Why Sean Dempsey No Longer Calls Himself a Libertarian

Sean Dempsey returns to Zipcode Zero for a wide-ranging conversation on the state of American politics and the growing crisis of political tribalism. We discuss why Sean no longer identifies as a libertarian, the fall of Congressman Thomas Massie, foreign policy, government surveillance, artificial intelligence, and the future of the Republican Party. Along the way, we explore whether America's deepest problems are political or cultural, and what it would take to move beyond the increasingly entrenched left-right divide.

Show Info
-----
Twitter
@KevinAMaley
-----
Email
ZipcodeZeroPodcast@gmail.com
 -----
Music
Urban Deer Hunt:  https://linktr.ee/urbandeerhunt

Transcript

Kevin Maley (00:00)
Sean Dempsey, thank you for returning to Zip Code Zero.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (00:02)
It's so good to be back. Kevin, it's just a pleasure.

Kevin Maley (00:05)
So before diving into a lot of the different topics that I wanted to discuss with you, I did wanted to just get your thoughts as a New Hampshire resident who borders Maine. There's been a lot of attention on the Democratic primary there with Graham Plattner. I know you're libertarian. He's I think he's an avowed socialist. I'm not sure. He's definitely on the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. So I'm not sure you have a

sort of stake in the race between Collins and Platiner, but given the extraordinary amount of media attention, just wanted to get your initial thoughts on that.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (00:39)
Yeah.

been abreast on it, I'd say that's probably the the extent of it, only because Maine is our neighbor over here. But yeah, from a s philosophical or p political angle, I don't share a lot in common, to be quite honest. So I hasn't really gotten a lot of attention from me. ⁓ I mean a lot of the areas that he does dovetail with freedom and or I should say more of the the liberal causes involving lack

of overreach or no overreaching, I really I identify with those, but I I wouldn't say that most of his party platform is something that I particularly get behind. So but it has been a fun spectacle watching some of the the interesting sets facets of his ⁓ his run, the apps that he has. I mean I thought it was kind of a failure of his political team not to get ahead of his social media. I think that was kind of a self goal

Kevin Maley (01:31)
Yeah.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (01:31)
⁓ it's like how how hard is it just to scrub some of your more embarrassing moments offline? I which is one reason probably I'll never be able to run. I got a lot of embarrassing moments on social media. So I think the first thing I do is tell my team you need to you need to keep me from making myself turning me into my own enemy. So

Kevin Maley (01:48)
Yeah, but if you have a

lot of powerful interests who want to stop your candidacy with a lot of money behind them, I mean, even if you delete your old Reddit posts, are they really gone from the internet? Can someone with a a lot of money and a good tech team behind them uncover old posts that you've deleted?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (02:05)
No, certainly not.

The internet follows you. I guess if you you got enough money, like you said, the the way back machine always exists. Though I d actually to be honest, I don't know if the Wayback Machine and some of those technologies do track social media because a lot of that's behind a paywall. or the equivalent of one, you know, you have to be a user or logged in. It's not like a lot of those pages, at least what you p what you post, unless you set it to be public, you have to be a friend of somebody. So some of that stuff you could probably do a pretty good job of scrubbing.

But the stuff that yeah, you put on Reddit or you put on other s platforms is is out there for the world to see and there's no scrubbing it.

Kevin Maley (02:41)
Well, that means I can never run for office either. So one of the areas that I'd wanted to talk to you about that I've been observing with a great interest is around foreign policy. And I know we've talked about that before, but it's been, you know, I've always appreciated the libertarians and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, if that exists. the the perspective that that they bring

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (02:44)
Yeah.

Kevin Maley (03:07)
To the the right side of the political spectrum, if we're looking at it as a flat spectrum. And we've seen some of the more libertarian-ish members of Congress, maybe there's only one who's a true libertarian, break with Trump on foreign policy, on Israel/slash Gaza, as well as Iran. And that's of course Thomas Massey, who just lost his primary. I had

Donated to Tom Massey, the first Republican I'd ever donated to, about a week before his primary. But I don't know if I could compete with Miriam Adelson and a lot of the interests that she allied with. So wanted to get just your take on Thomas Massey getting knocked out of Congress, or certainly knocked out of his primary. He'll still be in Congress until January. But your take on the the kind of GOP, the Trump part of the GOP pushing him out because

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (03:38)
Ha ha ha.

Kevin Maley (03:56)
He would not lock in with them on foreign policy. There's also the Epstein stuff and I know there's a few other things he was a little contrarian on. He didn't vote for the one big beautiful bill act and that sort of thing. So it's not just Israel and Iran, but wanted to get your thoughts on Thomas Massey just to kind of kick us off.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (04:10)
Yes, this ⁓ well shut me up because I'll probably be talking for a while on this point. I'm very passionate about this. In fact, ⁓ this whole thing with Massey or with the the rot that I think's gotten into the Republican Party is one of the reasons I started my own podcast, which I encourage you and your listeners to listen to. It's called Meta Modernism Uncensored. and what I've been trying to do is

Dive into political topics like this, international policy and a lot of what ⁓ was happened and even on the domestic side, and instead of attacking it head on in terms of a left-right divide structure, which is very the paradigm that we're all used to, is try to come at it from a metaphysical side. It's like how is how is culture and the evolution of culture impacting the way in which we have now built a political apparatus? And how is that impacting both domestic and foreign policy? And are we living

as a by product of of some of that cultural rot or postmodern

⁓ paradigm that's kinda taken over and impermeated individuals over the last I say forty years. And I think it's kind of reached an a a crescendo of late where we kinda we can be we've discarded truth or or facts and data so much to the point in society, which again is an outcome of the postmodern motif, so much so that we can we we align ourselves with political figures now and we almost can

with with complete discordance to the truth, just latched on to whatever they say. So if Trump says something and I'm a Trumpist, I'm a MAGA guy or gal, I I don't need to fact check it. I don't need to look into the to the veracity of these statements because truth has become such a anathema to or I should say truth is no longer a component of what really matters in my my hemisphere of what's important to me. It's almost like I as long as I've chosen the party and the party can choose can

allow me to have my identity and I feel like it's a warm blanket I can wrap over myself. Either it's the G O P or frankly it's on the other side. If you're a progressive, if I got ⁓ the party telling me I I'm in lockstep with them, I can feel good about what what's being done. And so when Trump does something or his party goes after ⁓ Iran, for example, to get back to your question, we we just what frustrates me and again the reason I look I'm trying to try to take solace in the in

The philosophical side of this is it's an outcropping of we don't pay any attention, or I should say we, the the Republican Party, the GOP, the MAGA is don't pay attention to all the rhetoric that got him into office. Because he ran on a no news war no new wars platform. That's one of the reasons I voted for the guy. I was he I stood up there looking at he looked me right in the in the eye as he stood before the Libertarian Convention. He said, I will not go to war. I mean, he has said that so many times. There's there's

⁓ collages of his videos saying no new wars, no foreign regime change. I'm the president that you want who's gonna put an end to this ridiculous cycle of regime regime change in Middle East. And that resonated with me because I've seen trillions of dollars. You b you and I both, I think, have agree on that, that there's been a rotating door of politicians that have no regard for the American taxpayers or rule of law, the declaration of in excuse me, the Constitution.

