In this episode of New Persuasive Words, Bill and Scott dig into “Rod Dreher Thinks the Enlightenment Was a Mistake,” a provocative Atlantic feature that explores how one of today’s most influential conservative thinkers is challenging the very foundations of modernity. They unpack Read the full Atlantic article here, which profiles Rod Dreher’s journey from cultural critic to a leading voice in religious conservatism and the surprising influence his ideas now have on figures like Vice President J.D. Vance.

Bill and Scott discuss Dreher’s critique of secularism, his call for a return to pre-Enlightenment Christian values, and what that philosophical shift means for American politics and public life. They also debate how Dreher’s worldview intersects with political movements that mix faith with nationalist and cultural concerns — and what it says about the fractures within conservatism today. Whether you’re intrigued by the role of faith in political identity or skeptical about the consequences of rejecting Enlightenment ideals, this conversation offers a thoughtful, critical take on one of the most talked-about ideas shaping the right.

Tune in for a deep dive into culture, belief, and the future of persuasion.

In this week’s episode, Bill and Scott unpack The Atlantic’s provocative analysis of how Charlie Kirk’s assassination has reshaped the conservative movement and exposed deep ideological fractures within the Trump-aligned right. Drawing from Yair Rosenberg’s Atlantic article, “The Second Death of Charlie Kirk,” they examine how Kirk’s absence has opened space for previously marginalized figures — including extremists and provocateurs — to vie for influence and redefine the coalition’s boundaries.

Bill and Scott explore questions at the heart of contemporary American politics:
• Was Kirk the glue holding together a diverse — if fraught — conservative coalition?
• How are debates over antisemitism, ideology, and legitimacy playing out between figures like Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Nick Fuentes?
• What does the rising prominence of antisemitic rhetoric within parts of the right mean for the future of conservative persuasion and political identity?

In this week’s episode, Bill and Scott are joined by their Onbudsman Emily Acrigg to unpack one of the oddest culture-war moments yet: House Speaker Mike Johnson mansplaining religion to the Pope. We dive into a recent article from The Daily Beast detailing how Johnson responded to Pope Leo XIV’s critique of U.S. immigration policy by offering up his own theological interpretation of Scripture — arguing that borders, assimilation, and strict civil authority are actually biblical. Was this a sincere religious argument, a political power play, or just an overreach? We break down what Johnson actually said (and the longer 1,300-word follow-up he posted on X), how the Pope’s comments on Matthew 25 about welcoming the stranger sparked this back-and-forth, and what this clash tells us about religion’s role in public policy.