Loftis, longtime curator of publications from conservative women. Leslie and Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis delve into the challenges women on the Right face and what unique strengths they might bring to the Republican party and conservatism in general if they were more visible. Leslie also shares her thoughts on the role of feminism in advancing women’s concerns, what unifies conservative women, the challenges social media present to our civil discourse, and how we might ultimately improve our political dialogue across the ideological spectrum. Leslie Loftis is a recovering lawyer and political writer. She started writing back in the blog boom of the early 2000’s with an expat blog, An American Housewife in London. By 2012, Leslie had moved back to Texas and was brought on to write for an expanding PJMedia. Soon thereafter, she became one of the original Senior Contributors for The Federalist and published in local newspapers, The Conservative Woman UK, and US News and World Report, among others. By mid-2017, Leslie was publishing exclusively at Arc Digital and for her own start-up magazine and newsletter, . When disillusionment and burnout after the Kavenaugh Hearings dampened any writing desires, Leslie took a temporary (as it turns out) break from writing to start a long-intended project, teaching . (Think household budgets and management, the kind of practical skills few seem to learn anymore until they already need them.) She revived the Iron Ladies newsletter a year ago, which you can subscribe to here. Leslie lives in Houston with her husband and their four teenagers and four dogs. You can find her on Twitter @LeslieLoftisTX /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/18151652

Episode 77 – Truth in Tension with Justin Stapley 02/16/2021

Episode 77 – Truth in Tension with Justin Stapley In this crossover episode friend of the podcast Justin Stapley invites Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis onto his show to discuss self-evident truths and what it means to hold truth in tension. The conversation includes thoughts on whether or not our inalienable rights are “self-evident”, the genius of American founders, Jeffersonian, Lockean liberalism vs. Hamiltonian, Burkean conservatism, why John Adams didn’t make a good president, whether the 1619 Project or 1776 Project is “right” or if the truth is somewhere in-between, whether America’s founding perfect or problematic, whether truth is to be found in reason or prescription, can Burkean conservatism be found in Burke alone or is he only the starting-point for conservative thought, the challenges conservative fusionism faces today, and a surprisingly lengthy and unexpected conversation about American slavery. This conversation was originally released on the show. Self-Evident is a weekly newsletter and intermittent podcast where Justin Stapley discusses both timely political topics as well as the timeless values and first principles of limited government and free society. Justin Stapley has been writing politically since 2016. His writing has been featured by ALEC, The Federalist Coalition, and the personal blogs and platforms he has operated over the years, which include Never Tyranny, The Millennial Federalist, and The Liberty Hawk. Justin considers himself a liberty-minded conservative with principles and beliefs grounded in the idea of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism. Justin currently studies Political Science at Utah Valley University with an emphasis in Political Theory and Constitutional Studies. He is a staunchly independent voice and is unafraid to call balls and strikes as he sees them. His calm but pointed writing style is often flavored with humor as he analyzes and discusses both news cycle driven topics as well as deeper philosophical considerations. Justin appeared previously on Saving Elephants on the following episodes: You can follow Justin on Twitter @JustinWStapley /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/17946989