And Article 1, Section 8, they just go to war needlessly and they use lies and propaganda to sell it. So we saw it with Bush. I know you were on the ground floor. When Bush went to war in Iraq, we're just seeing this whole thing again of weapons of mass destruction. Only this time is

It's nuclear weapons. Is there proof that there was nuclear weapons or even a nuclear weapons program? No, frankly, there's not. And I don't care what you I mean that's the problem I have from a philosophical perspective is the MAGAIS are not willing to go even an inch in depth to look behind these claims. They just, if Trump says we're going to war, we're going to war, you know, and it's just where it's 2004 all over again, and it's just a different part of the map. So it's very frustrating to see.

That as an anti-war guy, as a constitutionalist, I don't even call myself a libertarian anymore, which we can get into because I just don't feel the Libertarian Party has been you know strong enough on this point. I see even fellow libertarians defending some of the things that ⁓ Republicans are doing, and it it makes me sick because you know this is such a quintessential moment in history where if we're gonna just sp spoon-fed this propaganda to get spoon-fed these lies, and be unwilling.

To push back, unwilling to even look below the surface. Look at our own intelligence community that's saying that there has not been a weapons program, a nuclear weapons program from Iran since 2003, and that's been backed up from 2003 all the way to 2007, 2015, and then Tulsa Tulsa Gabbard said it again on the House floor just last year, 2025. So we have a consistency, a consistent pattern of having our own intelligence community say there's no

nuclear weapons program in Iran, but that doesn't stop nuclear weapons. We got cannot stop, we cannot abide having Iran having a nuclear weapon be the talking point that gets us into war. And I don't even know if that is the talking point anymore. I mean again the changes from one day to the next. So anyway I could go on and on. In terms of of Robert of Thomas Massey, however, I find that this is just sickening. I mean I almost I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but I got so agitated the night

Kevin Maley (09:17)
Changes day to day.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (09:31)
that it was it was clear that he was gonna lose. I almost threw up. I literally almost had a physical reaction in the news because it was here's a person that has not deviated from his stance

From day one. And the very same things that Trump and the MAGA party was saying, the America First Crowd was saying for the last two years. No new wars. Go after Epstein, prosecute those on his list, reduce the size of government. Again, these are s maybe things that you and your listeners appreciate, maybe they don't, but in any event they were the consistent message that we had from the America First Crowd. And Massey has not deviated from that message one iota. But as soon as he got out, as soon as the

The party decided that does that stuff didn't matter. What got us elected doesn't matter anymore. It's just we're gonna be the same old swamp that that came bes before us, and he stood up and said, Well, no, I'm gonna take you at your word. You no new wars. I think no new wars should be the policy. You said we're gonna bring out and indict those on the upsting list. So when Trump says the upsting list is a Democrat hoax, obviously you have people that take issue with that, and I think Rokana and and folks like Thomas Massey been.

been right at the front lines and having that they haven't moved or at least Bassey hasn't moved, but they're the ones, he's the one that's vilified because he's not lockstep with the party. So it's become party before politics and and it's become party before truth. And that's what I find very frustrating. Because it harkens right back to nineteen eighty four book by Orwell, where it's you know, it's like ⁓ truth disrupts words, but words disrupt truth. I mean it's the same paradigm all over again. We we

Can as long as we believe something, as long as we're told something enough and the lie is repeated enough, it becomes truth. And I hate that.

Kevin Maley (11:14)
Do you think that's that

part of that might be because the libertarian part of the Republic Party using this term libertarian loosely, so not very dogmatically, but the libertarian part of the Republican Party is a very small part of the party. It it can influence a lot of the party rhetoric, so

You know, ⁓ we've got to reduce the size of government, we've got to focus on d all the things that you just mentioned, which appealed to the libertarian wing of the party, but when it comes to the rank and file, are they actually voting on do they really care that much about it, or are they just tribal, kinda like what you were saying before? They're just kind of going along for the ride.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (11:47)
A hundred percent. I I if you

Yeah, if you had asked me that a year ago, I might have answered differently. But it's very clear, it's screaming from the rafters clear that the the party is just tribal at this point. And you see that. You see that in the rhetoric, you see it in on social media, the politicians themselves, they're saying it's not about the issue anymore. It's about did you vote with the party? These l and and you see the rhetoric on social media, for example. Just the other day I saw a post, I forget who it was, I think it was Speaker of the House. I think it was Speaker of the House. She said something like

Like here's the four Republicans who didn't vote with us. They are traitors to this country. It's like Yeah, I think it was. It it was it was it was just and I d it doesn't matter what the issue is, it's just that's become the paradigm. That's become the the the ruler in which we're people are judged. It's not are they voting their principle? Are they voting for what their

Kevin Maley (12:24)
Was that on Pfizer?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (12:38)
constituents wanted them to vote for that got them there, that got them elected. Is it what the administration themselves was saying five months ago? It's none of that matters. It's did you vote in lockstep with the party? And that's what's meaningful. And that's that's sickening to me because that's everything that our founding fathers didn't want to see. And you know, and I think r you know, George Washington would be rolling in his grave to see the state of the of America today in the way that it is.

Kevin Maley (13:05)
It's very British.

I mean, like in the parliamentary system, you just vote you're supposed to vote with the party, you're not really supposed to exercise independence and you can get thrown out of the party if you deviate from the party line. I think Boris Johnson had thrown a bunch of people out because they didn't vote for Brexit. And then Jeremy Corbyn was thrown out for something, I forget. But

can be very dogmatic. So what do you think the just going back to Massey, so Massey, I guess for context for those who aren't aware, Thomas Massey is a Republican congressman from Kentucky. As we've been talking about, he's been a pretty consistent, I don't know if he calls himself a libertarian, but pretty consistent on his values, which include he wants to vastly reduce the debt. He he views you probably know this better than me, but the function of government is

I don't know, pr to protect liberties, but probably not to regulate corporations too much, do environmental protection, give out pensions in the form of social security, subsidize health care, that kind of thing. He s says it's too too much and not really the role of government. And then has also been consistent on sort of what you were saying, that if the US is gonna go to war, it should be through congressional authorization and

Either way, we probably should not be frequently going to war for interests that are not those of the United States. I should add, you know, I referenced Miriam Adelson at the beginning when I was talking about Thomas Massey and and I referenced Israel and Gaza. I I think one of the big reasons that he was targeted was he's been a vociferous critic on Israel. He had gone on Tucker Carlson's podcast maybe over a year ago. I think he's been on a bunch of times, but

He was really ripping into APAC, had spoken about how APAC has basically a handler for every single member of Congress. So 435 members of Congress each gets their own APAC handler to and APAC is the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. It's basically a a foreign lobby for Israel, but it doesn't register as a foreign lobby. It it parades itself as an American lobby. but so he

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (14:50)
Mm-hmm.

