Sep 22, 2026 · 1h 24m
Hanson defends Hiroshima while attacking progressive double standards
Victor Davis Hanson: Why Leftist Feminists are Clinging to the Lindsay Clancy Case
The episode links a disputed wartime moral argument to a broader critique of contemporary political polarization, selective outrage, and ideological sympathy.
- 1Hanson argues the atomic bombings ended the war and avoided catastrophic casualties from a Japanese homeland invasion.
- 2The conversation portrays Trump’s nuclear posture as deterrence-oriented while examining fractures among Carlson, Fuentes, Cruz, and the online right.
- 3Hanson and Fowler use the Clancy trial to argue that progressive movements apply sympathy and moral condemnation inconsistently.
Don't miss
Hanson turns the Lindsay Clancy trial into a broader argument that progressive sympathy and outrage follow ideological identity rather than consistent moral standards.
The brief
Victor Davis Hanson and Jack Fowler open with the Lindsay Clancy case, arguing that elite liberal sympathy for Clancy reveals what they call an anti-humanistic strain in left-wing feminism.
Hanson then revisits the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rejecting claims that he celebrates nuclear weapons and arguing they shortened the war and prevented a catastrophic invasion.
The conversation widens to Arizona’s political shift, Trump-era economic conditions, nuclear deterrence, and fractures involving Tucker Carlson and the increasingly extreme online right.
The episode’s sharpest turn returns to the Clancy trial, where Hanson and Fowler connect public sympathy, intersectionality, abortion, race narratives, and selective outrage across earlier controversies.
Their closing argument is that progressive movements have weakened their own credibility by applying moral standards inconsistently across cases involving gender, race, and political identity.
Books & mentions
Some links are affiliate links — PodLume may earn a commission if you buy.
