Nathan (00:01)
Hello and welcome to Thinking Out Loud. I'm your co host Nathan Rittenhouse.
Cameron (00:04)
And I'm your co host, Kevin McAllister.
Nathan (00:06)
Well, today, Cameron, I think it'd be worth our time to go back and talk about Francis Fukuyama. when we did our nine eleven episode, and we were uh you can go back and listen to that, but right after that, Ezra Klein interviewed Francis Fukuyama on his book The End of History, which was actually an essay back in uh nineteen eighty nine and then became a full-fledged uh book in nineteen ninety-two. And
That book has is very fascinating to me and has generated a lot of confusion because a lot of people actually haven't read the book, and that's one of Francis Fukiyama's main complaints, is that the critiques of it um are usually by people who don't understand what's going on. I think, just in starting out, you and I, there are a number of books that um I think James Davidson Hunters A Change the World. We c we can make a list of books that just somehow seem to be extra prescient. Um and
Cameron (00:59)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (01:00)
and there's there is something satisfying.
I don't know, is it is it satisfying of saying, Hey, twenty years ago there were people who looked at the events that were happening in the world around us and said, These are the types of moments that we're trending toward. And um so yeah, this this would be one of those.
Cameron (01:16)
I think there's a grim
there's a grim satisfaction there. Before we go any further, Nathan, help us understand what Fukiyama means by end of history because that is endlessly misinterpreted. And that's one of those things that is very reflective of the fact that most people haven't read the book. So yeah.
Nathan (01:32)
So so
yeah, so what he's saying is that the end of history does not mean by that like events stop happening or that there's an end of a progression of time. What he's saying is that liberal democracy, if you're looking for systems that balance liberty and equality, and he and he says liberty and equality will continue to be the the pursuits of um uh
So he's saying that a liberal democracy is the is the logical end game of the development of human sh humans trying to structure structure themselves in ways that maximize freedom and equality.
Cameron (02:06)
So this is the logical endpoint of just an equitable political organization, is what he's saying, essentially.
Nathan (02:11)
Yeah, and he would say and and he would say
that there are economic and just like um hard natural resource and economic math laws that
Cameron (02:20)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (02:21)
push toward a form of some form of of a capitalistic um development into a liberal democracy so that economics is there. But then his big one is is that he said ultimately humans are driven by a need for recognition. And and then and the the desire for equality often comes out of that desire to be recognized.
in some meaningful way to be to be distinct, to see seen as a contributor, to be seen as uh yeah, unique or yeah. So so he's he's saying that they're economic there's an economic reality just based on nature. And then there's
Cameron (02:50)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (02:50)
a component of human nature, particularly the need to be recognized, that will n that will mean that history will trend toward liberal democracy. And the reason that he says that
So liberal democracy founded on liberty and equality, he says both liberty and equality are both virtues that in and of themselves are good. And so other for their ends ends of themselves where other
Cameron (03:11)
Ends so they're ends, yeah. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (03:15)
forms of structures of government, the the means, have flaws within them. So a totalitarian state or something, that the foundational elements of what holds that structure together are themselves flawed. Now, he's
And we'll get into this. He's not claiming that a liberal liberal democracy solves all of our problems. He's just saying if you want to optimize liberty and equality, this is what you're going to get time after time. And and that doesn't mean that there won't be the rise of totalitarianism or that nationalism won't rise, but it's kind of like tr I think in his mind tracking the stock market.
Cameron (04:28)
Well on that note, Nathan, just to stick with this for a second before I hand the script over to you, the confusion it seems to me here
Isn't with regard to I mean so we the the definition that we kind of spelled out that you know this is you know liberal democracy is a logical endpoint of political organization as we're you know that makes sense I think to people where I think people misunderstand Fukuyama is they they tend to see him as this sunny optimist, and he isn't, and the book isn't either. There's another part to the book, it's called The End of History and
The last man. So he's he has some fairly sobering things to say in that. But and
Nathan (05:04)
Yeah.
Cameron (05:05)
this book came out in nineteen eighty nine. So this it's a it's worth noting how the yeah, the date on which w in which it came out because it it was prescient, as Nathan said. But I think we need to bring in Fukiyama's less than sunny outlook here as well.
Nathan (05:19)
Yeah, let me say one thing by by way by way of transition. Um, because yes, the last 20% of his book is probably, I think, the most fascinating and the most interesting, particularly if you want to think theologically and sociologically about the culture that we live in. Um, the on the question does liberal democracy arise from Christianity uniquely? He s he says that in the same way that our concept of the scientific um method arose out of an enlightened Western Christianity, Christian thought.