Episode 76 – What Happens Now with Cal Davenport 02/02/2021

Episode 75 – A Peaceful Transfer of Power 01/19/2021

Episode 75 – A Peaceful Transfer of Power Tomorrow Joe Biden will be sworn in as our 46th President. Yet this inauguration will mark the first time in American history that the outgoing president refused to accept the results of the election and actively worked to overturn them. And, for the first time in modern American history, we were deprived on a peaceful transfer of power. On January 6, 2021 our country was attacked. My country. Your country. Though the events took place several weeks ago, it is important to keep them fresh in our minds as we reflect on what it means to be Americans and to live in the greatest experiment in self-government in human history. The assailants were not foreign combatants, Leftist provocateurs, or opportunistic criminals. They were supporters of Donald Trump who, having been deceived into believing the election was stolen from them, committed acts of sedition against the United States by violently breaching barricades into the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power by the duly elected representatives of the American people. All of this happened precisely because Donald Trump has been spreading lies and misinformation for two months in hopes of overturning the results of the election and because he asked his supporters to come to Washington to “stop the steal” and incited mob violence. that morning contained numerous unsubstantiated claims of a deep state effort led by the Left, big tech, weak Republicans, and other supposed enemies. He (falsely) claimed Mike Pence had the constitutional authority to stop the certifying of votes and that his supporters will “never give up,” “not take it anymore,” and “stop the steal”. He then told them to march to the Capitol and promised to join them there (yet another lie). Trump—who isn’t exactly known for his reticence in expressing his views on Twitter—then watched in comfort and glee as the violence unfolded before the world. Hours later, as blood stained the Capitol floors and rioters continued to wreak havoc, Trump that focused far more on approval for his supporters’ loyalty than it did a call for peace. Later that day Tweeter suspended his account when he tweeted such acts are to be expected when an election is stolen. It was —who ultimately put an end to the violent incursion by ordering the deployment of the National Guard. The condemnation Trump was unable to muster at the mob who stormed the Capitol was directed, instead, to Pence and to his top aide, Marc Short, who was . There are three groups responsible for this cowardly attack on our country: 1) the President and his closest allies, 2) willing accomplices in Congress, and 3) the protestors themselves. It’s important we understand clearly what happened on January 6th so that nothing like this ever happens again. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/17601563

Bonus Episode – Remembering Roger Scruton with Bryan Baise 01/12/2021

Bonus Episode – Remembering Roger Scruton with Bryan Baise One year ago today, on January 12, 2020, Sir Roger Scruton died at the age of 75. Thus passed one of the greatest intellectual minds of the past century. Scruton was an English philosopher and writer who specialized in aesthetics and political philosophy. He wrote over 50 books on philosophy, art, music, politics, literature, culture, sexuality, and religion, as well as novels and two operas. Yet his greatest achievement, according to Dr. Samuel Gregg with the Acton Institute, was to put into words and give form to conservatism as a philosophy beyond a mere disposition or attitude. Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis in remembering the life and works of Sir Roger Scruton is returning guest Bryan Baise, professor of philosophy and apologetics at Boyce College. Bryan describes Scruton as a dear friend he’d never met who nonetheless had a rescuing influence on his life. Bryan published several obituaries for Scruton last year to celebrate his life. : “I was sitting in Panera when I received a text message from a friend and colleague: ‘Roger Scruton has died.’ I was with my family and a widow from our church, holding back tears until I could get in the car. A man that changed so many things about my world has now passed away.” Bryan then recounted the many things Scruton had taught him, as discussed in the episode. In another obituary : “It’s difficult to try to describe the various ways [Scruton] influenced individuals and movements…I’m afraid the loss of Scruton means the erosion of a kinder, gentler conservatism than what is currently on offer…The posture toward politics and culture that Scruton embodied is, I fear, being forgotten and will one day die out.” Bryan Baise is a professor of philosophy and apologetics at Boyce College. Bryan is the program director of philosophy, politics, and economics and the program director of the Christian worldview and apologetics. He is currently working on two books, one about beauty and another about introducing the conservative worldview to a non-academic audience. You can follow Bryan on Twitter @bryanbaise. Bryan was a guest on two previous episodes: /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/17511974