Kevin Maley (15:04)
has spoken up very loudly, ⁓ critical of not just what Israel is doing in Gaza, but Israel's pernicious influence on US policy in both parties. And partly as a result of that, a ton of money, these kind of Israel lobby groups, so Miriam Adelson, other groups, I think the the Republican Jewish Coalition or something like that, gathered over thirty million dollars for the small congressional district in Kentucky, which races probably

spend a couple hundred thousand dollars at most every time. ⁓ and he just couldn't keep up with that avalanche of money. I think Trump also was mad at him because he had forced the release of the Epstein files, which is depending on how you look at it, separate from the Israel issue, maybe it's connected. But yes. Yeah.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (15:45)
Well that's a whole other rabbit hole. It

⁓ but

that's a that's a really good summary, I think, of ⁓ Thomas Massey's ⁓ bona fide ponafides. ⁓ it is really interesting to me. Yeah, it was I think the number turned into closer to thirty-two million that was spent to primary Massey in his home state. And again, it was for doing exactly what MAGA make America Great Again, like America First Camp said they were going to do two years ago. So it's just it's absolutely interesting.

interesting for me to witness this in in real time is that again it becomes party over truth, party over even campaign promises and slogans. it once you get into power

It's like screw screw the c constituents who got you there. We're just gonna continue to feed the swamp and the swamp has become largely ⁓ bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, as you said, which is very, very sad. That's why I I think that one of the most powerful things Massey and others have done is to attack the right from the right and just hold a mirror up to them and demonstrate, listen, you you're the America first crowd. That's what got you into office. That's what America voted for was for you to be America first. Why are we going to war on behalf

Of a foreign country that doesn't benefit us? Why do you have to constantly tell the prime minister of a foreign country not to do something and they give you a proverbial middle finger and do it anyway? Who's the who's the the bitch in that situation? Is it us or is it them? And it's it's just absolutely insane from the foreign policy perspective all the way down to the domestic side, where again we're spending

Trillions of dollars and it's not going to benefit Americans, it's going to benefit big businesses, corporate welfare. Again, the big beautiful bill. One of the things that Massey didn't vote for, and he again was vilified and ostracized for it, is he said, I I swore an oath to the Constitution and I I swore an oath to reduce the size of government, not to make it bigger than Obama and Biden before Trump. So why why if we're the party of fiscal conservatism, why are we putting more and more

government to place. And again, I I know that's an area may maybe we have some friendly disagreement about, but that from a massy or from a right perspective, you think that kind of message would resonate. But the only reason it doesn't or it resonates with all the right people, but the reason it doesn't get ⁓ any traction in Washington is because it's a bought and paid for group of individuals. And i it's unfortunate that America first has turned into the Israel first. and that's

Kevin Maley (18:14)
The Democrats are like that too,

Israel first.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (18:15)
Yes, well

a and I think I might have to fact check me on this, but I believe Massey is one of only three

sitting congressmen who and and congresswomen who have not taken a penny from APAC. So I you know, it's it's no secret why they're throwing everything in the kitchen sink at him. One thing that does give me a little bit of comfort, 'cause I am seeing this you know, failure after failure in this political administration from Massey losing to Lindsey Graham winning the other day. ⁓ it's it's and it's again it's just enough to make you throw up. But it's it's boomer class led, you know?

Kevin Maley (18:42)
Oof.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (18:48)
I this is terrible to say, but the younger individuals are seeing right through this. And I think it's a part that's a factor of the media that we're there listening to. Again, the boomer class is largely listening to standard corporate media. And on the Republican side, of course, that's predominated by Fox News, where you go on there and they're spewing the same exact I mean they've become a government mouthpiece of propaganda. They're spewing the same exact propaganda that the that you're getting from from the White House. and so you know when when Trump's

says

jump, they say how high. But that's only when you hit the ages of, you know, fi I think it's fifty eight to six to sixty and higher. So we if I ha again, this is terrible to say, but

These individuals are going to go away, die off, however you wanna put it, and a lun a younger, brighter, more plugged in you know, voter base is gonna see through the lies and the propaganda and ⁓ hopefully be able to, you know, vote the Lindsey Grahams out and put more Thomas Masseys in. I the skeptical that I mean

Kevin Maley (19:29)
Sky off.

I'm a little skeptical of that though. I mean I

think the data showed that's that is true on Israel. The under forty, under thirty crowd for both parties really don't like Israel, but and maybe that's the point that you're making, but I'm not sure they're great on everything else. I mean I I I can still imagine, you know, Jen Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying, I mean from like

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (20:03)
I'm trying to add some optimism to this. I mean you can try to w beat me down.

Kevin Maley (20:07)
One

can imagine Gen Z voting in president to take us to war and rack up trillions of dollars in debt and ⁓ you know, violate our civil liber civil liberties with surveillance laws and that sort of thing. But but they might hate Israel, which I mean, I'll take the win there, but

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (20:25)
Yeah, I mean there if there's a silver lining in any of this that that is certainly yeah, and that's a big one. I mean, again, w i i Israel has caused more devastation,

Kevin Maley (20:30)
It's big one.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (20:33)
Yeah, to to our country and to the world than ⁓ than pretty much anyone, at least in my lifetime. which is really sad to say 'cause they could have been a very, very powerful, very you know, moral ally. But they have, you know, for whatever reason chosen to do the morally despicable things instead of the righteous things and it's it's it's seeded a lot of

Kevin Maley (20:54)
Do you think nation states are are moral actors?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (20:57)
I mean

Kevin Maley (20:57)
Like can a state

be moral?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (20:59)
this is a great philosophical question. you catch me on the on the right day, I might say I might say yes to that, but I think in general if you look at history as a guide that n nation states have been very amoral actors and done the exact opposite.

Kevin Maley (21:13)
Yeah, that's what that's what I would argue, that they're they're

not they're neither moral nor amoral. The actions we can certainly interpret as very immoral when you commit genocide, but I would say states we should not look for states to be altruistic actors because they're not capable. ⁓ it's not that they're not cap I mean it's just they're they're not they're not humans and I just view them as amoral institutions. It's like a corporation. Like a corporation might

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (21:28)
That's true.