That once it was birthed there, then it became the property of the secular world. And this is where we we should think through this of whether or not a a secular liberal democracy works in that same way. Because you do see largely your liberal democracies are post-Christian countries. I mean, it's very hard to think of the one that isn't. so so I think if there's a point where
You know, there would be some room for some fascinating discussion. This idea of can you can you generate the the concept of liberty and equality within a theological Christian framework and then gift that to the secular world to use those concepts? He would say you can.
Cameron (06:30)
Well, before we move on, I'm not
sure. I'm not sure I'm understanding what he means though by it becomes the property of the secular sphere. So go back to the sciences. We know that the hards if we pay attention to the history of science, we know that the sciences flourished under the patronage of the church. There's a fascinating history there. This is conceded by everybody, secular and Christian historians alike.
Nathan (06:54)
But but deeper
than the financial, it's also the cosmological structure of repeatability and the stability of nature and natural processes. And yeah, there there's a lot of us there's
Cameron (07:01)
But what I'm asking
Nathan (07:03)
a lot of assumptions that are baked in there that are theological
Cameron (07:05)
well, yeah, I mean
Nathan (07:06)
that allow us to do science.
Cameron (07:08)
Of course. Yeah, well, I mean, the the big overarching one being that the universe is is not some random cosmic accident, but is the bi byproduct
Nathan (07:15)
And it's comprehensible, yeah.
Cameron (07:17)
of a yes, supremely rational, knowable being who reveals himself to us. But how does that so just help me and the listeners understand for a second, Nathan, how that phenomenon that we've just named becomes the property, I don't know if that's the right phrasing.
Nathan (07:34)
Yeah, yeah, property
is not the right phrase, but he's just saying, look, you don't have to be you don't have to be a Christian. You don't have to
Cameron (07:37)
The domain, yeah.
Nathan (07:39)
be a Christian now to do good scientific work. The the the pro the process has was developed there and then handed off as a gift to the world
Cameron (07:42)
Oh, for sure. Okay. Yeah. No, that that makes sense. Okay. Yep. Yep.
Nathan (07:47)
of here's the thing. So he was saying the same way, you don't have to be Christian in order to appreciate or desire the benefits of l of freedom or equality. Um yes, so so that would
Cameron (07:55)
Okay, that makes perfect sense. I get it now. Yep. Yep.
Nathan (07:58)
be the um connectionary. Now.
The reason at the end of his book is fascinating is because he does some I think it's not even spec See, this is the thing about so sociological and kind of this type of political theorizing is you don't have to be
Cameron (08:12)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (08:12)
prophetic. You just have to look at history. I mean I mean there and maybe that is a conservative orientation in general to say
Cameron (08:19)
Interesting. Yeah.
Nathan (08:20)
that that historical human behavior would give you some indications of what humans might want to do in the future. So I'll concede that point going forward. But he says
W and and he meets this early on even in the first chapter of the book that that the problem with a liberal democracy is that it's very difficult for it to justify its own terms. What is freedom? What is equality? And you're going to have a cre and it gets critiqued both from the left and the right in that the the
Cameron (08:45)
Yeah, so it's got
a legitimation pro and he was saying this before Patrick Denineen wrote, you know, why liberalism failed. Yeah. Yeah.
Nathan (08:50)
Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So he's saying, you
know, the the left is going to to argue against it because they're gonna say capitalism does not produce equality, and the right is going to argue against it by saying that you're trying to make things that aren't equal equal and there are variations in persons and geography and so capital's going to
Cameron (09:05)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (09:05)
flow at different rates and you're gonna have people with different levels of ambition. So he said it's a it it is the it's the logical goal, but it's a pff it's a contested conclusion, I guess.
Cameron (09:19)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (09:19)
It's not a definitive
locked in um destination.
Cameron (09:23)
Now would he say
would he say though that that is in itself not necessarily a totally bad thing that's part of the ongoing negotiation and conversation that constitutes liberal democracy? Or would he say, no, that's less than ideal? We need to come to some kind of consensus on what constitutes a just political order. I'm just curious yeah, because he's quite a realistic
Nathan (09:45)
Yeah, so yeah, so I don't
Cameron (09:47)
guy.
