Concepts with Shawn Whatley

#97 Tim Haggstrom: Free Speech in Canadian Law Schools? Runnymede, Rule of Law, and Tim vs U. Sask

Tim Haggstrom doesn't just promote theory. He bears the personal scars of legal practice. He leads an organization focussed on legal theory, while fighting (personally) for free speech.
This caught me off guard. I thought Tim was simply an exemplary leader of a noteworthy organization. I had no idea that he was also personally up to his neck in litigation about the legitimacy of race-based scholarship.
You won't meet a nicer, more thoughtful guy. Tim goes out of his way to ring-fence his own case from the organization he represents. You need to know about the Runnymede Society. The Society appears even more worth, and necessary, when you hear about Tim's case, at the end of the episode.
Let me know what you think!
Thanks again
Shawn
Chapters and AI Summary:
 
Host Shawn Whatley interviews Tim Haggstrom, National Director of the Runnymede Society, about whether freedom of speech exists in Canadian law schools and how students learn “no-go zones” on contentious issues. Hagstrom explains Runnymede’s founding in 2016 amid concerns about insufficient debate over constitutional change, citing the Supreme Court’s 2015 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision on a Charter right to strike, and outlines the Society’s mission to promote constitutionalism, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms through debates it does not adjudicate. They discuss taboo topics, civil discourse, and competing views of the rule of law, interpretation, legal neutrality, and substantive equality (including the 2020 Fraser case). Hagstrom then recounts his personal judicial review against the University of Saskatchewan after being found guilty of non-academic misconduct following letters defending dialogue and critiquing race-based policies, linking the dispute to university commitments to decolonization and anti-racism training.
00:00 Free Speech in Law School
00:22 Meet Tim Haggstrom
04:23 Why Runnymede Started
07:10 Tim’s Path to Runnymede
09:47 Campus No Go Zones
13:42 Staying Relevant and Civil
16:28 Sacred Cows Debate Example
19:05 Tim’s Lawsuit Teaser
21:53 Why Institutions Matter
25:24 Network Formation and Skills
31:03 Rule of Law Explained
37:26 Law Without Translation
38:53 Bridge Norms Example
41:33 Courts Versus Legislatures
44:13 Thick Rule of Law
45:57 Rodriguez To Carter
48:46 Living Tree Origins
50:19 Can Law Be Neutral
51:09 Substantive Equality Debate
56:05 Runnymede Student Plug
56:59 Saskatchewan Case Begins
01:05:41 Critical Social Justice Claims
01:10:11 Campus Speech Outlook
01:13:09 Protect Legal Tradition

#96 Shawn Whatley: Conservatism vs. Liberalism (and Neoconservatism), Definitions & Differences

Update on the quest to define conservatism! After almost 100 episodes, I see a way to articulate conservatism coming into view. I hope to capture it all into a short book/long essay later this year.
In the meantime, I offer a recap of liberalism and contrast it with conservatism. I also touch on inheritance, myth, and experience as themes within conservatism.
I also tackle a summary of neoconservatism. Neocons remain the main opinion shapers on the non-left in Canada. Their eminence has waned in America, but it remains strong in Canada.
We end with a review of upcoming guests.
Looking forward to hearing what you think!
Thanks again
Shawn
 
Chapters and AI summary:
 
Host Shawn Whatley shares a scheduling update amid a busy summer and looks ahead to the podcast’s 100th episode, then continues his effort to define conservatism by contrasting it with liberalism. He critiques George Grant’s thin definition of liberalism and Grant’s claim about the impossibility of political conservatism, and instead uses Fukuyama/John Gray’s four-part account of liberalism (individualism, egalitarianism, universalism, meliorism) to frame key conservative objections: the involuntary obligations of life (especially family), equality before law alongside excellence, particularism over universal political templates, and prudential skepticism about reform. He adds conservative emphases on inheritance, regional myth/self-understanding, and shared experience. He then outlines three waves of neoconservatism—its origins, post–Cold War central-planning and interventionist tendencies, and a 2016-era “never-Trump” internationalist turn—before previewing upcoming guests Josh Mitchell, Tim Hagstrom, and Elizabeth Corey.
00:00 Big Questions Intro
00:14 Podcast Schedule Update
01:26 Defining Liberalism
04:56 Fukuyama Four Pillars
06:54 Conservative Pushback
10:45 Tradition Myth Place
13:51 Thin vs Thick Politics
14:58 Neoconservatism Origins
17:04 Second Wave Neocons
20:53 Third Wave Never Trump
22:41 Guests and Wrap Up