Episode 74 – Conserving Liberalism 01/05/2021

Bonus Episode – Two Burkeans and a Straussian 12/22/2020

Episode 73 – Formative Institutions with Yuval Levin 12/15/2020

Episode 72 – The Millennial Presidents 12/01/2020

Bonus Episode – Leading Questions – Post Election Breakdown 11/24/2020

Episode 71 – Exploring Burke with Wes Siler 11/17/2020

Bonus Episode – The 2020 Elections – Now What? 11/04/2020

Bonus Episode – The 2020 Elections – Now What? Saving Elephants’ own Josh Lewis hosts an election night panel to discuss the incoming results of the race and what it may mean for the future of the country, Republican and Democratic parties, and conservative movement. Meet the panelists: Brooke Medina: Brooke Medina is a homeschool mother of four and the Director of Communications at where she manages Civitas’ outward facing platforms, oversees messaging strategy, and handles all press relationships. The North Carolina based Civitas Instituted is a nonprofit policy organization dedicated to removing barriers to freedom so that all North Carolinians can enjoy a better life. Brooke also co-hosts Civitas’ podcast , which focuses on drawing connections between civics and culture. Brooke is a graduate of Regent University, holding a B.A. in Government and a minor in English. She has also completed several programs with the Charles Koch Institute, including the Koch Leaders Program and Koch Communications Fellowship, focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of market-based management and classical liberalism. She also sits on the board of directors for ReCity Network, a Durham-based non-profit committed to empowering civil society in combating poverty-related problems. Brooke’s writings have been published in outlets such as The Hill, Entrepreneur, Washington Examiner, Daily Signal, FEE, and Intellectual Takeout. But most importantly, Brooke’s hot takes, insights, and shenanigans on social media are worth following so be sure and check her out on Twitter @Brooke_Medina_ Justin Stapley: A prolific writer and thoughtful tweeter, Justin began working on projects not at all dissimilar to Saving Elephant’s mission to fight for a restoration of political principles in the American political process shortly after the 2016 election. And during the past several years, Justin has launched multiple websites and written for many affiliate groups. His flagship website is the apply named which links to his various endeavors, including a contributing advocate and writer for the Federalist Coalition, an advocacy journalist at NOQ Report, an opinion columnist at Porter Medium, the founder and editor of , and the Shooting Editor at Spencer Durrant Outdoors and will be a co-host for the up-and-coming Spencer Durrant Outdoors Podcast. Earlier this year Justin launched his own podcast called which features his original commentary and highlights of worthwhile speeches. In addition to politics, his writings include recreational shooting, hunting, fishing, and self-defense. His most current work includes the near-weakly newsletter . Justin described himself as a “liberty-minded conservative and member of the Republican Party” whose “principles and beliefs are grounded in the idea of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism.” While much of that remains the same, he no longer feels he can be a card-caring member of the Republican party and hold to those values, as he explains at length in the episode. You can find Justin on Twitter @JustinWStapley. JB Shreve: Veteran podcaster JB Shreve conducted a series of interviews of Christians of various political persuasions to ask about their expectations and recommendations in the upcoming 2020 election. JB had invited Josh to join as the “conservative” participant in the interviews. And Josh was happy to return the favor in having JB on the show to share his insights. JB Shreve is the founder of The End of History, a blog and podcast for Christians dedicated to helping believers make sense of the chaos of the world around them. JB has been producing podcasts and articles since 2012. After more than 200 podcast episodes, his listeners have come to expect well researched, fact-based backgrounders on a wide variety of topics to help them better understand the world around them. These backgrounders range from the history of the Middle East to the true story of economic inequality. Episodes and posts frequently expose myths and false paradigms we have come to believe. JB is adamant he is not pushing a political agenda. Rather, JB’s mission is to: Help believers in crafting their own response to world affairs and current events Provide a faith-based, values-centered voice in the face of current global issues Ease the tension between a Biblical worldview and the world we live in Provide reasonable, intelligent perspectives empowered with Biblical values and faith Remove the yelling, outrage, and debate from our worldviews to find facts and seek the truth You can learn more about JB’s work and podcast on his website, . JB can be found on Twitter @JB_Shreve Calvin Moore: Calvin Moore is the host of , a weekly moderated roundtable discussion about ongoing issues in our culture. The podcast brings together disparate voices on a particular issue, discusses disagreements, considers one another's positions and, at the very least, leaves the table with a measure of respect for the person on the other side of the debate as they strive to create a space for passionate, yet healthy dialogue. Always the inquisitive, skeptical member of his family, Calvin has consistently pushed the boundaries of accepted conventions in his search for truth and understanding. With the rise of new media, he noticed the degradation of dialogue between disparate viewpoints, which led to the creation of this program. Calvin earned his Bachelor of Science in History Education at Rochester University in Rochester Hills, Michigan. His focus is on the African-American experience in the Early American Republic and Presidential History. Calvin resides in Michigan with his wife, Jennifer. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/16684091