Nathan (09:48)
Yeah, I don't know that he's gonna put a uh I don't know that he's gonna put a moral spin on it. I think he's just gonna say this is. the yes so he looks
Cameron (09:55)
Mm. That's just the way this is the way things are. People are gonna s be contentious
about this and squabble over what what constitutes real freedom and self expression, blah blah blah. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (10:03)
Right. And and but then that leads nicely into his
his own critiques at the end, I think, and this is where w we see that he knows this isn't quite the ideal, because one of the things he says is that there always ends up being a group of people, he says, particularly among the young, who are not content to just sit around and congratulate themselves on their broad-mindedness, but
Cameron (10:24)
Mm. Okay.
Nathan (10:25)
actually want a horizon to shoot for and something to to work toward. And I thought, man, that
From 30 years ago, that is an interesting, and it's a summary of
Cameron (10:34)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (10:35)
a phrase there, but he's like, we're not going the young are not going to be content congratulating themselves on their broad-mindedness. They're going to want something more. And he says, traditional, yeah,
Cameron (10:42)
Let's amplify that a little bit. Yeah.
Nathan (10:44)
and but he says traditional religion provides that.
Cameron (10:47)
Yes.
Nathan (10:47)
But the difference now is that you you have more choice in the traditional religion that you end up in. So cause so you're saying
Cameron (10:55)
Yeah. Yeah.
Nathan (10:56)
there's a point in time in history where where traditional religion gave you those horizons.
Cameron (11:00)
Yes.
Nathan (11:00)
But you didn't get to choose. Now anybody who holds them is well aware of all the alternatives at the same time. So now we're thinking a little more Charles Taylor-ish, I think, in this. But but yeah, let's let's play with this idea that congratulating ourselves on our broad-mindedness isn't going to be enough in order for us to feel like we're engaging reality in a meaningful sense.
Cameron (11:20)
You know what makes me think of? He makes me think of the small select you know, that select group of intellectuals who somewhat cynically say, religion isn't true, but it's really helpful for, you know, the organization of our society. It's very necessary social glue. This is this was originally Emile Durkheim, and then all of the Durkheimans who have followed in his wake, Jonathan Haidt would be the most popular. But saying, you know, but I remember I don't remember who it was precisely, but somebody said
Yeah, you're not really going to mobilize masses for the sake of something that they believe to be a necessary fiction. The the phrase necessary fiction comes from the poet Wallace Stevens. That's what he was dis that's how he described religion or Christianity in particular. He said, Well, that's no, it's not true. You know, I th you know, here's why I don't like this, Nathan. Smart folks like us understand that. We fellow brights understand that, but you know, others don't, and they need this as something to help them face a dark and cold and pitiless universe. So
As a you know, to have a healthy functioning society, you know, we we need the necessary fiction. What this person was shrewdly pointing out was, yeah, most people are not gonna go to church for a necessary fiction. That's why those the mainline churches have
Nathan (12:30)
Yeah.
Cameron (12:31)
have largely emptied out because they I mean they're just nothing more than kind of cultural presentations. And so what Fukuyama seems to be getting at is a very n real human need. It's interesting that he connects it with he's connecting it with young people.
But I think I would it's a more universal thing where we we we have a cosmic, a need for a cosmic significance, something that's bigger than us, something that exceeds us. And if you're looking at religion as just in a liberal democracy, the danger with religion is that you said a Charles Taylor kind of picture. The danger is that religion just gets turned into one more product in the spiritual cafeteria. And it ironically, yeah, you can have anything you want, but you really can't have it in the terms that you need, because it will just be another
Little product. It won't be that cosmic sense of significance. That would mean that would mean something that demands your ultimate devotion. Something that, yeah.
Nathan (13:22)
Ah, but but
he's gonna say it's not just a mo devotion, it it requires sacrifice in order to seem meaningful. And and herein lies the problem is that he he's going
Cameron (13:32)
It's pretty chilling in some ways. Yeah.
Nathan (13:33)
to say that you can you can you can structure your political societies in such a way that it brings about a peace that is untenable. Which is is is a wild um we we can't live with it. And so so let me give you some
Cameron (13:46)
Because we can't live with it. It's not enough. We feel empty
and hollow and we and we need So to Nathan,
Nathan (13:53)
So
Cameron (13:54)
connect that then maybe I'm s racing ahead, but okay, what about these just eruptions of rage all over Europe, all over America, people rioting, breaking stuff. You're getting there. Yep, you're getting there. Okay.
Nathan (14:04)
Okay, okay, yeah. Yeah, he's g he's gonna connect these dots for us. He's gonna connect
these dots for us. So let's let's back way up. And he said, let's think of um, for example, your famous British explorers, the people climbing Everest for the first time. He's like, those were not poor, desperate people. Those were wealthy, elite, well connected. They were they had no financial reason to need to climb Mount Everest.