#95 Jodi Bruhn: Supreme Court vs. Provinces, Notwithstanding Clause & Canadian First Principles

Jodi Bruhn offers a sobering take on Canada. Professor Bruhn is an expert on governance and constitutional thought. She says we might not appreciate the significance and potential fallout from the Supreme Court wading in the Notwithstanding Clause.
We discuss civics education and whether there's an increased appetite for first principles.
Thanks for checking this out!
I look forward to your comments.
Shawn
Chapters and AI summary:
Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Jodi Bruhn about renewed interest in first principles, civics, and regime analysis in her University of Lethbridge courses, contrasting first-year and fourth-year students’ ability to identify clashing political principles behind current events. They discuss political science versus political philosophy, including critiques of Straussian textualism, and consider thinkers such as Aristotle, Voegelin, Bergson, and Carl Schmitt. Bruhn warns that the Supreme Court of Canada hearing cases involving the notwithstanding clause signals a misunderstanding of legislative supremacy and could provoke a political showdown with provinces like Quebec and Alberta, potentially risking Canada’s dissolution. They examine constitutional change constraints, separatism’s uncertain outcomes, leadership and ethical decay under unwritten constitutional conventions, demagoguery, and Bruhn’s account of Tamara Lich’s University of Calgary talk about the trucker convoy.
00:00 Supreme Court Warning
00:52 Meet the Guest
02:52 Teaching First Principles
05:26 Civics and Regimes
07:37 Political Science vs Philosophy
15:31 Teasing Out Principles
18:03 Notwithstanding Clause Clash
21:14 Charter and Judicial Review
23:34 Can Canada Rewind
25:26 Alberta Separation Scenarios
28:41 Schmitt and Conflict Horizon
29:57 Friendship Course Spectrum
31:29 Canadian Founding Enmities
33:27 Hooker and English Middle Way
35:42 Ideology and First Principles
37:31 Alberta Separation and Reconfederation
39:47 Constitutional Mismatch and Corruption
44:51 Demagoguery and Vital Breakthrough
47:33 Reading Bergson and Courage
49:10 Tamara Lich at University
51:11 Teaching Critical Thinking Finale

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

Tom Flanagan explains why we need Hayek's ideas about spontaneous order, institutions, and the limits of state control. Hayek will frustrate central planners and also anarchists. Libertarians can't depend on Hayek; he's too supportive of traditional institutions.
Professor Flanagan has taught a generation of political science students at the University of Calgary. He's informed so much of what the Right assumes in Canada. He's generous, thoughtful, and resists capture into a neat, political box.
Books mentioned:
Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools)
Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong
Articles mentioned:
Settler-Neoliberalism: Tom Flanagan and Friedrich Hayek on the Prairies | Canadian Historical Review
Was Hayek a Gnostic? - VoegelinView
 
