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.
If We Can Keep It
About 235 years ago a deal was struck in Philadelphia. It was a compromise, an attempt to balance the sometimes conflicting interests of a sprawling new world.
Upon the conclusion of negotiations, Benjamin Franklin said of America’s not-yet-ratified Constitution:
“I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.” Yet Franklin was astonished that the Constitution, despite its various concessions and compromises, was a document “approaching so near to perfection” as it did.
Franklin understood that, despite differences of opinion even on significant matters, people could share a common goal sufficiently worthy to compel them to make sacrifices in pursuit of their common interests.
We are in a kind of revolution today. The founding principles of free speech, individual liberty, limited government, due process, and rule of law are all under assault from a grasping and relentless progressive left that would abandon our nation’s very framework if it advanced their radical agenda. All that holds them in check is the fear that they will push too fast and too far, overplay their hand, and awaken resistance.
Conservatives — those of us who cherish the nation born in Philadelphia and bequeathed to us through the sweat and blood and striving of our ancestors — should take a lesson from the hard-headed realists of the Constitutional Convention. We have to unite around our common interests, around that free speech, individual liberty, limited government, due process, and rule of law, and work with people who may not agree with us in every particular, but who do agree that those things are essential and non-negotiable.
Other things, we can fix.
We speak of “infrastructure bills,” but that’s just concrete and cable and so much cronyism. America’s infrastructure is an idea, an idea of the relationship between the citizen and the state. That, more than any bridge or railway or pipeline or digital superhighway, must be maintained and preserved.
Everyone who shares that view should join together, acknowledging but agreeing to overlook other disagreements so long as the preservation of that system of government of, for, and by the people is preserved. The rest we can debate in the public square, and reach whatever agreements are possible in a large and diverse population.
It’s time to take this seriously, and to set aside differences that don’t rise to the level of safeguarding the work done more than two centuries ago by the men who shaped the greatest nation on Earth.
Published in General
Brian, thanks for the link. It says what I said. The opening sentence of the second paragraph is: “This proposal, as described by the Department of Treasury, would require financial institutions and other providers of financial services to track and submit to the IRS information on the inflows and outflows of every account above a de minimis threshold of $600 during the year, including breakdowns for cash.” (Emphasis added.)
It raises objections to the proposal, which is fine. I don’t mind people disagreeing with the proposal. What I mind is people making false assertions about the nature of the proposal.
Brian, did you read these? Did you notice that they aren’t even consistent with each other, on the point on which you and I disagree?
For example, the first article that you link states: “It demands unlimited transaction level information from both individual and business bank accounts.” The second one agrees, stating; “Their latest gambit is a plot to give the IRS sweeping new authority to snoop on Americans’ personal finances, providing federal agents with data on every transaction over $600.”
These claims are false, as I demonstrated above by reference to the source document and the testimony of Sec. Yellen.
But the fifth article that you link gets it right, stating: “the Biden Administration has proposed allowing the IRS to monitor transactions going into and out of personal and business bank accounts whose value or total transactions exceed $600.”
The fake news is widespread.
Okay. So the most recent flagship podcast featured Chris Christie. The first comment was a flat-out rejection of Chris Christie and a refusal to listen to the podcast. I’m not sure what Christie did or didn’t do to offend the commenter, but I think Christie is an ally in our fight.
I posted about a Bari Weiss podcast that featured her and an author who is taking on the trans movement. A commenter suggested that these two women are themselves “woke.” In fact, I think they’re more old-school liberals, but the truth is that they’re both loud voices fighting against the most aggressive aspect of modern progressivism, and I think they’re doing it effectively. So applaud that action. Find allies where we can.
Mitch McConnell is on our side, and he’s a powerful ally in the fight against the left. I don’t think attacking him helps our cause.
Among normal people, the failure I’m criticizing generally takes the form of unnecessary and harsh criticism of people who are, despite their flaws, solidly on our side of the political war. Trump was on our side; McConnell is on our side; Christie is on our side. Most Republicans are on our side, and that makes the routine condemnation of the party as failed and “just like the Democrats” another example of mule-headed resistance to working with what we have to oppose something much worse.
Then perhaps you should tell Jerry G. to follow Mitch’s advice rather than trust the Democrats in Congress or Janet Yellen. Admittedly, just a little quibble.
I haven’t been following that wildly off-topic thread here, so I won’t comment on the substance. Anyway, Jerry is impossible, despite being right more often than not. I clicked the ignore button on him a long time ago, so he doesn’t even appear in my feed anymore.