So he he just starts in on a looking at times in which people have inflicted struggle on themselves and it's usually the group that isn't struggling, um, that that takes on certain levels of seeking
Cameron (14:48)
Yeah.
Nathan (14:49)
seek keep seeking something that's difficult. And he said, We i in a in a liberal democracy, then you start using war language of like corporate takeovers and battling it out in the between lawyers and the people in business see themselves as sharks.
And he's like, we add this
Cameron (15:04)
That's fascinating.
So he's seeing that as an attempt to kind of add some drama and using the martial language in conjunction with what we would see as fairly mundane activities in our social order.
Nathan (15:19)
Okay, but no, he's gonna keep going. So I about spit my tee out on this one. So 'cause he's he talks about Trump as a real estate guy in the nineties. And he's basically saying, Will will the power of real estate be enough?
Cameron (15:32)
He talks about Trump in the end of history?
Nathan (15:34)
Yeah. But as a real estate guy, but he's but he's he's mentioning will the business guys the the business guys will find that success in business is not enough because they'll know that they aren't really risking their lives and they will look for a way to put themselves in danger in order to pr
Cameron (15:48)
It's not a real conquest.
Nathan (15:49)
it's not real conquest and they'll and they'll be they'll be haunted by the fact that compared to the other that there have been real battles in history with w real guns, that these men will always seek to put themselves
To die for a glorious cause, to prove to themselves that they're actually free, um, is the direction that I know, I was just like, what is going on?
Cameron (16:07)
Man. There are too many dots to connect right now, Nathan, as you say as you say these things, it's just yeah,
well, 'cause you're thinking about everything from people who are, you know, in militia groups to conspiracy theorists to rioters to I'm also thinking of we don't pay as much attention to this now, but for a long time people were deeply disturbed by the successful recruiting efforts of Al Qaeda with upper middle class Caucasian people.
Young, you know, upper middle class who so if you you want to see this as a kind of Ever to Everest expedition or a conquest, I mean th these people were yeah, they were coming from neighborhoods with a Starbucks in every corner and all that and that that wasn't what they wanted. They wanted something more and everybody was losing their mind, except for anthropologists and sociologists and people like Francis Fukuyama who like, No, actually this this makes a lot of sense and here's why.
Nathan (17:02)
Well,
okay, so let's let's keep going here because it'll get crazier before it gets worse. and you were asking about Europe erupting, and so he he uses the French riots in 1968 when the students go out and they're fighting the government and throwing out the and he said there was no rational necessity for that uprising. And what the what's the phrase he used? Um, there's no yeah, there's no necessary reason to rebel that they were the most pampered and prosperous generation and that
In the absence of struggle, they had to generate it. Now, there it
Cameron (17:34)
Create your own struggle. Yeah.
Nathan (17:36)
can create your own struggle. And he he says, you can you can also see this. And he said, Okay, fine. There are a lot of complex reasons for the beginning of World War One. And he lists them out. But he said, look at the national responses. He said, People were in the streets swarming their politicians clamoring for war at the beginning of World War I. You had entire cities having parades and
And looking forward to and getting excited about going to war.
Cameron (18:03)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (18:04)
And what is and he sees he sees that as the not as a it's not it wasn't out of a threat. It wasn't out of um an economic crisis. It was just out of a sense of doing something to the so
Cameron (18:17)
Cause a big, big cause.
Nathan (18:20)
the uh I was so there there's the Francis Fukiyama sociological theoretical political science side of it.
There there's it's almost akin here to uh one of the other pastors at our church was working on a construction job one time and a guy shot himself through the hand with a air nailer. Actually, he kind of like stapled like nailed his thumb to his hand. And the way that the guy was acting and the way that it happened, he's like, You couldn't have actually accident and so he he's like, I think that guy actually shot himself in the hand with a nail gun just to see what would happen and to get off work for the rest of the day.
He's like, you had to try to do that. He's like, it was almost like the job had become so boring to him that he had to do something d personally destructive in order to spice it up a little bit.
Cameron (19:08)
Do you remember I don't know if you ever read Walker Percy's The Movie The Moviegoer?
Nathan (19:13)
I did not.
Cameron (19:14)
Yeah, probably his most famous novel, but one of the that your story of the guy nailing his thumb to his hand out of just sheer boredom and desperation reminds me of in that novel, the the the character Bink S bowling is
He talks about how he's happiness happiest when he's in some sort of a crisis, like a car accident or something like that happens because it breaks
Nathan (19:36)
Mm.