Episode 70 – Election Day 11/03/2020

Episode 70 – Election Day It’s finally here! It’s Election Day. After what feels like the longest year of our lives, the campaign season is over. While voting and elections are still fresh in our minds, now’s as good a time as any to reflect on the voting process. Yes, you may have already voted, but the act of voting is about so much more than checking a box once every four years. It’s about the life-long process of becoming the sort of people fit to live in a free republic. It’s easy to get tripped up right out of the gate if you’re fuzzy on the purpose for voting in the first place. As citizens of a constitutional republic, one of the ways in which we “participate” in governing ourselves is by electing representatives to—literally—represent us. We are far too encumbered with our own busy lives to fully take the time to understand the nuances of tax policy, foreign diplomacy, or a myriad of other issues. Therefore, we rely on others to fully immerse themselves in these issues in a manner that best represents our interests and values. Perhaps this sounds so pedantic or straightforward you find it odd to even mention it. But it is quite easy for other competing notions of the purpose of voting to swim about in our heads and, unless we take the time to think them through, we may fall victim to these subconscious biases. It is quite easy for us to quickly turn the idea that we are voting on people to represent our interests and values in a political sense to a broader notion of representation. We may come to believe it is important that we be able to “relate” to the person we vote for, or that we need to find them more likeable than their opponents. The purpose of voting is to communicate our values, ideas, and concerns, not to make a political statement. It’s to find leaders who will represent our interests and protect our rights, not to express our anger at political frustrations. Voting should not be viewed as the central duty of fulfilling one’s civic responsibilities when called upon, but one of the many ways we perform our civic duty. Serving in the military, paying your taxes, voting in elections, and obeying the speed limit fall under the rubric of civic duty; but so too does educating yourself, honest dealings in business, staying true to your personal commitments, and flossing your teeth. Part of what it means to participate in a society of self-governance is to govern oneself. That does not mean we must be perfect, but it does mean that we create a greater need for governmental intervention each time we fail to govern our own affairs. It also does not mean who we vote for is unimportant, but it does mean how we conduct ourselves in our personal and professional relationships is far more important to the health of our nation. A nation is no greater than the sum of the individuals and sub-groups within the nation. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/16643366

Bonus Episode – The Burkean Conservative with Wes Siler 10/27/2020

Episode 69 – Bob is Back – Quagmire 2020 10/20/2020

Episode 68 – Divided We Fall with David French 10/06/2020

Episode 68 – Divided We Fall with David French Hardly anyone disagrees Americans are divided, or that our divisions are problematic. But could continual political partisanship and polarization actually fracture the United States into multiple nations? What is the likely outcome or potential risks if we do not find a way to reverse the negative polarization? What are the preconditions for state secessions, and how close are we to meeting those preconditions? Is the United States facing another civil war, acrimonious divorce, or eventual reconciliation? Those are precisely the questions David French sets out to answer in his new book . David joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the threats political polarization represent for the United States, what our history can tell us about the likelihood of these dangers, and how returning to the Madisonian blueprint of the extended republic may offer the solutions to many of the controversial political battles today. David French is an Iraqi war veteran, attorney, free speech and religious liberties advocate, political commentator, and author who has been at the center of some of the hottest political battles over the past four years. His name was used to coin the term Frenchism to describe a deference to classical liberalism and opposition to the new nationalism and authoritarianism on the Right (). French has served as a senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom, has lectured at Cornell Law School, and spent much of his career working on religious-rights issues. He served as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He retired from FIRE in 2005, citing plans to serve in the United States Army Reserve as a judge advocate general officer. He was a staff writer for from 2015 to 2019, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. In 2019 French left National Review to join the conservative news site as a senior editor. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/16287290