Well then I'll then allow me to correct

Kevin Maley (21:38)
I don't know, have a foundation to raise money for children's cancer or something like that. But that's for PR or whatever, because they have a fiduciary duty to their investors to maximize shareholder value. So they're not doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. And I would say a state, it's different than a corporation, but I just don't view them as as moral actors, although they can do very immoral things.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (21:59)
No, I think that's a probably a very good read on the situation. So yeah, to correct the record I would say that Israel's role in the global stage could have been one that didn't lend itself to

well I don't want I'm I don't want to say the word genocide. I think that's a very loaded word, but let's just say ethnic cleansing, and just complete barbarism ⁓ in a level that hasn't been seen before since World War two. So I think it is unfortunate that it that that we have not, as Israel's big brother, had a again, if not a moral then at least a ⁓ a a level of ⁓

Kevin Maley (22:10)
Genocide.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (22:32)
you know, hit slapping their hand when they do naughty things instead of giving them the weapons and funding to ⁓ double and triple down on that. That's been extremely difficult to watch because it frankly it's see it again, it's so i against our own interests for one, which is again goes back to the America First thing. We have made the world a much less safe place because of Israel's actions and are unifying with them. But more than that, it's it's it's very sad for me to see as a

Christian, that the the amount of let's just say anti-semitism that has sprung out of the fact that Israel is doing such terrible things has led to people of course pointing that out, which they rightfully should do and I do every day. But the as is the case in any spectrum, you're gonna have the fringe movements that are gonna take something and bring it to the ultimate ultimate worst conclusions. And

Instead of saying that the state of Israel is doing very evil things, they say things like the Jewish people are bad or the Jewish people need to have such and such happen to them, which of course is a complete separation from fact and I I hate to see that and I see it more and more but it's a a direct outcropping that happens as a result of the state of Israel doing evil things. So

Kevin Maley (23:50)
Well, and and not just the State

of Israel doing evil things, but you have the pro Israel organizations like the ADL and just kind of Israel fanatics in the United States that very often equate the State of Israel with Jews. And you know, that might sound surprising to say because they say it's anti Semitic to do that, which I would agree, but they say

if you criticize Israel, you're criticizing the Jews. You you know, if you say Israel's committing genocide, that's anti Semitic. I mean, they they put the association in people's minds that to criticize Israel is to criticize the quote unquote Jews.

Benjamin Netanyahu many times has said, I speak for the Jewish people, and we are the Jewish state. And so I think there's kind of ⁓ I don't know, a a trick of the card going on where when it works for them, when it's to their advantage, I'm talking about the the pro-Israel people, they say, you know, the Israeli state and the Jews are one and the same. But if you come and criticize it, which I I think, you know, one should not do that.

Then they cry anti-Semitism. And I would also argue that feeds into a narrative that the Benjamin Netanyahu is in the ADLs of the world, the ADL being the American Defamation League, which is an organization that smears people that criticize Israel, to the extent that there's more anti-Semitism that rises up, I think they love that because then they can say this justifies the cause of Israel. So they want to feed into anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism happens.

And then they say this proves why we need to have Israel. It's a it's a virtuous cycle for them.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (25:22)
Yeah, it's yeah it happens a lot in political arenas again, the heads I win, tails you lose motif. ⁓ I think it happens even in domestically, the FBI. ⁓ a lot of times ⁓ you'll see sting operations just that they use well they'll put plants in place that justify their own existence. ⁓ w

Kevin Maley (25:40)
Like the the Gretchen

Whitmer operation?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (25:41)
There exactly. Yeah.

it you see this happening all the time. And again, I I come back to from a political or from a philosophical perspective. I mean, this stuff doesn't happen out of the blue. Again, I think my lens that I've tried to evolve over the last couple of years to at least help me kind of parse and dissect a lot of the dichotomies that are happening is that this is a j this is an outcropping of the larger postmodern move. It's a it's a it's an ironic

cynical view of and deconstructive view of reality and it's allowed tremendous groupings to happen largely at at the behest of of the groups themselves. It's like look put us all together in one big group and this is how we see the world and so that way you have individuals get confused at the nature of what truth is because you're you're instead of identifying ⁓ moral actors at the individual level, you want it you see it at the group level and you see all these large ⁓

bodies and these tentacles that are that are playing a role in our and and trying to get kind of politically connected and and and vie for power. So I I I I see a lot of this this outcropping of some of the more wretched things that are happening in the world today, not because they're happening in isolation, because they're they're downwind from a from a cultural movement that's been kind of strangling the American or the global populace for now almost forty years.

Kevin Maley (27:02)
Just to close

things out on Thomas Massey, do you think there's anyone that can fill his void in either House? so I'm including the Senate and you know, leading to Rand Paul and I guess perspectives on him, but that that voice of the the true libertarian-ish, you know, values, America first perspective, is there anyone in either the House or the Senate that can speak to that?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (27:25)
yeah, well we're a dying breed, as you said, and again I d I think that the word libertarians become a dirty word and even on the Republicans the people scoff at it. So it's almost like, who's to ti pick up the mantle? ⁓ I I I I again, a year ago might have said Rand Paul would be a good person for that, but I've been very disappointed by him recently. He's he's said a lot of things that just don't resonate with ⁓ certainly on the civil side of things, civil liberty side, he's he's been really staunch, but he has been very

Reluctant to come out and just stand out, stand up against some of the stuff that Israel is doing. And I think it's because it largely is political suicide. He knows he could get primaried and you you see that this bludgeol is working, and so a lot of the good people probably have to be very careful and and measure their words. I used you know, Justin Amash was somebody I used to respect too for similar reasons. I don't think he's got a shot. He's a good guy, but yeah, again, does he have a shot? I I don't know if the change that we're gonna see in the world.

Kevin Maley (28:15)
Yeah, he was a good guy.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (28:22)
world

it's gonna happen at the political arena. I think it kinda has to happen culturally first and it has to happen individually and then hopefully you have enough of a well s

spring of populist righteousness about some of these causes that are really meaningful that we can actually make real meaningful change. 'Cause it hasn't happened. But if anything the the pendulum has swung and fallen off the clock at this point. That's g so I'm really very, very bearish on what politics can do to bring about lasting reform.

Kevin Maley (28:53)
How would

the culture change? It feels like a lot of the inputs to the culture are from the internet. as I mean, as someone from the right, you probably see that a ton of cultural input comes from just people on the left, you know, people in New York and LA. and by that I mean like the entertainment industry and I don't know, SNL and all that.

Of course the culture is much broader than television and movies, but how do you see the culture changing? Is there any hope for that?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (29:20)
Well what

Yeah, well one of the things I wrote about in my book, ⁓ which I published in twenty twenty four, and I actually interviewed you for one of the chapters. Thanks again for being part of that. speaks to some of what I again maybe I see as a a youthful optimism there is it's for the culture to change, we need to get away from the constant bifurcation of left versus right, and this demonization of the other side. so the progressive versus the conservative or the libertarian. It it's gotta be

be

⁓ again which again is a an outcropping I think of a lot of the postmodern ⁓ world that we live. It's almost like what do we need to do in order to blend and fuse and create synthesis between a lot of the the language that we use. So for example, instead of having a conversation about so if the if the left has a conversation and they say, hey this this policy I we I think is very important to me ⁓ because it is it helps with workers

rights, for example, or helps bring about the individuals who are the starving mother have a better work life balance or more money to put on her on her plate. and that policy to the to the right it might be seen as you know curtailing freedom ⁓ or is is government overreach or something like that. So it becomes you're using different measuring sticks or yard sticks to have the same conversation because because you're not able to come to a similar or the same understanding of what value

what's valuable to society. One person has this one level of values and it's maybe in deeply ingrained in their political ways of thinking and the other side has other values that is very deeply ingrained in their political machination. So what I feel what culture needs to change is find ways of having that conversation, find where there's shared values, and instead of it being a screaming match, find what are the areas that we can open up to have meaningful