Cameron (19:36)
the spell of modern what he calls the malaise. But just that kind of deadness that settles in on us in our liberal Western democratic setting, when everything is just
Nathan (19:46)
Yeah.
Cameron (19:47)
reduced to another product. And so this thing breaks that spell, if only for a second. Doesn't last, but it it it it for a moment, or if you're in an airplane and suddenly major turbulence hits and
All of your s petty differences go away for a second and suddenly you see everybody as your fellow human being and you band together. That kind of thing.
Nathan (20:08)
Yeah, but because here's what's happening. In moments of crisis it feels like your decisions matter.
And and for a lot of people, they don't feel like their lives or their general thinking or the application of their effort matters. Yep. Exactly. And
Cameron (20:19)
So there's real significance here. Just for a second. Yeah. Yeah.
Nathan (20:23)
so Francis Fugiama is going to say it it's it's a frustration that develops when you recognize that all of your ideals don't come to fruition.
Cameron (20:31)
You know what's interesting?
The phrase is coming to mind, Nathan, if everything is available, nothing matters. That seems to be part of our spiritual conundrum.
Nathan (20:41)
Well let's step on some toes here. We all know that the happiest children are the most pampered.
Chortle from Cameron. I so there there is a little like Yeah. Carry on, you were gonna say.
Cameron (20:56)
Well, I mean, I it just seems that we I mean we default as modern people to thinking in terms of I've said this before. I think our all if if we parsed out or s or spelled out precisely what we mean by happiness nowadays, it would be something like security, satisfaction and security and subset subjective satisfaction would would sort of be an abundance. Those three would be
the ultimate goods. W people haven't looked at happiness like this historically at all. And there's a whole squabble about, well, happiness isn't really a good word. The better word is joy. I'm I'm sorry. No. You can I C.S. Lewis used joy
Nathan (21:38)
You can tell by his tone of voice.
Cameron (21:40)
in a specific way, which is very interesting. That's fine. But happiness is a perfectly fine word. We have to if we recover its richer meaning, it it has more to do with blessedness than it does with material abundance. But we
I think default to associating happiness or or just human flourishing just with basic economic prosperity. I have n I like economic prosperity, so there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but yeah.
Nathan (22:04)
Ah, hang on. Yeah, but there's there's a difference here. There's a difference
here. Because so to borrow some Fukiyama in our own theological vision of what it is that humans are made for. Let's say that abundance is good and that it results in happiness. There's one version of that that says you go through the struggle and you earn the abundance and then you enjoy it. And the other says, I want abundance based off the work of somebody else.
And and I think there's a difference in in the way in which we handle our prosperity if we felt like we slogged it out for a long time and then received the paycheck, which is much
Cameron (22:42)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (22:44)
different from I demand this from my society,
Cameron (22:47)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (22:48)
and and my vision of the normal doesn't my my vision of abundance doesn't include my struggle in order to attain it. And so I think Fukiyama's gonna say in a in a liberal democracy, if you've so structured yourself.
That the average young person doesn't really have to, and let's be I mean, just just there there are horrible things happening in the world around us, Cameron. We recognize that. Also, I am forty years old now and I have never known somebody who's starved to death.
I I've never known somebody died who didn't receive medical attention that they wanted or needed. I mean, we are living in the in the across the spectrum of the history of humanity. You're your your poorest person in the US
is has has spectacular opportunities and connections around them. And and and I was thinking about this, like I was sitting on the streets in Boston with some homeless guys, just talking to them, trying to kind of hear their story. And and and this is just true for these guys. What is anecdotal, but the one in particular, he's like, no, he's like, I he was probably in his early thirties at the time. He's like, I have parents who I could go live with, but they have rules in their house that I don't want to abide by.
And so I choose the freedom of living on the street. And so there there is a little bit of the American um desire for liberty and freedom that we will self destruct.
in our in our pursuit of freedom without some other guiding or orienting like freedom in and of itself doesn't work ultimately as a guiding principle for meaning in life.
Cameron (24:38)
Wow. So with that, freedom in and of itself doesn't work as a guiding principle for life. Therein lies a huge problem because we don't have a way that I can see of coming to an agreement on what freedom is or what what good what I mean we we we can't reach consensus on a vision of freedom that would bring us together. Well you've described
based on that conversation is a negative vision of freedom. And freedom does incl include negative elements in the sense of freedom from certain constraints, right? But there's no where we struggle, and this is, you know, I I feel this is such a cliche to point this out now because it's been so said, but it needs to be said because it's important. What we struggle to articulate as, I don't know, people in America, but certainly people who live in any kind of Western influenced
Political order, we struggle to articulate a positive vision for freedom. What are human beings for? What are we for? Yeah.