Episode 67 – The Radio Right with Paul Matzko 09/15/2020

Episode 67 – The Radio Right with Paul Matzko Many Evangelicals and conservatives share an embattlement mindset. Somehow we’re always losing the culture wars despite political gains and cultural acceptance, and even when we’re in the majority politically or enjoy unprecedented influence we can’t shake the feeling that the other shoe is about to drop. No majority, position, or gain is ever secure and we’re just one election away from losing everything. But where does this embattlement mindset come from? Is it simply crackpot paranoia? Is there something embedded in the histories of the Right and Evangelicalism that gives this mindset an air of legitimacy? Or is it a little bit of both? Paul Matzko joins Josh to answer these questions by exploring the murky histories of the radio Right in the 1960s, Kennedy’s successful efforts at censoring opposition, and the cultural significance of Evangelicals’ evolution from The Painter of Light to The Painter of Trump . Paul Matzko is a historian (PhD, Penn State) specializing in the intersection of politics and religion in twentieth century America. His work also draws from media studies, public choice economics, gender studies, and social movement theory. Paul’s book , was published earlier this year, which tells the story of the 1960s far Right, who were frustrated by what they perceived to be liberal bias in the national media, particularly the media's sycophantic relationship with the John F. Kennedy administration. His book provides the essential pre-history for the last four decades of conservative activism, as well as the historical context for current issues of political bias and censorship in the media. Paul has taught multiple courses at Penn State, both on campus and online, and worked as an adjunct at Princeton University. He is currently the Assistant Editor for Tech and Innovation at Libertarianism.org, an outreach of the Cato Institute, where he runs a regular column and also hosts a podcast on emerging technology called He cohosts the podcast dedicated to friendly conversations on politics, culture, and history from the standpoint of his own libertarian views and the socialists views of his friend Sean Trainor. Paul can be found on Twitter @PMatzko /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/15993800

Episode 66 – Monetary Mayhem with Joseph Sternberg 08/25/2020

Episode 66 – Monetary Mayhem with Joseph Sternberg book released in June was just the latest in a series of books, blogs, articles, podcasts, and videos extoling the virtue of Modern Monetary Theory (or “MMT”). We’re told that governments that have sovereignty over their currency can afford a wide array of social programs from entitlement expansion to generous welfare benefits to the . Leftist are ecstatic that they finally have an answer to the Right’s persistent question “how are you going to pay for all this stuff?” But is MMT sound monetary policy? For that matter, what is monetary policy? What did famous economists like Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes have to say about monetary policy? Was it a mistake for America to get off the gold standard? What is the Federal Reserve, and why can’t they seem to leave the interest rate alone? Do deficits matter? If so, how? For most, monetary policy may sound like a subject that’s dreadfully complicated or—far worse—boring. Yet this opaque subject matter is very important to our economic wellbeing. In fact, bad monetary policy greatly exacerbated economic downturns to the point of creating The Great Depression and The Great Recession. Sound monetary policy benefits us all, and it’s imperative we understand what sound—and not so sound—monetary policy looks like. Returning guest and friend to the podcast Joseph Sternberg joins Josh in a discussion on monetary policy that’s both digestible and engaging. We last heard from Joseph in when he dropped by to discuss his book . Joseph is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, where he writes the Political Economics column. He joined the Journal in 2006 as an editorial writer in Hong Kong, where he also edited the Business Asia column. He currently lives in London. He graduated from The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia with an economics major. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/15725609

Episode 65 – POTUS Pontifications with Sarah Isgur 08/18/2020

Episode 64 – School Choice under COVID-19 with Brooke Medina 08/04/2020

Episode 64 – School Choice under COVID-19 with Brooke Medina School districts across America are faced with unprecedented challenges as they weigh their options in reopening classrooms in the midst of a global pandemic. But could these challenges point the way to interesting opportunities to find innovative ways to educate and even allow for a healthy debate on the purpose of education in the first place? Perennial optimist and returning guest Brooke Medina believes this is the case and she shares how empowering parents and local governments to make their own choices is not only the best way to deal with the lasting effects of COVID-19, it also happens to be the best policy for educating our kids overall. Brooke joined Josh earlier this year in in a discussion over the philosophy and purpose of education. However, Josh got so wound up reminiscing about his homeschool upbringing that there wasn’t time left to cover school choice, vouchers, and education policy. This episode picks things up where episode 58 left off in moving beyond the philosophical to the more practical elements of conservatism as applied to education policy. Brooke Medina is a homeschool mother of four and the Director of Communications at where she manages Civitas’ outward facing platforms, oversees messaging strategy, and handles all press relationships. The North Carolina based Civitas Instituted is a nonprofit policy organization dedicated to removing barriers to freedom so that all North Carolinians can enjoy a better life. Brooke also co-hosts Civitas’ podcast , which focuses on drawing connections between civics and culture. Brooke is a graduate of Regent University, holding a B.A. in Government and a minor in English. She has also completed several programs with the Charles Koch Institute, including the Koch Leaders Program and Koch Communications Fellowship, focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of market-based management and classical liberalism. She also sits on the board of directors for ReCity Network, a Durham-based non-profit committed to empowering civil society in combating poverty-related problems. Brooke’s writings have been published in outlets such as The Hill, Entrepreneur, Washington Examiner, Daily Signal, FEE, and Intellectual Takeout. But most importantly, Brooke’s hot takes, insights, and shenanigans on social media are worth following so be sure and check her out on Twitter @Brooke_Medina_ /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/15473963