Given the widespread corruption and growing authoritarianism across governmental and academic institutions by Marxist-inspired socialists and those eager to embrace the woke agenda even in the corridors of the Pentagon, a very strong case can be made that the Republican Party has failed. I don’t think that’s an extreme position given the situation the republic finds itself in today. One might even say that the script of politics being downstream from culture has flipped…and culture is now downstream from politics. America has never been closer to a fascist state than it is at present. Reagan warned about that in his Time for Choosing speech and the GOP establishment overtime has treated his warnings as inconvenient at best or extreme at worst. So, has the party failed? Well, it sure as hell hasn’t succeeded.
Not wildly off-topic if you’re asking conservatives to agree on core principles like whether the IRS should have more invasive powers on Americans’ bank accounts and exact an increasing level of audits that will result in fines and imprisonment. Many on the right consider this a violation of the 4th Amendment. That’s a core principle, isn’t it? I would have thought this wasn’t a minor issue and speaks directly to what your post is about. Perhaps had you been more descriptive and precise at the onset, you could have established what related topics we should refrain from speaking about or referencing.
I suspect that you and I have a different sense of where America is right now, and of what is possible — I would say even likely — in the next few years. I won’t try to guess what you believe, but I’ll say what I believe.
I think authoritarianism in our culture is a mile wide and an inch deep. The woke (I’m going to use that as the catch-all for hard-left progressive authoritarians) are everywhere, and they’re bullies, and they’re ignorant and incoherent. But they’re weak: their power comes from the reluctance of normal Americans to push back against them, a reluctance born of both politeness and, frankly, a lack of awareness of just how bad the woke are.
I expect both of those aspects of normal Americans to change in the near future. The woke are simply overreaching, breaking too many things, being too clumsy and reckless. I’ve said it before: the “trans” movement has moved too far too fast, and I think we’re going to see it actually have to surrender ground in the culture war, something the left rarely does. I think we’ll see the same with Critical Race Theory and similar claptrap, as people discover that no significant demographic of normal Americans believes in it or thinks it’s good.
I believe that normal America is only now waking up.
I am free to say what I like, in person, in print, and online. I am free to move where I wish, work where and when I want doing what I choose to do for a living. I can worship — or not — as I please. I can condemn the idiot in the White House in the bluntest possible terms.
There are far too many laws, our government is far too big, we are overly regulated, and powerful interests in our culture are increasingly authoritarian and intolerant. All of those things could be worse, and would be if Democrats were not checked by Republicans.
There’s no end to this. It’s a process — again, to use an analogy I used elsewhere, more a matter of protecting and repairing an edifice than fighting a battle and vanquishing a foe.
If one takes a hard line that the government’s taxing authority is unconstitutional, then I guess you could make that a core principle. I don’t think that’s a sensible position, given that the government’s taxing authority is stipulated in the Constitution.
If one believes that that authority doesn’t reasonably imply some ability to enforce laws regarding taxation, then I guess you could call that a core principle. Again, I don’t think that’s a sensible position to take, but I’m sure some think otherwise.
But if you believe that the government has the authority to collect taxes, and that with that authority comes some reasonable amount of authority to execute that function, then the discussion becomes one of where we draw the line. That’s a reasonable discussion to have, but what’s important, in terms of building a conservative coalition, isn’t exactly where we draw that line, but rather that we agree that that line must be drawn. That is, that there are or should be limits to what the government can do in this regard. That is a core principle.
The specifics of tax enforcement policy may cross lines and violate core principles, and that’s something we need to discuss and try to prevent. But there is a lot of room for conservatives to debate amongst ourselves about where the lines should be drawn, while still remaining united on the essentials of limited government, etc.
Jerry, I agree that conservatives should be careful in how they report details and avoid exaggeration. Distortion is destructive, creating a cloud around the truth and ultimately keeping us from moving forward, even though we might make some short-term gains.
However, I will take you up on raising objections. The truth is bad enough. More information for the IRS, in this political climate, with the current administration’s party throwing a protracted spending fiesta? No–just no. First, even as middle-middle class with all the attendant struggles, I don’t want to have any more problems with our tax returns. That is misery, even in our innocent mistakes and missteps (selling a house at the wrong time= tax nightmare). I’m truly concerned that the IRS will decide there are anomalies in our bank inflow/outflow, even though we haven’t done anything wrong. Second, once the IRS tentacles are in there, they are not going to stay put with two boxes to check. I freely admit I do not trust the government, even though that distrust is often characterized in the media as an unhealthy societal trait.
The militant woke mob is being used by the ruling elite – entrenched career bureaucrats, regulators, and politicians in DC and in numerous state governments and those who influence policy and command conformity – the tech oligarchs, the intelligence agencies, the IRS. These people mouth the woke slogans and platitudes but don’t fervently believe them. I don’t think Kamala Harris believes half of the woke garbage that spews from her mouth but she uses the woke rhetoric to attempt to cement whatever power that may come her way. Biden doesn’t have the intellectual bandwidth to comprehend the consequences of woke ideology, but like Harris he has and those around him will continue to use it to centralize more power on the federal level. The blathering and demands of the woke mob are ever evolving and elastic but the power to fundamentally transform America doesn’t reside with them. They are merely useful tools.
