American Seances

This episode traces the constitutional shift between the Lochner era and the New Deal Court and explains why judges after 1937 would defer to Congress and the executive on tariffs imposed under broad statutory authority like Section 232.Through landmark cases from West Coast Hotel and Jones & Laughlin to Curtis Wright and Yakis, it shows how deference to legislative purpose, delegation, and executive foreign‑policy power made judicial strikes against tariffs unlikely—turning constitutional doctrine from strict limits on governance into support for flexible, modern administration.

This episode examines how the Lochner-era Supreme Court, committed to strict separation of powers and a narrow view of congressional delegation, would likely rule on President Trump’s tariffs imposed under Section 232. It explains the era’s focus on non-delegation, key precedents like Panama Refining and Schechter Poultry, and why broad national-security justifications for tariffs would be seen as unconstitutional lawmaking by the executive.

This episode examines how the Taney Court, shaped by Jacksonian distrust of privilege and a preference for political branch decision-making, treated federal power over foreign commerce and tariffs. It argues that Taney would likely uphold modern, Congress-authorized tariffs—like those under Section 232—because he favored letting Congress and the president implement economic policy unless the Constitution clearly forbade it.The episode also notes Taney's limits: he opposed executive action taken without clear congressional authorization, as in his clash with Lincoln. Overall, the Taney Court preferred stability and political solutions over aggressive judicial intervention in economic matters.

This episode examines whether the early 19th‑century Marshall Court would strike down Donald Trump’s tariffs. Drawing on McCulloch, Gibbons, and cases about conditional legislation, it argues the Court would likely uphold congressional tariff power and the president’s delegated authority.Ultimately, the Marshall Court’s emphasis on national unity, broad federal commerce power, and deference in political and foreign‑affairs questions suggests it would leave tariff policy to Congress and the executive rather than the judiciary.

Adam Smith would likely view Trump’s tariff strategy as a revival of mercantilist thinking: protectionist, politically driven, and ultimately harmful to consumers and long-term growth. He would argue that tariffs privilege narrow producer interests, raise prices, invite retaliation, and undermine the predictable rules that allow markets and international commerce to flourish.At the same time, Smith might accept narrowly defined national-security exceptions and would urge measured, evidence-based responses to dislocation—favoring structural reforms, transition assistance, and openness to trade rather than broad, punitive tariffs.

This episode imagines how the architects of England's 17th‑century Navigation Acts—Cromwellian and Restoration officials and theorists like Thomas Moon—would interpret Donald Trump’s 21st‑century tariff policies.They would recognize the mercantilist instincts in Trump’s rhetoric—trade as power, suspicion of deficits, and protection of national interest—but note crucial differences: the Navigation Acts were systemic, enforced by naval power, and built around a bullion economy and long horizons, whereas modern tariffs are targeted, reactive, and operate within globalized supply chains and fiat finance.Ultimately, the episode argues these historical theorists would admire the intent but see Trump’s approach as “mercantilism without empire”—the right impulse lacking the institutional machinery and long‑term strategy that once made such policies transformative.

On What Would Karl Marx Do? we imagine historical thinkers weighing in on today’s politics — this episode examines the Affordable Care Act through the eyes of Edmund Burke. It asks whether expanding access to health care is a noble civic duty or an overconfident attempt to remake society by administrative fiat.Burke’s response, explored here, praises the impulse to relieve suffering but warns that sweeping, centralized reforms can erode institutions, civic virtues, and local responsibility. The episode traces his concerns about mandates, bureaucracy, constitutional limits, and the long-term moral effects of state-managed compassion.

This episode imagines Hegel reacting to the Russia‑Ukraine war by reading it as a historical struggle over freedom and recognition: Ukraine’s national self‑consciousness asserting sovereignty, and Russia clinging to an older, non‑constitutional form of power.Hegel would see the West’s response as rooted in shared constitutional principles but urge prudence against both complacency and overreach, noting that wars accelerate historical change yet unleash unpredictable forces.Overall, the conflict is presented as a painful but decisive moment in the unfolding of freedom and political subjectivity.

Imagine Montesquieu transported to the present to watch the Russia-Ukraine war: he would see a clash between a fear-driven despotism and a people defending liberty by choice, not coercion.The episode explores how different political spirits shape behavior in war, the role of civic virtue exemplified by Ukrainian resistance, and the dangers republics face when fear and unity erode democratic checks.Montesquieu’s advice is a call for proportion and institutional restraint: support to defend freedom, but always balanced by moderation to prevent democracies from becoming what they oppose.

This episode applies Niccolò Machiavelli’s lessons on power, virtu, and fortuna to the Russia–Ukraine war, arguing he would view it as a familiar struggle between survival, overreach, and political image-making.It contrasts Putin’s miscalculations with Zelensky’s skillful use of appearance, courage, and narrative, and offers concise Machiavellian advice for Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and Europe about strategy, alliances, and the dangers of moral self-deception.