Change that isn't about that that allows the values to to have some harmony to them and some synthesis, which isn't going to happen overnight. And again, it's it may be overly optimistic, but right now our political sphere is just governed by screaming matches. Whether you get on a show on Fox News or you get on CNN and you have the pundits just just talking past each other, and no one's actually having a conversation, no one's having the the complete

Complexity of conversation that's gonna be able to actually ⁓ move the needle. Instead it becomes again, screaming match and it becomes a a lack of nuance, a black versus right and up versus down down my side is angels, your side are is demons. and that's that's just inherently wrong, bad, and and unmeaning unhelpful to to foster any forward momentum. So

Kevin Maley (32:03)
But the algorithm algorithms

do reward that. And even if we're just talking about CNN, I mean I see clips on Twitter from CNN, you know, so and so, Scott Jennings has such a you know, demolishes someone on this stupid CNN panel. And even I click on it and I'm like, God, I can't believe I clicked on that.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (32:22)
Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. The the the echo chambers that we find ourselves in on social media are self fulfilling. ⁓ and that's why everyone has is is very happy to you know, they almost get viscerally upset when they see something that doesn't align with their worldview on their social media. So they're not gonna click on it, they're gonna downvote it, they're gonna in if they do engage it's just to scream and and tell you you know, why you're wrong. So social media is I think a terrible way of having any sort of meta modern synthesis.

Or any sort of you know Hegelian dialectic component to improving the the nature of of culture in and that exists, you need to be able to sit down, have conversations like this one, whether they're recorded or not, you take someone out for a beer or your or lunch and you get to the heart at what why do you feel that way? Why is this important to you? Or what you know, did you consider this from this perspective or that perspective? You put look someone in the eyes and you're able to actually see where they're coming from, or to the best.

Your ability to walk a mile in their shoes, that's the only way you're going to be able to, I mean, to move the world forward. And I know that's a very slow and laborous process. It's it's the same, it's analogous to like whole Thomas Aquinas story of where you go out to the ocean and you find all the starfish that have washed ashore after a storm, and you start picking them up and throwing them back into the ocean. And it may look completely overwhelming and defeatist to someone looking at that as a third-party observer. It's like you're never being.

able

to save every single fish on the shore, but you'll make an infra i a a big difference to that one that you threw back or that two that you're the as many times as you throw each starfish back into the ocean. And I think that as individuals if we take a little bit more of personal responsibility of how can I learn from my fellow man, from the individuals that are around me in my community, how can I take an active participate ⁓ actively participate in the in the the culture and the world that I want to live in, you're gonna have much better job

than trying to turn on Fox News or CNN and and hope for the best 'cause w that we've played that song many times over and it's it's a very it's quite a cacophony.

Kevin Maley (34:26)
Do you think we

need to get back to teaching the Western canon? I mean referencing Hegel and Aquinas and I mean, should we be make putting this back up on the agenda in education? Get people on Augustine and, you know, go all the way through, start with Socrates.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (34:40)
I think philosophy should be taught to every high schooler in America. I think I think frankly economics should too. Again, out of the the I keep coming back to the postmodern motif, but like the reason we we don't think that there are limits in society, and I again my truths only is as valuable as your truth. And you know, thirty-three genders is just as valuable as two genders, is because we haven't taught the the the limits that constrain the sciences, you know, whether it's economics, math.

Math, the biology. I mean, these things have with the postmodern mindset is one of deconstruction. It's constantly tearing everything down without building anything back up. So we're very happy to tear down our house and then lament the fact, ironically, that we don't have a roof over our head anymore and how sad that is for us. But no one's really willing to pick up a shovel or or put a hammer in their hand and build a new house. And I think that the sciences, yeah, ⁓ from philosophy to economics.

⁓

And everything in between are incredibly important. So if we're not teaching that, if we're spending all of our time in our in in college and high school explaining how fantastic it is that we have a really good w women's study major instead of you know the the hard sciences and STEM classes, we're really not paying attention to the right things. We're it's perfectly good to have a wild, wide amount of ⁓ educational facets, but we need to make sure we

understand that the world around us has hard limits and we need to understand those so that we don't print unlimited amounts of money, so that we don't say and do things that are just frankly outrageously dumb. but we need to be able to have a recognition that there is hard, fast truths in the world instead of ⁓ political truths that are as vapid as the wind or as one of Trump's tweets.

Kevin Maley (36:29)
There's really

interesting historian, Tom Holland, who argues a lot of the evolution in culture is the natural outgrowth of Christianity and the subversive elements within Christianity that from the beginning have sought to kind of examine and tear down and purify and kind of go through the cycle over and over again.

⁓ and he actually argues things like atheism and secularism are a natural outgrowth of Christianity and he gives good arguments for that. he wrote a book called Dominion, which touches on a lot of this stuff, so I recommend it. His name is Tom Holland.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (37:00)
Hmm.

What was his name? I'm sorry. Tom

Ham, okay. Yep.

Kevin Maley (37:09)
Yeah. Very interesting stuff. just going back to politics, one last thing on on Congress. Have you been following the debates around FISA? this is the FISA seven two extension.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (37:19)
⁓ why don't you give a breakdown, just make sure I'm on the same page.

Kevin Maley (37:22)
So in the and I this history may be a little it may not be perfect, but after 9-11 the federal government began a mass surveillance program on the American people. it was a secret surveillance program that was later revealed to the public and instead of prosecuting people, they added an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Or FISA, it was amendment seven two, and it was they said it would only be temporary, it has to be reauthorized every couple of years, but it effectively allows huge amount of surveillance on the American people. It nominally targets overseas people, so someone talking with a a foreign national, but if you are an American citizen and you're you're caught in that.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (38:07)
You're caught

in the web, yeah.

Kevin Maley (38:08)
You're caught in the web and then they can then use that as an entry point into all of your communications. And so if you ever talk to someone overseas, whether that's I don't know, a call service person in India, I mean it it can be very expansive in the it's I think they have to apply for warrants, but those are approved rubber stamped by secret courts that g give like a ninety-nine percent approval. So it's been very controversial for

for civil libertarians, justifiably so, because it's clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment. but it keeps on getting reauthorized by kind of the Washington blob. So the the security state people from both sides of the aisle, you know, the head of the party will always be for it. Mike Johnson, the current speaker, actually was very much a critic of 702, the FISA 702 amendment.

Until he became the speaker and then he was brought to a skiff and shown some stuff and then he came out and said, Actually, we need this after all. And the ⁓ a lot of these kind of massy ish Republicans like Chip Roy and a few others have repeatedly said we're not gonna continue the authorization of this surveillance, but they always kind of fold. It was up for reauthorization a couple months ago. I think they just quite didn't have the votes in Congress.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (39:22)
No, I think it's standstilled if I remember correctly, yeah. So

Kevin Maley (39:25)
Yeah, but they got

some temporary expansion, like we'll just kick those a few months down the road. it expires tonight, I think, because they can't get it approved now. Part of the reason they can't get it approved is Trump nominated some hack to to replace Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (39:45)
One of

his cronies temporarily and it didn't need to get commissioned. Could just get temporarily put in there. unbelievable.