Episode 63 – Gen Z Conservatism with Nate Hochman 07/21/2020

Episode 63 – Gen Z Conservatism with Nate Hochman As Millennial conservatives know, conservatism gets a bad wrap in our generation. Conservatism is a hard sell on the young in general because it begins by challenging our natural inclinations towards innovation, novelty, and the pursuit of progress and revolution over gratitude and reform. And far too often, older conservatives fail to understand the unique historical inputs—the Great Recession, 9-11, our increasingly digital and automated world, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street—that have formed our worldviews. As such, they tend to dismiss Millennial concerns as trite, unappreciative, ignorant, or dangerously unpatriotic instead of engaging our concerns head-on and offering better solutions. We’re depicted as the “kids these days” and largely written off as hopeless causes who will eventually swing to the Right when we learn what’s good for us. But the oldest Millennials will soon be forty—which hardly qualifies as the “kids these days”. And as Millennials age and eventually take charge, are we in danger of repeating the same mistakes of our elders? Do we understand the unique inputs that are forming the next generation of Americans—COVID-19, civil unrest and police misconduct, the Trump era—and how the message of conservatism might be tailored to meet their concerns? To that end, Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis (a Millennial) welcomes Nate Hochman (Gen Z) to the podcast to discuss conservatism through the eyes of younger Americans. Nate Hochman is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of , an online publication that offers a platform for dissent from Colorado College’s political orthodoxy. Hochman is currently majoring in political science with a minor in journalism at Colorado College. He has interned at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. and National Review and has been published in National Review. He is currently interning with Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg’s media start-up The Dispatch. You can follow Nate on Twitter @njhochman /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/15300827

Episode 062 – Is Truth Found with Reason and Science Alone? 07/07/2020

Episode 062 – Is Truth Found with Reason and Science Alone? Josh forgoes the podcast guest this episode and offers some thoughts on how the conservative worldview differs from the worldview of secularism, scientism, and materialism. Secularism can mean the belief that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. However, this describes a viewpoint held by many religious and nonreligious people and is not wed exclusively to a materialistic worldview. Secularism, for the purposes of this discussion, has less to do with whether a person has fine feelings about government neutrality on religious matters and everything to do with whether or not they believe religious matters comport to reality or hold any weight beyond mere private superstitions. Secularism, then, is more than the principle of separating institutions of government from institutions of religion—though that idea is present. But the secularist also possesses an indifference, rejection, or exclusion of religious considerations or appeals to supernatural explanations. This would include both a person who rejects all supernatural explanations as well as a person who—though they may consider themselves to be religious personally—for all practical purposes behave as if all that exists is the material world. Some secularists ascribe to scientism; the belief philosopher and theologian defines as “the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality.” Other secularists hold that personal introspection, reasoning, logic, and philosophical inquiry are also means of discovering truth—not just the scientific method. But all secularists agree that religious traditions and divine revelation—that is supernatural methods—are illegitimate means of discovering truth. In fact, many would describe religious truth claims as not only nonsensical, but destructive to the form of modern, Western society we live in today. The conservative staunchly disagrees with this notion. For, while conservatism isn’t a religion, it is interested in conserving things of value in our culture (among which are certain religious traditions). That is, the conservative defends religious convictions not out of some sense of loyalty or nostalgia, but because the conservative believes religious convictions play an important role in the formation of culture and—even more importantly—comport to reality. Are reason and science sufficient for acquiring knowledge? Can they sustain a society of ordered liberty? Can they provide us with a moral code rivaling religious doctrine? Can they fulfil humanity’s desire for the transcendent? Can they answer our deepest questions? The secularist says “yes” the conservative says “no”. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/15110798