The long reach of the Calgary School | C2C Journal
 
Let me know what you think!
Thanks again,
Shawn
 
Chapters and AI summary
Host Shawn Whatley interviews political scientist Tom Flanagan about Friedrich Hayek, focusing on spontaneous order versus top-down organization and the state’s proper role in enforcing rules without directing outcomes. Flanagan explains spontaneous order through examples like language, markets, common law, and even skiing etiquette, and argues modern governments often create chaos by trying to control systems such as Canadian healthcare through price and quantity setting, producing persistent shortages and waitlists. The conversation explores Hayek’s assumptions about property, justice as a feature of fair process and intention rather than outcomes, and practical questions about unintended consequences in politics. Flanagan also discusses Canada’s formation through sovereignty claims, treaties, and force, defending treaty-making as broadly just for its time. He contrasts Hayek’s limits on “spiritual problems” with Voegelin’s strengths and notes he is not an Alberta separatist.
00:00 Hayek In A Nutshell
01:00 Show Intro And Guest
04:56 Flanagan Meets Hayek
06:08 Spontaneous Order Explained
07:02 Language As Emergence
09:50 Markets And Simple Rules
11:55 State Control And Healthcare
16:55 Ski Hill Rules And Enforcement
22:20 Property Justice And Tradition
27:49 Colonialism And Civilizing Mission
30:28 International Anarchy And Empire
35:40 Treaties and Education
36:51 Hayek Order vs Organization
38:16 Canada Built by Force
39:22 Morris and Prairie Treaties
42:03 Mirage of Social Justice
47:55 Intentions vs Outcomes
49:29 Weber and Policy Consequences
56:17 Hayek Meets Voegelin
01:03:13 Spiritual Pathology Politics
01:04:46 State Supports Spontaneous Order
01:08:28 Alberta Separatism and Wrap

#93 Evan Menzies: Alberta Separation. Alberta Should Be Upset, but It Should Stay in Canada

Evan Menzies shows why Albertans should be furious. As an Albertan himself, he understands. And as a political consultant, he sees even more reasons to be upset than most Albertans have heard of. He is frustrated and doesn't hide it.
In spite of powerful reasons to be upset, he still thinks Alberta should stay.
The rest of Canada isn't paying enough attention to this. Alberta separation wouldn't be an issue if Canada was well governed. It will continue to be an issue until our governance is fixed.
Here's the article we discuss: An argument for Canada from an Alberta conservative.
Thanks for listening! 
Let me know what you think.
 
Chapters and AI summary:
 
Alberta Separatism Debate: Evan Menzies’ Argument for Staying in Canada Host Shawn Whatley interviews Evan Menzies, VP at Crestview Strategy and former Wildrose/UCP staffer, about his Substack article “An Argument for Canada from an Alberta Conservative” and the rise of Alberta separatism. Menzies explains why many Alberta conservatives feel exhausted and unheard—citing issues like equalization, Senate and House of Commons representation, pipeline barriers, and judicial “constitutional adventurism” (including MAID, mandatory minimums, and debates over the notwithstanding clause). He argues separatism is a risky, non-conservative “tear down to the studs” revolution that promises a utopia while forcing Alberta to rebuild institutions and constitutional order from scratch. Instead, he urges reform within Canada, appeals to patriotism and gratitude, warns against victimhood politics, and predicts Alberta’s growing demographic and economic weight will keep shifting Canada’s power westward.
00:00 Alberta Separation Stakes
01:07 Show Setup and Guest Intro
05:05 Why Albertans Feel Exhausted
08:02 Who Supports Leaving
11:50 Senate Imbalance Debate
15:40 House Seats and Time Zones
18:21 Equalization and Quebec Hydro
20:43 Courts and Constitutional Drift
25:04 Charter Pragmatism vs Principle
28:03 Why Stay In Canada
28:35 Three Reasons To Stay
31:05 Blank Slate Constitution Risks
33:04 Revolution Not Devolution
35:41 Communicating Conservatism Again
39:26 Patriotism Over Victimhood
45:05 Gratitude And National Story
49:39 Alberta Story Is Canadian
51:28 Make The 21st Century Canada
51:59 Closing Thanks And Moral Ground

#92 Ashley Moyse: Techno-Ontology, Bioethics, and the “Provider” Problem in Modern Medicine