Kevin Maley (39:49)
Yes. Yes, but Senate Democrats

are holding up FISA authorization based on that. But but even if, you know, you're not familiar with the the intricacies of the that FISA power, which even I'm not fully breast on like the the technicalities of it, just from your perspective, the the growing mass surveillance of the American people, whether it's through FISA, whether it's through mass

monitoring of data online, kind of working inclusion with social media companies, you know, even just buying data on the open market. I I mean this is one of the things that scares me the most is we are getting to the slowly to this Orwellian world. It's supported by both parties. It's always in the name of safety and like, if we don't do this, 9-11's gonna happen. But we're finding that whether it's the the federal government or corporations,

We're kind of just monitored everywhere all the time that data exists. And I don't mean, you know, controversial Reddit posts that someone made a ten years ago and now they're running for Senate, but just everything is being tracked. I mean, you know, if I probably shouldn't say this, but like if you were gonna plot something against Trump, like surely you wouldn't use Gmail or your cell phone on that, because you would just assume that.

that would get picked up by the federal government. And you know, of course it's a good thing we don't want harm to people and but but the point I'm making there is it's kind of in the back of everyone's mind like, yeah, everything can be surveilled and recorded and I best be careful.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (41:15)
Yeah, well, I this is definitely an area that you and I dovetail on.

completely. I think civil liberties is a topic just like foreign intervention where it seems like both parties come together, unfortunately, on the wrong side of this issue. I think the constitution is very explicit, be it in the Fourth Amendment and elsewhere, that, you know, civil liberties are sacrosanct and spying on our own citizens should not even be something up for debate. It's the fact that we are even having a conversation.

like this is just testament to how far we've come afield from what our founding fathers planned for Americans and the American people and in terms of our liberties being held in high high esteem. yeah, so when it comes to, you know, the Section seven two and and I'm again Massey w stood up

Very much against this, rightfully so, because of the loopholes that it creates and and as again as I understand it, you know, you can you can get basically a warrantless search on someone internationally, ⁓ because they're not a US citizen, but if you just make a innocent phone call to that tapped phone, you can then be tracked

From that point forward, which is this just giant loophole. And in this day and age of AI and and just massive data centers, that is not a a whoopsie that that is a small one because now you have your entire life can be ⁓ intruded upon by your government just because you were caught accidentally in this loophole. so I mean again, civil liberties are I think are so important for us to ⁓ on both sides of the aisle just wake up to the fact that there is this happening.

by our own government. I mean, Edward Snowden has revealed this and what was happening at the NSA and ⁓ you know from Clapper's you know lies when he stood before Congress and flatly told American you know Senate and or the the Congress that this wasn't happening and then it came out days later that it obviously a hundred percent was. What did he get so much? Yeah, he did he get he didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist. I mean again the the the fact that this is not

Kevin Maley (43:10)
And now he's like a CNN analyst, so didn't go to jail.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (43:16)
That people aren't going to jail over this sort of thing is just mind boggling to me. so yeah, I I it it does one of those things that makes me very angry. I do hope that the the winds do change on this. I don't see that happening anytime soon. we seem to really want to do a against ⁓ the the words of Benjamin Franklin, we really want to give up our liberty in exchange for temporary freedom. and again that happens on the foreign stage when it comes to international politics.

⁓ on foreign policy and it happens here domestically at home when it comes to civil liberties. We are very happy to just, please, sir, can I can you handcuff me? because for my own good, you know, it's it's a very, very sad plight that we live in. And I don't see it changing. in terms again, to your actual direct question, I don't know the ins and outs. I didn't know it was expiring today. I'd say great. I'm glad that it is. I hope that it happens. ⁓ but

Kevin Maley (44:06)
Yeah, let me verify that.

Let's see.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (44:09)
It's just

it's just a very unfortunate plight that our our country doesn't get more up in arms about these things. It says a lot about us, frankly, that we

Kevin Maley (44:16)
It expires Friday, sorry,

Friday at midnight, which I guess is technically Saturday. So and today is th we're recording on Thursday, june eleventh, so we've got we've got a a day or two until Pfizer goes away.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (44:22)
So what do you think's gonna happen

So since you're sta you're s a lot more on top of this than I am, what is what do you think is gonna happen? Do you think there will be an injunction to try to push this p kick this can down the road and they'll try to keep squeak it through, or do you think that this might die?

Kevin Maley (44:39)
Yes, it always something

always happens and it gets ⁓ it gets through. So I would imagine I was reading that they may have run out of time to do ⁓ like a short term we just need more time to debate this kind of thing because f for rules in the House and Senate or wherever, ⁓ you can't just snap your fingers and and have a vote.

But I would imagine my best guess is there's a temporary expiration and Congress reauthorizes it on Saturday or something. it does say just in the thing I looked up, the House has left for a weeks long recess and is not scheduled to vote again until June twenty third, making this the first time the spy program statute has sunset since its enactment. But I do think, first of all, I don't think the government's gonna stop.

using their surveillance powers just because they lose the legal authorization. ⁓ I mean they were doing it before it was legal. They got caught and then instead of Congress prosecuting the people who did it, they just legalized it. So I I'm not for those who may want to engage in mischief or celebrate their newfound civil liberties for mass surveillance on Saturday, I would say hold off. Just because it's not legal doesn't mean they're not going to do it. But I think eventually

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (45:51)
Yeah.

Kevin Maley (45:54)
they'll get some short term extension and then you know, they'll add on some superficial reform that's totally meaningless and that will allow people to vote for the long term extension.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (46:05)
Well, I'm sure you're right and you know, it sucks to be us.

Kevin Maley (46:08)
Yeah. so just a couple more questions for you. What are your thoughts on AI and how that affects individual liberty? But also, you know, you you were talking a lot about culture and you know, referencing philosophy and that sort of thing. And it and it feels like to me, one of the the things I like about

Sorry to keep going back to this term libertarian because I know you don't refer to yourself as that anymore. But yeah, I guess it's an old American concept, the celebration of the individual and the individual spirit and the I guess unique opportunities of the human mind and how that can flourish and create beauty, you know, whether it's in culture or science or whatever. ⁓ but then we have this thing, AI, coming along, which feels like it's

has the potential to replace a lot of what makes individuals unique, that sort of internal spark in genius. And I know people say, you know, AI can never fully replace it, but I don't know. I feel like you you read about cognitive decline among students who are using AI because they're not having to write papers. They get AI do it to do it. They don't read

anymore because AI can read it and summarize. They're not doing really analytical work. And I think those skills are atrophying. And then I I don't know. It's ⁓ makes me very nervous about what a human will be in 40 years, someone who's born today, if AI ⁓ is just everything they use, are they going to have that kind of unique spark within them?

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (47:40)
Mm-hmm.