Nathan (25:40)
Okay. Yeah. Let let me
let me give you another example. and so this is the question I think, particularly if you're part of a church and church leadership of
s something just to be mindful of. So there's a point in time when I was spending even more time with college students, and particularly in the New England area. And there was a little fr stretch there where I met with a lot of student groups and there were a there was a lot of honesty there. Many of these were not Christians. And you had I remembered a morning sitting down with a bunch of girls who still had like the Sharpie X's on their hand for marking like going to the club. Um, who were
Who had been promised that their sexual expression was the pinnacle of of what it meant to be human and full freedom. And so they had participated heavily in the thing that they had promised would give them satisfaction, and it was found wanting. And there's nothing as despairing as unmet expectation. And so if you are told when you achieve this, when you do this, when you behave in this way, you will find what it
means to be fully human and you do
Cameron (26:50)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Nathan (26:51)
those things and it doesn't, then there's some pretty massive depression on the back end of that. And I and I think so so that would be one is I'm gonna I'm going to sleep my way into satisfaction wasn't working. But in the same exact way, I think we're going to liberal I'm gonna use air quotes here, liberal democratize ourselves into satisfaction and it's just not going to work. So it's good. Sex is good.
liberal democracy is good, but it it can't be the the highest guiding principles and ideals
Cameron (27:20)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (27:21)
of our lives. And so I think we're living in this moment now, Cameron, where um there will be a continued differentiation between those who will get sucked into the the bitter mudslinging of trying to squeeze a meaningful life out of government aid. So if the state could restructure itself so that our price of gasoline is cheaper, whatever,
And and you'll either go down that rabbit trail, which I mean, those are real economic realities we live with, or you say, there's something bigger that I'm shooting for in life, and the and the political and economic part of it is a subset of the bigger story in which I see myself. And I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the church in this moment to say, Yeah, how's that working for you? and and I think there will always be people who, in their honesty, will say, you what, I tried it and I couldn't sleep my way to satisfaction. Or I tried it and I couldn't politic my way.
and to satisfaction, or I couldn't live in perpetual peace and find satisfaction. And so, um, let's be telling a bigger story.
Cameron (28:25)
Very well said. And if nothing else, Nathan, you have convinced me at least to read Fukuyama's book. It's been on the list of mine, the ever the ever grow growing list for many years. But you've certainly yeah, you've certainly provided a a wonderful overview. And he's he's an he's an important thinker. And I think a lot of you listening, because you're you're fellow nerds, I think it's safe to say you'll you'll find a lot.
Nathan (28:52)
one one caveat. I I have not read his most recent memoir in which he talks about the current political moment in light of what he has written in the past. So there may be some very variations.
Cameron (29:01)
We'll both do it. We'll we will read that together
and you'll probably have a podcast inflicted on you as as a as a result. But you know what, you you like it. You've enjoyed you you tune you tuned in, you made it this far.
Nathan (29:13)
If you are
if you are twenty eight minutes into this conversation, what is wrong with you?
Cameron (29:16)
Yes.
Yeah, you you've come along for the ride. And you know what? What's better than Yeah.
Nathan (29:20)
You like to struggle. They like to struggle.
Cameron (29:21)
But if you've come along for the ride, what's better than inviting other people along for the ride? That way you can ride together and you can continue the conversation. So naturally what you need to do right now most urgently is tell other people about this phenomenal ride that you've just been on with Nathan and Cameron and thinking out loud. So tell people about thinking out loud. Like, share, and subscribe, friends, and grow our YouTube following.
We will respond to comments on here occasionally, all right? We will ing engagement's gonna come. It's gonna happen. It's gonna happen. We got an
Nathan (29:47)
I I don't know, I'm waiting to see if Cameron does. I'm waiting to see. No jury's still out. I don't know, this will see. We'll see.
Cameron (29:53)
inch closer to that hundred thousand subscribers mark guy.
Nathan (29:56)
Yeah.
Cameron (29:57)
Guys, all right. Let's let's just let's just aim for some modest aims there. All joking aside, thank you. We we love being able to chat with you. This is a real privilege. We love the conversations we have with you. You're a very thoughtful bunch. We do not take that for granted. If you'd like to support this organization financially, you can do that by going to www.toltogether.com