Ashley Moyse is a bioethicist and theologian at Baylor University. In America, he hails from the political left. If he was in his native Saskatchewan, he'd be centre-left or perhaps even right-wing to some people. 
Our conversation tackled technology, ethics, and humanity in professional education. How we can keep clinicians human and prevent them from becoming robots?
Although we situate the conversation in the health sciences, the concepts apply to every corner of society: engineering, finance, public policy, and more. 
Dr. Moyse has had some success in helping students see beyond the materialist reductionism of modern science. His work offers hope for other fields.
Let me know what you think in the comments!
Thanks for listening.
Shawn
Book mentioned:
The Art of Living for a Technological Age
 
Chapters and AI summary
Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Ashley Moyse, associate professor of bioethics at Baylor University, about how technology, markets, and policy language reshape medicine and moral life. Moyse traces his path from neurophysiology and cancer-clinic work to theology and bioethics, including training in Australia and Oxford and creating the Columbia Character Cooperatives to form medical students through virtue-based practices. They critique the market metaphor of “provider,” arguing it distorts the clinician–patient relationship and turns people into producers and consumers of information. Moyse explains his book The Art of Living for a Technological Age and “techno-ontology,” expanding technology beyond devices to include moral and political techniques, and challenges Beauchamp and Childress’ four-principles framework as flattening ethics into efficient tools rather than lived moral struggle, formation, and attention over time.
00:00 Patients Not Data
00:45 Meet Dr Ashley Moyse
05:35 From Neurophysiology To Theology
08:39 Oxford Columbia Baylor Path
13:49 Techno Ontology Explained
14:54 Tools Beyond Gadgets
25:21 Four Principles Under Fire
32:55 Ethics As Struggle
33:46 Medicine as Craft
37:15 Virtue in Clinical Risk
39:19 Ethics Beyond Principles
43:05 Provider Language Critique
47:04 Metrics and Managerialism
49:53 Mentoring Against Positivism
58:32 Phenomenology in Practice
01:03:16 Technology as Principality
01:09:55 Closing Reflections

#91 Matthew Rowley: Bill 21, the Notwithstanding Clause, Alberta’s Future & Canada’s Constitutional Crisis

I asked Dr. Matthew Rowley for help with questions on political theology. It turns out he's another big supporter of independence for Alberta. 
The current Supreme Court hearings last week are pouring fuel on the Alberta separatist movement. The Mark Carney Liberals are intervenors on the SCC hearing about Quebec's Bill 21 and use of the notwithstanding clause (s.33). Carney is asking the Supreme Court to do an end-run around the constitution bypassing the amending formula.
Regardless of how the court rules, the fact that it had the gall to hear the case fuels Alberta's frustrations. 
We do discuss Dr. Rowley's insights on political theology, but most of our time focussed on the revolutionary nature of the SCC this week.
Please let me know what you think!
Thanks for listening,
Shawn
 
Chapters and AI summary
Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Matthew Rowley about the Supreme Court of Canada hearing Quebec’s Bill 21 and whether limits can be placed on the Charter’s notwithstanding clause (s.33), which Rowley argues would further politicize the Court and trigger a constitutional crisis. They discuss federal intervention, the Charter’s impact on legislative supremacy, court power, secularism, and how differing regional cultures and views of government fuel Alberta’s separatist momentum. Rowley contrasts Alberta’s self-reliant ethos with Eastern Canada’s greater trust in government, critiques legal instrumentalism and the loss of duties tied to rights, and emphasizes internal justice and external defense as core governmental roles. The conversation also addresses political theology, the foundations of Western civilization, declining legitimacy and honor in politics, and the need for deeper, honest public debate.
00:00 Charter More American
01:26 Supreme Court Showdown
02:03 Bill 21 and Section
33 06:14 Court Power Grab Fears
10:35 Alberta Separatism Case
11:54 Prairie vs East Cultures
14:05 Charter Control and Courts
17:32 Rural Life and Tools
20:09 Where Rights Come From
22:28 Rights Need Responsibilities
26:21 Too Many Laws Problem
30:38 Government Role and Good
34:27 Law as Moral Boundary
37:14 Political Theology Setup
39:37 Behavior Versus Intentions
40:15 Where Evil Really Lies
41:19 Free Church And Mainline
42:25 Faith Shown By Works
43:59 Christian Roots Of The West
45:51 Conservatism As A Living Tree
49:12 Canada Loses First Principles
51:36 State Replacing God
54:10 Legitimacy And Stoplights
55:07 Crisis Of Secular Confidence
57:43 Young People Return To God
01:00:37 Responsible Government And Honor
01:05:07 Rebuilding Ancient Paths
01:08:33 Civitas And Honest Dialogue
01:10:45 Ralph Klein And Telling Truth
01:12:30 Closing Reflections And Farewell