Yeah, let me give you what ⁓ might be a controversial take on this, ⁓ or at least a unique one. I've I'm nothing if not unique. You had a lot in your question, so let me go back to the beginning. So yes, you're right. I don't necessarily call myself a libertarian anymore because I don't like libertarian with a capital L, what the party's been doing, what it stands for, I think is totally anathema to what actual liberty means. ⁓ but let me tell you what I do believe. I think that's much more important as I frame this question. I believe that

There's a there's a moral framework that needs to be put in place for every human soul on this earth. ⁓ and in the past I've I've called that libertarianism. ⁓ but you know, what whatever that framework is, that there is a the ability for one person, an individual, to have right over their own body and a right over what they do with their lives, and no no one else has the ability to tell them what they can do or can't do unless it impacts someone else. So I think.

I think that as soon as you have a government or a state impose its its will and say that it you cannot do what you want or be what you want to be because our will is sacrosanct and it's overarching of that. I don't believe in that. I believe it morally, from a moral perspective, that's not the way we're supposed to live our lives. So that's the way that I view the world, and that's one of the reasons I do have such problems with the state. now, completely separate from your question on AI, though. So one of

When

it comes to AI, this is where I think things are are very interesting and I I think it is an outcropping of the philosophical world in which we're living, that a lot of the points that you're making are very valid. AI is a mechanism of acceleration. I'll put it that way. It's like an it's like a fire. ⁓ it can be used for great ill and burn down a building, or build out burn down an entire forest, or it can be used for heat and warmth.

and and power and source of of fuel for ⁓ an entire generation or entire mankind. So what we do with this technology is gonna say everything we it about us as a people, as a as a species, which is very, very sad to see the state of the world today. Again, all of the bifurcation that I was speak speaking to earlier of the left and right divide, the up is down, ⁓ the left is right, the

the the fearful re ⁓ recognition of truth or the inability to recognize truth. You know, some of these postmodern most motifs, if these start ex using AI to accelerate untruths, I think we have a very unfortunate reckoning ahead of us. You know, so that's one way, one path that we might take as a society in order to see terrific

upheaval ⁓ at a cataclysmic level. You know, and that can be economic, it can be cultural, it can be just the spirit the the lack of intellectualism like you mentioned earlier. We're using AI to grade papers written by AI. I mean it's it's really becoming like a d a big joke. You know, it's and I and I think that that's very worrisome to me. The other side that's equally worrisome frankly and but I think is is even more ironic, I wrote about this in a in a recent

article on a and a one of my blog posts or ⁓ podcast talked about it is the irony involved with

You know, so what has led I if you look at the historical precedent of what led to AI, well it's again it's been a lot of this p postmodern decoupling of money from value and it's allowed us to print trillions of dollars, it's allowed us to ⁓ you know, get off of the dollar or excuse me, the get off the gold system, gold standard and

Kevin Maley (51:11)
The gold standard. There's the libertarian in you.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (51:14)
Yeah. so again this is very very important because it's led to this decoupling has led to this massive de emphasis of value in our culture and in our money. And that money has flood into that money that is lower and lower in value, but it's it's higher and higher dollar bills that are that are going after ⁓ that that value is being used by itself to f to fund technologies like

Like AI, cryptocurrency, blockchain, a lot of these powerful tools that maybe very likely would not exist if it wasn't for the postmodern rot that allowed these manifestations to occur in the first place. It's basically kind of having order arise from chaos, is the way that I described it in my podcast. Because you had so much, so much printing of money, so much massive runaway inflation, but this money going out went everywhere, but a lot of it's sprinkled into these tech centers.

In a way that's allowed kind of the underpinnings, this d you in the way in much of the way that the railroads were used to ⁓ to to you know, even though we use slave labor basically to put it down, it still created a lasting infrastructure for our our world today. In the much the same way we're kind of building these digital railroads through AI and and technology that's been funded largely by postmodern ⁓ economic populism and the and the runaway inflation and

And and lack of value from getting off the gold standard. So I find that very interesting because because where that could go, and again, this is equally terrifying as what I mentioned earlier, is AI, like you said, in 40 years, could give birth to this, you know, that and it already is giving birth to like the transhumanist movement, where you start seeing ⁓ chips in people's bodies and and and ⁓ a merging of technology and autonomy. And you know, Musk has already started that for for.

Kevin Maley (52:54)
Yeah.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (53:05)
great you know very altruistic means you know he's trying to give sight to the blind he's trying to give movement to the paralyzed like these are phenomenal mission statements but they're a bridge to what could be very very detrimental to what we know as human humanity to the the human soul might very well see a melding in a way that's very sci-fi that we see think of as sci-fi now but like forty fifty years from now you know every human

being may get a an ar an AI chip put in their brains that allows them to see further and run faster and be bigger, you know think th think stronger or think more than the common the average human today. And that's getting at.

Kevin Maley (53:43)
Yeah, that's actually what I was getting at.

And I think you articulated it better than I. I what I was worried about was when I was saying the human spark, it really is the human soul and and the which makes us all individuals. And I think there the examples that you gave are great on that fusion of AI or technology and human beings, because it would start out with things people wouldn't say no to. How how would you, if you're a quadriplegic,

If you're paralyzed in your arms and your legs, but you have the opportunity to then regain movement, how would you turn that down? Or if you are blind and you would be able to see again, how would you turn that down? ⁓ and then it just kind of keeps going from there. I mean, you know, we already the I'm not like anti vaxxer or anything, but we already inject ourselves at a young age with things that came from science to prove

prevent ourselves from getting diseases. So it's it just feels like it'll continue. And it's kind of like with the erosions on privacy, where, you know, something that 20 years ago people would be shocked at if you slowly acclimate it to them, surveillance and that sort of thing. I mean, like the Patriot Act was so controversial and it's, you know, like kids play at this point in terms of the powers of the federal government. If you slowly acclimate people to it,

I I think people just get used to it. And then it's you know, what's the point of staring at your phone all day and using that for the web when you might have s a chip in your brain and you don't need to pick up a device to call or text someone. You can just do it in your mind. And, you know, it seems odd at first and then everyone starts and then before you know it, we're just half man, half machine.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (55:19)
It's a slippery slope.

Yeah, I mean now we're getting into the realm of sci fi, which we are we are really right there.

I mean, there's so many sci fi movies ⁓ and books out there about how AI gave birth to so many new technologies and then what happens not long after, you know, either AI winds up creating you know, the robotics a enter the AI sphere and now you have r sa and then sentience takes over not long after that. So it is a very scary we're on the precipice of either something incredibly powerful or incredibly damaging and scary. And and maybe it's maybe it's not mutually

exclusive. Maybe those two things run hand in hand. so I I I'm not a I'm not a a ⁓ prognosticator. I'm not gonna try to even guess what the future will hold. But I think it's something we all should not keep our head in the sand about. We need to be very wary and alert to what the evolution of 'cause we're all we're all frogs sitting in boil in in water and whether that water boils and kills us or ⁓ we use it to make a

beautiful home is up to us. So we just need to be vigilant about these things. So I got nothing more profound to say than that, but ⁓ it's it's it is an interesting time to be alive, I'll tell you that, Kevin.

