This page has easy to grab mp3 links - American Carnage • Podcast Addict
The United States has always prided itself in settling its differences civically — at the ballot box, in the courts, and in the halls of Congress. In American Carnage, reporter Jeff Stein examines key moments in our nation's past to figure out what drives political change, and if the price of progress is instead measured in blood.
The first season, “Old Man Brown,” is a five-part investigation of the life and times of Captain John Brown, the 19th Century radical abolitionist who helped spark the Civil War. Our story takes us from the frozen mountains of upstate New York, to the bloodied plains of Kansas, to the gilded mansions of New England, and, finally, to the woods of Appalachia, where Brown and his small army made their stand at Harper’s Ferry.
Along the way, we’ll ask the hard questions about Brown. Were his (sometimes shocking) acts of violence justified? Could slavery have been abolished without his interventions? What went wrong at Harper’s Ferry? And how far would you be willing to go to fight evil?
I don't know more about it because I haven't started listening to it yet.
Stein is pretty good. Well, maybe for a liberal. I don’t know what his underlying politics are, but he works for the WaPo and is probably the only writer who consistently covers heinous liberal policies and questions them. His audience is definitely liberals who are dissatisfied with their party and supposed leaders, so he can’t just outright say “They should’ve performed necromancy on John Brown and give him an AR-15” . I put him on my list of Good Libs to Critically Support, alongside Edward Snowden and Lula.
Because Stein’s critique of democrats rarely make splashing headlines, it’s possible he’s not on the WaPo’s radar and they forgot about him, like Laos lol
The first EP's premise is basically "Was Brown crazy?" / "Would you do the same." And while I feel like he's trying to push for "no, and no but you should've," I think his liberalism (and his audience's) undermines his argument. He gives more than a few minutes to the arguments that Brown was a terrorist on par with Hamas, and being a lib talking to libs, Hamas are the bad guys. And since he's too lib to explore if maybe that's not the case (and that terrorism is a thought stopping phrase by imperialists), instead he tries to make excuses for Brown's situation while ignoring the reality of Hamas's situation and liberalism's blindspots to revolutionaries.
Eh, like I said, I'll keep listening and we'll see.