Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
From Commentary Magazine’s Editors
Excerpt:
“We stand against the mob and all its aims. We stand against the chaos and violence, the silencing of debate, the purging of heretics, the rewriting of history, and the destruction of the greatest country in the world. We will defend the most majestic achievement of humankind, the United States of America, against the most ignoble impulse in human history, to tear down that which is good.”
We Must Stop the Great Unraveling
Published in General
This article brought tears to my eyes. At last, a clearly articulated response to the mob:
What we stand for:
It’s well said.
So can we count on the Editor to exit stage right from the N/T camp, considering Trump is pretty much the only antidote to this stuff on the horizon?
From the Associate Editor:
Trump Has Left the Conservative Movement Defenseless
Thank you for posting this and beating me to the punch. This needs to go to the Main Feed. Here is the podcast: http://ricochet.com/podcast/commentary-podcast/a-statement-of-purpose/ John Podhoretz reads it from 1:22 to 4:35 in a most stirring manner which made me want to shout “Amen!” If you listen to one Commentary Podcast, this is it.
Please don’t go there about Trump. This is a rejection of Cancel Culture. Please let’s unite on that binds us together.
Please don’t tell me what to do. It’s an obvious question that you choose not to ask.
BTW, the fact that you would endorse this and support Joe Biden strikes me as most bizarre.
Thank you, Gary. That was exactly my thought.
This is bigger than any particular candidate. The failure we’re witnessing — of businesses, media, educators, and individuals everywhere — is systemic, and something that we have to oppose within the spheres of our own influence.
Right. It’s “bigger than any particular candidate” in an election year where a particular result will mightily exacerbate the problem.
Please.
Okay. Make it about Trump if you like. I’m not telling you what to do.
I appreciate that you do not understand that. Let’s celebrate that and I have something in common that exceeds Trump and Biden.
We must unite arm in arm. I am going to edit out an inflammatory which does not promote this goal.
Those people are awesome, whether or not I agree. They prepare me for the worst and give me hope for the best.
I like that they spoke up, but a “rejection of cancel culture” is not exactly “give me liberty or give me death”.
I love Commentary! I read that today and rejoiced.
Cute
The quote in the OP would make for a good t-shirt – a bit long for a hat or a bumper sticker.
Well said.
Rightly said. Reforming law enforcement is not among its aims. Justice for George Floyd has nothing to do with its aims. There may be individuals in the mob that oppose racism, but that is not what the mob is about.
I apologize for being argumentative and decided to step back for awhile out of respect for the post author.
My only further explanation would be to note that John Podhoretz is the Editor of Commentary, a magazine that I’ve read for a good long time. I personally did not find it possible to reconcile that editorial–however well done– with the practical consequences of Podhoretz’ views on the candidate who might best ameliorate at least some of his concerns.
That’s extraordinarily gracious of you. Thanks.
I listen to pretty much every Commentary podcast. I like the guys (and gal), but they drive me a little crazy with their habit of blithely extrapolating from the moment far into the future, and usually in the most morose (to coin a phrase) way. Noah’s reflexive arrogance — it’s a matter of tone for him, and I blame it at least in part on youth — irritates me; it’s always a pleasant surprise when I find myself actually agreeing with him about something.
But I think, if you listen closely, you’ll find that John manages to strike a kind of balance about the President. John’s morose about everything, of course; he’s a caricature of a hand-wringing New York jew in that regard. I suspect he revels in it. Abe is even better, often gently defending the President against criticism, trying to maintain some perspective. Christine clearly doesn’t like Trump, and can be a little caustic, and Noah is in the same camp, only more so. But none of the four sounds like a typical right-wing “never-Trumper” to me. I don’t know how they vote, of course, but I’d be surprised if learned that most or all of them wouldn’t vote for Trump — if they lived in places where their votes actually mattered, which they don’t.
No, but it is the start of a response, an articulation of a classical liberal creed that could rally many fair minded people on both sides of the aisle.
It’s also specific. The crisis of the moment has a theme to it — several themes, actually — and Commentary responded to them. I think that kind of specificity is critical, and I’m glad they had the guts to do it. I hope others will do the same.
I like JPod in particular, and I frequently (though not religiously) listen to the Commentary podcast.
I think that you’re right about listening closely to JPod. I find that if I listen to the Commentary podcast with the treble turned way up, in the shower where the acoustics are good, and while I’m standing on my head, his views about the President strike a kind of balance. :)
So I assume you don’t wear that MAGA hat in the shower. Sleeping in it is fine.
This time even more than 2016, it’s important to win the popular vote too. For that, EVERY vote DOES count.
I think that would be lovely. However, I will be content to win the electoral college.
Oh, you naive newbie.
JPod in the shower….
*shudder*
JPod often ends up — sometimes by default — as the Trump defender on the GLoP podcast (Rob tends to moderate himself more in terms of his feelings about the president with Peter and James than he does when he’s on with Jonah). On his own podcast, John is positioned somewhere between Noah and Abe, with Christine and Noah in recent months taking turns as the most Trump-skeptical of the group (JPod’s Trump support/opposition tends to rise and fall more based on if there’s any other inanity of the day on the Democrats’ side to focus on, and at the same time to remind everyone that Nov. 3 is a binary choice).
Hi Henry and Jon1979,
I really appreciate your ability to pick out nuances. Trump is not Mother Teresa, nor is he Adolph Hitler. Trump is a complex human being with strengths and weaknesses. No one should be in 100% total support of Trump, and no one should be in 100% opposition to Trump. If the race were, say, a member of “the Squad” against Trump, I would have to hold my nose and vote for Trump. Being a “Trump Skeptic” is not monolithic, there are shades of difference. Thank you so much.
Gary
I like this statement, but the devil’s in the details. Even the rejection of political violence, taken literally, would invalidate the American Revolution.
I want to focus on the ideas of supporting a plurality of opinion in the public square, and the rejection of “public policing of opinion,” and the “rejection of cancel culture and all it entails” including a renunciation of “enemies lists, online/media mobs, and professional scalp hunts.”
How far does a criticism have to go before it runs afoul of these principles? Is “calling someone out” for public censure part of “cancel culture”? Is criticizing someone for liking something said by someone that you find reprehensible equivalent to an “enemies list” or an “online/media mob”? Where are the lines on this?
As an example, what about Bethany Mandel’s post today (here)? The point seems to be how dare you favorably quote Louis Farrakhan. He’s an anti-Semite. It is apparently wrong to make a favorable comment about anything that he said, even if the statement had nothing to do with Jews or Judaism.
The idea behind Bethany’s post does seem to be the public shaming of anyone who thought that Farrakhan had a good point about something. (Personally, I doubt that I’d be in agreement with Farrakhan about much of anything, but perhaps he’s pro-family.)
How are the targets of Bethany’s ire supposed to know that Farrakhan is a persona non grata? Consult the ADL’s list of anti-Semites? Yes, there is an entry on the Nation of Islam (here) identifying Farrakhan as “America’s Leading Anti-Semite.”
Which is probably correct, by the way. I personally find Farrakhan to be quite reprehensible. How do we deal with him, or others like him?
This is a serious question. I want to understand how we can actually implement these lofty-sounding principles.