American society has become radically permissive of some serious vices in the past few years. Drugs, gambling, and pornography are easier to access legally than ever before. A backlash against this permissiveness has clearly begun, but it has yet to find its footing because it tends to be rooted in the language of material or physical harm. Such arguments are a crucial piece of the case for prohibiting vice, but they have to be paired with a more comprehensive and coherent account of why vice is incompatible with human freedom and flourishing.

Guest Charles Lehman joins us to discuss how opponents of vice can build a bipartisan coalition for banning the addictive products that threaten republican self-government.

Charles Fain Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal.

This podcast discusses themes from Charles’s essay in the Winter 2026 issue of National Affairs, “The Case for Prohibiting Vice”

In principle, federal agency missions are set when agencies are created, and so remain rooted in the ambitions of the president and the Congress who decided they were necessary. But in reality, political change tends to transform agencies’ missions in both subject and scope. Understanding how this occurs can clarify the nature of presidential power and the character of constitutional evolution.

Guest Tevi Troy joins us to discuss how agency missions have changed during recent presidential administrations, and how Congress can act to restore the constitutional separation of powers.

Tevi Troy is a senior fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute, a former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, and former senior White House aide. He is the author of five books on the presidency, including The Power and the Money: The Epic Clashes between Commanders in Chief and Titans of Industry (Regnery History, 2024).

This podcast discusses themes from Tevi’s essay in the Fall 2025 issue of National Affairs, “Who Gives Federal Agencies Their Purpose?”

Higher education has a civic mission. The public knows that, but faculty and administrators seem to have lost sight of it. Instead of transmitting shared civic principles, universities often frame civics through polarized partisan lenses. Restoring civic education to its unifying role would require teaching democratic practices and constitutional ideals in ways that encourage pluralism rather than entrench division.

Guest Daniel DiSalvo joins us to discuss how civic education can help university students and the broader public disagree better and act together.

Daniel DiSalvo is professor and associate dean of the School of Civic Life and Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He serves on the Public Scholars Advisory Committee of the Moynihan Center and was previously professor of political science at the City College of New York-CUNY.

This podcast discusses themes from an essay by DiSalvo and Carlo Invernizzi Accetti in the Fall 2025 issue of National Affairs: “Civics, Partisanship, and the Academy.”