Bonus Episode – In the Trenches with Cal, Seth, and Josh 06/30/2020

Episode 61 – Untangling Neoconservatism with Matthew Continetti 06/16/2020

Episode 61 – Untangling Neoconservatism with Matthew Continetti Today the term “neocon” is often used to depict someone as war hawkish or part of “The Establishment”. And it’s often used as a pejorative. To call someone a neocon is to imply they are part of the problem, unsympathetic to the plight of the average Joe, and, quite possibly, evil. Neocon is, of course, short for “neoconservative”. But what is neoconservatism? Is it simply a group of elitist gloooobalists on the Right who profit from the status quo and ever-increasing military ventures at the expense of the rest of us? And who is a neocon? Politicians ranging from George W. Bush to John McCain to Hillary Clinton have all been labeled neocon. Is it a label without any meaningful distinction? Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is joined by Matthew Continetti to untangle this often misused, misunderstood, and definitely underappreciated term. Josh and Matthew talk through the three iterations or waves of neoconservatism from the godfather of the movement—Irving Kristol—in the 1960s to the conservative responses to the Vietnam War to the post-Cold War iteration with Irving’s son Bill Kristol on to today, and what this historical tradition can tell us about our own political dilemmas. From Continetti’s bio with AEI: Matthew Continetti holds a BA in history from Columbia University and is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work is focused on American political thought and history, with a particular focus on the development of the Republican Party and the American conservative movement in the 20th century. A prominent journalist, analyst, author, and intellectual historian of the right, Mr. Continetti was the founding editor and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Free Beacon. Previously, he was opinion editor at The Weekly Standard. Mr. Continetti is also a contributing editor at National Review and a columnist for Commentary Magazine. He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, among other outlets. He also appears frequently on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” with Bret Baier and MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily” with Chuck Todd. Mr. Continetti is the author of two books: “” (Sentinel, 2009) and “” (Doubleday, 2006). You can find Matthew Continetti on Twitter @continetti. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/14818631

Episode 60 – Undervaluing Free Trade with Scott Lincicome 06/02/2020

Episode 60 – Undervaluing Free Trade with Scott Lincicome In the wake of the global pandemic, American attitude on trade with China is beginning to sour. Is president Trump’s hawkish stance on free trade the right way to go? Has free trade made us more prosperous or mere stooges of foreign governments who take our jobs and rob us of billions in trade deficits? Joining Josh to untangle these important issues is Scott Lincicome, international trade attorney and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. This episode was inspired by a listeners email: “Hello I’m a new listener and big fan of the show all the way from Massachusetts. I was hoping you would cover some economics like the supply side vs demand And maybe the debt deficit and why it matters. I know some of it can be wonky but I think your listeners would really enjoy it I know I would.” Regards, Raphael While a discussion on trade touches only aspects of a broader discussion on conservative economic ideas, this episode will at least serve as an introduction to the subject with many more to come in the days ahead. From the Cato Institution’s biography of Scott Lincicome: Scott Lincicome is an international trade attorney with extensive experience in trade litigation before the United States Department of Commerce, the US International Trade Commission (ITC), the US Court of International Trade, the European Commission and the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body. He has also advised corporate and sovereign clients on US bilateral and regional trade agreements and US trade policy, as well as WTO matters, including accessions, compliance and multilateral trade negotiations. Scott is also a Visiting Lecturer at Duke University, where he teaches a course on US trade policy and politics. From 1998–2001 Scott was as a trade policy research assistant at the Cato Institute. Since 2009, Scott has authored or co‐authored several policy papers published by the Cato Institute and other organizations. He also blogs on international trade politics and policy at his personal blog, . Scott has a BA in Political Science from the University of Virginia and a JD from the University’s School of Law. You can find Scott on Twitter @scottlincicome. /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/14641169

