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.
Today on the Ricochet Podcast, a rare three guest show: first, the dean of political pundits Michael Barone stops by to give us the low down on Trump, Jindal, and the rest of the field. Then, our own Richard Epstein (aka “The Human Paragraph”) stops by to opine on King v. Burwell (spoiler alert: Professor Epstein thinks the court got it wrong), and finally. R.R. Reno, Editor of First Things joins for a rousing chat about Pope Francis’ Encyclical and what it means for the Catholic church going forward. Also, while Rob drives through Dixie, some thoughts about the Confederate flag, and are we too close to each other? Tune in to find out.
Music from this week’s episode:
Carolina In The Morning by Judy Garland
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Do you mean King v. Burwell?
Fixed!
Yay,Rob and yay, Peter I’m a Catholic and I know in my heart that freedom (aka Capitalism) is unalloyed good and Socialism is unalloyed evil. If I were to reverse myself on this I would be putting my soul in jeopardy. The Pope is wrong and I’ll take it up with Jesus when I get there.
All of my life I’ve heard things like ‘He’s a Jesuit’ or ‘He’s got a Jesuit education ‘ etc but all Jesuit ever meant to me is ‘ He’s an argumentative chop buster’
Your point is?
I appreciated Rob’s comments about outsider elites’ treatment of the AME church as highly condescending. An ecumenical coming together in the wake of evil doesn’t seem to merit the attention needed to isolate the true enemy: the Dukes of Hazzard Dodge Charger.
I’m not intimidated by the supposed ‘brilliance’ of Jesuits.
As a regular reader of First Things during the management of Father Neuhaus, I’m delighted to hear Reno on the podcast.
On the encyclical, it is not necessary to choose between condemning the Holy Father’s misguided support of authoritarian politics or mistaken facts and praising his affirmation of soul-focused moral principles which must factor into our economic decisions. Pope Francis is both right and wrong. His words will have both admirable and dangerous effects.
Not every Pope will be a keen philosopher or a pragmatist. God’s love is expressed through countless personalities. Bishops also represent different aspects of justice and charity.
The role of this particular shepherd seems to be challenge the assumption that the effects of material prosperity — comfort, good health, employment and marital options, opportunities for travel and learning, etc — necessarily result in a holier people. Saintly souls have sprung from brutal circumstances. Prosperity and peace provide opportunity… which may be glorified or abused.
As I argued in Tom’s thread: Overt evils endanger lives. Covert evils endanger souls. Affluence, like other forms of freedom, is a challenge which requires greater reflection and discipline to conquer than a more brutal but more predictable existence.
Bravo, Rob, on your polite rant! Yes, the Pope is taking on the fashionable targets, not the actual dictators of the world.
I came across his video of Chief Justice Roberts in a previous endeavor.
All I have to say is “When did Rob become an Episcopalian?” I was under the impression he was completely irreligious.
I mean, more irreligious than even Episcopalianism.
Wish it would have been 2 guests only. 1 and 2 were great but short. No 3 was a waste of time.
The role of this particular shepherd seems to be challenge the assumption that the effects of material prosperity — comfort, good health, employment and marital options, opportunities for travel and learning, etc — necessarily result in a holier people. Saintly souls have sprung from brutal circumstances. Prosperity and peace provide opportunity… which may be glorified or abused.
But is that really an assumption made by any significant number of people? People certainly can make idols out of those things, but is anybody saying – especially among conservative Christians – that they make you holier? We need to reject free enterprise and undermine property rights so we don’t think we are holier than the poor?
I also believe that the Pope and so many others seem to think that the defense of markets and property is just an individual trying to save what’s their’s, as if they aren’t arguing something for all of society. I don’t own property or run a business, that doesn’t make me against capitalism.
I only mean that material prosperity, education, a diverse job market, and other such privileges of affluent nations do not by themselves constitute a “better” life for the average citizen. Ancient Babylon was relatively well off, but its ultimate fate was not enviable.
Affluent people tend to assume that richer is better… as is being intelligent, strong, etc. But Jesus and His apostles were very clear that the meek shall inherit the earth. The poor dunce who loves innocently is better off than the brilliant king who cleverly rationalizes his sins in indulgence.
You know all of this, of course. My point was that Pope Francis is reminding us — not teaching so much as reminding — that love and souls must be our focus. He spent many words decrying consumerism. Our modern world offers so many powerful distractions.
As a non-Catholic Christian (I’m one of those terrorist fundamentalists) I’m confused as to why the Pope even begins to think global warming is caused by humans. The Bible is quite clear that it is all under God’s control.
I think Rob is onto something.
Longtime political observers can see that domestic and international events are building to a point where we could see a major disruption in national politics ahead of 2016.
With all the GOP candidates clumped near the bottom of the polls and none inspiring much confidence… and with Hillary salivating over the prospects of chopping down yet another Bush who might win the nomination by default against a split conservative field…
It is entirely possible that a credible national leader could jump in and shake things up even more than Trump has thumped the race by cleverly using Newt’s message themes from 2012 and Trumpifying them.
While the Donald may not be the most desirable candidate… his message and boldness is certainly resonating with highly motivated voters.
And I think you need them in order to win national landslides like in 1980, ’84 and ’94.
Did someone actually just use the phrase “technocratic wet dream”?
Eeew.