#90 Grant Havers: AI in Education, The Digital Cave, Great Books, and Why Dialogue Matters

Can AI replace teachers? Would students benefit?
Should classical schools -- great books curricula -- use AI? 
I tried very hard to get Dr. Grant Havers into trouble in this episode. But he was too smart to say anything that would offend school administrators.
Instead of picking a side in the pro- vs anti-AI debate, Dr. Havers worked to bring out issues and objectives. If we trust AI to think for us, what does that say about our own ability to think?
This debate will continue to invade every knowledge-based profession over the next few years. Maybe we will all be retraining as plumbers and electricians?
Looking forward to hearing what you think!
Thanks again,
Shawn
 
Chapters and AI summary
 
Host Shawn Whatley interviews Professor Grant Havers, chair of Philosophy at Trinity Western University and author of The Medium Is Still the Message, about AI’s role in education, especially in Great Books and classical Christian settings. Havers argues educators must study and discuss AI because media create “invisible environments” that reshape minds beyond intended uses, while warning against introducing AI into classrooms or outsourcing intellectual tasks like summarizing Plato. He questions why teachers would trust AI to write emails or handle routine work, suggesting it reflects a questionable belief that AI “thinks” better than humans, and distinguishes information processing from intelligence, intuition, and creativity. Framing AI as a new version of Plato’s cave, he calls for renewed emphasis on dialogue-based education, responsibility for beliefs, and awareness of technology’s addictive, idolatrous pull, while noting AI’s rapid real-time effects, including concerns about autonomous weapons in war.
00:00 AI in Education Today
00:42 Meet the Guest
03:22 Why Schools Want AI
05:09 Medium Shapes Minds
06:55 Outsourcing Thinking
11:02 AI as the New Cave
13:34 Mundane Tasks Debate
21:55 Addiction and Tradeoffs
23:42 Study Tech to Resist
27:02 Print Culture and Tropos
28:42 Medium Shapes the Mind
31:31 Intellectual Virtue and Soul
33:30 Left Brain Right Brain Limits
37:26 Reviving Dialogue Education
40:09 AI Empathy and Truth Seeking
43:30 Poison Books and Paradox
47:10 Idolatry Addiction and Narcissus
50:09 Hopeful Outlook and AI War
52:39 Book Wrap Up and Farewell

#89 Paul Gottfried: Why “Liberal Democracy” Isn’t Liberal—or Democratic

Dr. Paul Gottfried packages his writing in dynamite and grit. He uses an academic style which is now almost extinct on the political right.
No one tries to provoke in order to make a point anymore. The Left still uses it all the time, but not the Right.
You cannot listen to Gottfried with modern antennae tuned to gasp at every offence. If you do, you will miss the impact of his next three punches.
I lack the courage to match Gottfried's approach. I'd like to think it's because he's old enough to not care anymore, but he was doing the same things 30 years ago. Perhaps he's spent so much time reading historical writers that he adopted their approach?
Whatever the means and ways of Dr. Gottfried, you really need to know about his thought and content. 
Books discussed:
After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State
The Essential Paul Gottfried: Essays from 1984-2024
Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt
 