Episode 59 – Podcasting Orphans with Andrew Heaton 05/19/2020

Episode 59 – Podcasting Orphans with Andrew Heaton Versatile author, stand-up comedian, and podcaster Andrew Heaton joins Josh to untangle the complex web of models and metrics for identifying someone’s political persuasions. Both Andrew and Josh feel uncomfortable with the simply Left/Right scale—and it’s not just because they’re chary of adopting the political paradigm of dead Frenchmen. No political identification model is perfect, but Andrew and Josh attempt to weigh the merits of some of the more perfectible models. Also discussed: What puts the “OK” in Oklahoma, Heaton’s eventful journey from Goldwater Republican to eventually landing somewhere on a spectrum between George Will and Andrew Yang, the commonality of those who feel alienated from political tribalism, and why Andrew doesn’t want to make America great again by fighting trade wars with China. : Andrew Heaton is a comedian, author, and political satirist. He’s the host of comedy and news podcast, and scifi deep dive podcast . He’s a frequent Reason TV contributor and hosted the popular webseries . He’s performed standup comedy at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, as a finalist in the China International Standup Competition, and throughout the United States and Europe. A former congressional staffer, he’s the best-selling author of “Laughter is Better Than Communism,” as well as two funny novels. He once opened for William Shatner, who said he’s “very funny.” So there. As a UCB-trained sketch writer and improviser Andrew Heaton comprises half of the comedy duo , which has performed improvised historical reenactments at the Del Close Marathon and . He’s a founding member of the popular New York indie improv team , and an alumni of the sketch troupes and First Runner Up. As a political comedian Andrew Heaton has entertained numerous think tanks and advocacy groups, student associations, and sinister political action committees. He’s a regular at Electoral Dysfunction at the People’s Improv Theater in New York, and the Totally Dishonest Media Show at Stand Up New York. He hosted the award-winning series , a comedy show which explained economics through popular culture. Andrew Heaton is the author of the best-selling work of political satire Laughter is Better Than Communism, and two funny paranormal novels: (about aliens) and (a tender coming of age novel involving werewolves). You can follow Heaton on Twitter @MightyHeaton /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/14458640

Episode 58 – Brooke Medina, Quarantina 05/05/2020

Episode 58 – Brooke Medina, Quarantina What is the real purpose of getting an education? And what benefits does a proper education bring to the individual and to society at large? What became of the radically conservative cult(ure) of ATI, Bill Gothard, I Kissed Dating Goodbye courtships, and denim-skirt-wearing coalitions of Christian home schoolers of the 80s and 90s? Does homeschooling have its cultish elements today, or are conservative homeschoolers more…conservative? Aren’t all students just homeschoolers now that COVID-19 has us social distancing from educational facilities? Saving Elephants host and former homeschooler Josh Lewis is joined by perennial educator and fellow former homeschooler Brooke Medina to answer these questions and many more. Brooke Medina is a homeschool mother of four and the Director of Communications at where she manages Civitas’ outward facing platforms, oversees messaging strategy, and handles all press relationships. The North Carolina based Civitas Instituted is a nonprofit policy organization dedicated to removing barriers to freedom so that all North Carolinians can enjoy a better life. Brooke also co-hosts Civitas’ podcast , which focuses on drawing connections between civics and culture. Brooke is a graduate of Regent University, holding a B.A. in Government and a minor in English. She has also completed several programs with the Charles Koch Institute, including the Koch Leaders Program and Koch Communications Fellowship, focusing on the philosophical underpinnings of market-based management and classical liberalism. She also sits on the board of directors for ReCity Network, a Durham-based non-profit committed to empowering civil society in combating poverty-related problems. Brooke’s writings have been published in outlets such as The Hill, Entrepreneur, Washington Examiner, Daily Signal, FEE, and Intellectual Takeout. But most importantly, Brooke’s hot takes, insights, and shenanigans on social media are worth following so be sure and check her out on Twitter @Brooke_Medina_ /episode/index/show/savingelephants/id/14286167

Saving Elephants | Millennials defending & expressing conservative values

TOPICS