Kevin Maley (56:31)
Well just

to round us out and at the risk of asking you to prognosticate, wanted to get your thoughts on the upcoming midterm elections. It looks like Democrats may take the House, Senate is much bigger ⁓ uphill

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (56:45)
I think it's gonna

be a clean sweep. I I have no hope for the GOP. I've written and talked about this to anyone who will listen. ⁓ not because that's what I wanna happen, but because the there's been so many self goals by the GOP in the last year and a half. It is absolutely breathtaking. I mean especially in contrast to where they were when they took power in twenty twenty four. You had this you I mean people were saying, the Democrat the Gri Democratic Party is over. I mean look how

much they they did to destroy themselves everything from the purveyance of of you know I you know I wanna get too controversial here but the the wokeism wave you know crested and and everything that was going on there with especially with regards to like you know children getting ⁓ gender mu mutation surgeries and how normalized that was I think that really pushed a lot of people over the edge and certainly other policies on the progressive left and it caused the it caused Trump you know it

It was the it was the dam that allowed the river to burst and and and enter into and and the GOP to take power under the MAGA movement. So with that context

Many people were like myself were like, This is gonna be a w a wave that the GOP's gonna be able to ride for the next ten, fifteen, twenty years. And I couldn't have been more wrong. I mean, I could not cannot to this day believe how much they have taken the ball and spiked it in their own end zone s as many times as they have. They're just destroying the credibility of the Republican Party, which may be a good thing. Again, I'm not a Republican, but it's just if I do believe that the areas that the that the GOP used to be good, like

trying to reduce the size of government because of all the reasons I said earlier. I believe in in civil liberties, I believe in reducing the size of government and individualism. I believe these things are very important, but ⁓ they've no longer been a focus area of the Republican Party. Instead it's become fr it's gone from America first to Israel first and it's it's a we're we're a an owned society and we've seen that play out in four K. We see Trump praising Netanyahu when he commits

mass murder at a at a global stage. so these things are are sitting in four K and it you can't gaslight enough people into that showing them it's not true. So this is all gonna play out ⁓ in twenty twenty eight as a massive sweep for the r for the ⁓ for the Democrats. I think they'll take the House, the Senate, and they'll take the presidency. I don't see how else that's gonna happen. Unless something happens between now and then, which I can't imagine. ⁓

Kevin Maley (59:16)
A lot

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (59:16)
Yeah.

Kevin Maley (59:16)
can happen. But you d I I kinda wonder from the left perspective, have the Democrats learned any lessons from twenty twenty four? ⁓ I just saw the New York State legislature passed a bill to remove the terms men and women from New York State family courts, which will now only refer to gestating parent and non-gestating parent, which

You know, in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal in life, but knowing on a national level how the public stands and they see those are the democratic priorities, removing gender pronouns from courts, you just kind of wonder are we just gonna oscillate between backlash election and backlash election? I mean, arguably Trump one point was a backlash to the kind of prevailing democratic orthodoxies embodied by Hil Hillary Clinton.

Biden was backlash to Trump, Trump's a backlash to Biden, you know, it's and then the midterms in between are all backlashes. You don't really see a lot of positive visions clearly laid out. I mean, maybe Trump did a little of that for twenty twenty four. Democrats, I couldn't tell you what their vision for twenty twenty six is or twenty twenty-eight is like their vision for the the party or I'm sorry, for the country and how they govern. This is just

Everyone's mad at Trump and so they're gonna go Democrats now and then Democrats will fuck it up and then Republicans will come back. And it it's not doesn't seem like a healthy way to to manage the country is just every election is I hate the incumbent, throw them out, and then the next one do the same thing.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (1:00:34)
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Well, this all gets back to again the ide ideological divide between left and right is if we keep buying into that being the paradigm that we're gonna all live and die by, we're gonna keep having the pendulum swing left, swing right, swing left, swing right. And the the other side, quote unquote, is always gonna be ⁓ more evil, more have you know, twisting their mustache that much more than the last guy and then on the other side they're saying the same thing. So this is not the way you exit the arena, you know, if again if we're all in

This weird death arena, this this octagon of of hate, and we're all we're all singing and screaming the five minutes of hate to each other. That's not the way we move forward as a society. Which again goes back full circle to what I was saying earlier. We're not going to politic our way out of of ⁓ our current haze. We're going to have to find a way to reach a better, more

ro well rounded, more nuanced set of conversations in the in the ethos. ⁓ and so that's gonna have to start at the individual lep level, which may be in inattainable, ⁓ to be quite honest. I don't know if again it's it's overly optimistic to have that view viewpoint. I don't know if the philosophic, you know, the c I hierarchical complexity of new of nuanced conversation can regain discourse in the common person. You know, can our lexicon start using words that

aren't

two syllables long? Can we start having intelligent conversations about complex topics? Can we hold competing truths in our mind at the same time? Or does it have to be always a left, right, black, white, you versus me, and you're the enemy and I'm I'm you know an angel. That's the paradigm which we all live. And and again, and what's so frustrating and I mentioned this earlier is our our personalities and our even our self-worth

gets tied to our political party now. You'll notice that much more more than ever before, I think, in history, at least in my lifetime, whether it's on social media and you tweet the wrong thing, and you get, you know, you'll get death threats. Well why are someone so angry about a political opinion that someone has? Well they because they see themselves you're not attacking their party. You're attacking them because you personally, people personally get their ⁓ their their identity

wrapped up into their political party or the leader that they support. So if you say something negative against about Trump and even if it's something completely accurate and truthful, well Trump's my guy. So you're saying something bad about me. You don't value me. So that we we have these weird entanglements and and at a at a weird level and we we have lost the ability to disentangle the political from the identity. And so the only way that I see us moving forward

it is again it's not going to be through politics it's not going to be through voting in the next guy who's going to be better and save everybody. If that's our recipe for for the future, we're going to live in a pretty damnable future. ⁓ our only hope is to kind of take some of this on ourselves and have real world conversations with with individual people, our family members, our friends, our neighbors, take them out to coffee, take them out to lunch, get to learn who what they're all about and what they believe. If they're hanging if they're putting the flat the

sign for a politician that you don't like in their their yard, use it as an opportunity to strike up a conversation and take out to lunch. Not to just put them on your shit list, you know. Is there the world's a lot bigger and a lot more nuanced than than ⁓ b blue and and red, you know, two colors or or two animals to divide us.

Kevin Maley (1:04:17)
An encouraging note to end on. ⁓ remind us again your podcast and how people can follow you.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (1:04:23)
Yeah, I'm on all the podcast platforms. It's called Metamodernism Uncensored. So a lot of my topics do get very controversial and purposely so because I think if it's not worth talking about, then it's not controversial.

Kevin Maley (1:04:37)
Amen. Well Sean Dempsey, thanks for coming on the show.

Sean Dempsey, ESQ (1:04:40)
Thank you very much, Kevin.