Let me know what you think!
Thanks again,
Shawn
 
Chapters and AI summary:
Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Paul Gottfried, editor-in-chief of Chronicles Magazine, about his claim that “liberal democracy” no longer exists and functions as a self-justifying label for the welfare/managerial state and its hegemonic class. Gottfried argues liberalism was a 19th-century bourgeois worldview favoring constitutional limits, civil society, markets, property, nation-states, and restricted suffrage, and that it largely died in the early 20th century as mass democracy and collectivist ideologies replaced it. He critiques Straussian influence on U.S. conservatism, rejects natural rights as a fiction rooted in communities, and disputes claims that progressivism was imported from German philosophy. Discussing Carl Schmitt, he emphasizes intensifying friend–enemy conflict and collapsing common ground, calling the U.S. Constitution’s original design effectively a “dead letter” absent a supporting cultural tropos. He also promotes Chronicles’ 50th anniversary dinner at the Willard Hotel on April 9.
00:00 Does Liberal Democracy Exist
00:43 Meet Paul Gottfried
05:30 Lukacs Quote And Thesis
07:22 Mass Democracy And Welfare State
11:06 Defining 19th Century Liberalism
13:57 Liberalism Family And Stability
17:27 Roots From Greeks To Hegel
19:45 Strauss And The Neocons
22:55 Jaffa Marini And Natural Right
26:42 Grant And Universal State
29:08 Conservatism Incorporated Critique
33:12 Provocation And Dead Letter Constitution
33:45 Constitution Under Threat
34:34 Original Design vs Judges
35:24 Tropos and Postliberal Age
36:59 Protestant Roots of Republicanism
41:38 Welfare State and State Churches
47:34 Schmitt and Friend Enemy Politics
53:24 Managerial State and Control
55:53 Universalism vs Particularism
01:01:30 Closing Reflections and Plugs

#88 Sam Duncan: Building a Conservative Counter-Elite: Narrative, Institutions, and Canada’s Identity Crisis

Sam Duncan has worked in government for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. He is current VP at Wellington Advocacy.
We discuss a powerful article Sam wrote titled: Toward a conservative counter-elite.
Sam's article almost has enough content to outline a whole book. He diagnosed Canada's problems, uncovers the causes, and offers a detailed list of almost a dozen solutions.
I was able to press Sam on managerialism and the tendency for Conservatives to act like Liberal professional managers when in power. This is something I haven't sorted for myself: How do we fix things without becoming managerialist ourselves?
Sam is eloquent and very good on his feet.
Let me know what you think!
Thanks so much for listening.
Shawn
 
Chapters and AI Summary
Host Shawn Whatley welcomes Sam Duncan, VP at Wellington Advocacy and former advisor to Doug Ford and Stephen Harper, to discuss Duncan’s article “Toward a Conservative Counter Elite.” They argue Canadian conservatism lacks an emotional narrative and compelling national story, while politics often operates as a “uniparty” with small philosophical differences under liberal frameworks. Duncan reflects on conservatives’ failure to translate electoral success into lasting policy and cultural change and calls for developing a conservative counter-elite by reforming institutions that recruit and train leaders, rather than being merely anti-elite. The conversation covers populism, the need for unifying myths after the collapse of British identity, the impact of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s post-national multicultural vision, strengthening families and communities, the limits of managerialism, and building think tanks and long-term idea ecosystems to pressure politicians and sustain reforms.
00:00 What Conservatism Lacks
00:47 Show Intro and Guest
03:26 Why Write Counter Elite
05:42 Uniparty Explained
09:23 Populism Without Winning
12:38 Narrative Versus Demagoguery
15:56 Canada’s Missing Myth
20:25 Elites Formed Constrained Empowered
25:51 Selection and Institutional Coding
31:20 Beyond Policy Tweaks
32:12 Family First Principles
34:39 Daycare State Alternatives
36:13 Property Owning Democracy
38:01 Massey Commission Today
40:25 Building Conservative Institutions
43:34 Reforms That Stick
46:58 Politics Is Contest
49:38 Winning Versus Ideas
55:21 Managerialism And COVID
56:53 Public Service Renewal
01:02:55 Generational Conservative Shift
01:05:00 Tropos And Regime Roots
01:06:58 Closing Reflections