Question is, who you talking to and who’s going to heed? The ones who may agree are the ones who take the present danger seriously. As long as the other half fails to see the seriousness of it, the less we can set aside differences – because the primary difference puts us at odds.
Reticulator is my ally because he agrees things are dire even if he and I differ on the vaccines.
Gary and I are irreconcilable because he thinks my side is the dire threat.
The other side has been inoculated against reason. I see it with those I work with.
Stina, I’m talking to anyone who is quick to fly off the handle and harshly criticize and condemn fellow conservatives and fellow Republicans over things that, in my opinion, shouldn’t rise to the level of deal-breaker. I’m trying to encourage a bit more reflection and moderation in our responses, and a more constructive and positive dialogue. I’d like people to understand that we’re going to have to cooperate with people with whom we sometimes disagree, and so we should try to recognize those who are 80% with us as more allies than enemies. I’m trying to suggest that the nation was built on compromises, some of them about very serious things, and that our hope of remaining a thriving nation rests on our willingness to work together on those things about which we do agree, despite our inevitable disagreements.
I’m a little notorious for being rude to people whom I think are declaring defeat. That’s my shortcoming and I try to keep it in check, if not always successfully. I think that kind of defeatism comes from a mistaken idea of what it is we need to achieve. We don’t need to make the country perfect; the country has never been perfect. We need to slow the advance of toxic leftist ideas, reclaim the culture and the government when we have opportunities to do so, and keep core principles alive so that the next generation can make progress. It’s a long back-and-forth kind of battle, from the hopeful days of Reagan and Trump to the dark days of Obama and Biden.
Critically, I’m trying to encourage people to support the Republican Party, and to resist the temptation to throw it under the bus out of frustration.
I’m never talking to the other side when I post here. I think America is a bell curve, with a few on the far left and a few on the far right and a fat largely disinterested middle that is slowly coming around to just how whacked out the left really is.
Franklin actually had a group of men who put their lives on the line with his and got together to craft something that was give and take and in which no one entirely agreed upon. They felt good enough about each other and what they had been through to take the other at their word. Today’s conservative movement is full of duplicitous backstabbers and self-righteous hacks who can’t hop off the Reagan coattails 30 years past its prime. There is no negotiation to be had with people who told me I was a traitor for supporting Trump and who turned around and helped Biden get elected. I also don’t need to hear their lectures on Ronald Reagan.
The GOP is a dead vehicle but for the few MAGA types that are starting to obtain power here and there. The national GOP is a rotting carcass that is of no benefit to anyone but its donor class. Quoting the founders is thin stuff. It seems that is all conservatives can do when they aren’t talking about Ronald Reagan. When the GOP was formed it was a new party building a new future. They didn’t endlessly talk about the glory days of some past administration or limply quoted the founders ad nauseum. They came up with new innovative arguments for the abolition of slavery that captured the nation. They built a movement that would not only prosecute the Civil War, but amend the Constitution and lead the country through reconstruction.
When the nation saw the great depression the New Deal Democrats did something similar. They built an entire edifice that would create a new bureaucracy, amendments to the Constitution, and they prosecuted a major war. They did not quote somebody who was president 40 years previous or endlessly say things like “give me liberty or give me death.” Job done. End of story. I quoted Nathan Hale, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine in my speech. Pat on the back for me.
The bureaucracy is a cancer. The university system is a disease. The American Medical Association and just about every other association, foundation, and non-governmental org are rank with corruption and spreading their viral putrescence to the country. The values and livelihoods of the common man in “fly over country” have been under assault for decades now. This is not about a piece of legislation or pieces of some major legislation. This is about building a movement and new edifice that will carry us forward for 75 years until its eventual corruption. If the GOP can’t get the engine running it needs to go the way of the whig party as it is a dead vehicle. Lincoln did that too. We need a platform and new institutions and civil disobedience. Conservatives need to cut out the quotes and the tax cuts. It’s a loser.
I find this post ultimately to be mediocre in proscription.
It feels like it’s going to put its foot down on a solid extreme (a free country if you can keep it), but then walks itself back to something easier to defend (arguments about porn?)
We are a weak people incapable of what it actually takes to stay free. And ultimately, that comes down to our wealth and comfort. It’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to be free. We are slaves to comfort.
If I were to make any kind of recommendation for change, it would be to change that. If watering the tree of liberty makes you shrink in despair and walk back to singing kumbaya around your electric fireplace in your living room with air conditioning if it’s too hot, then maybe we should be exhorting eachother to pursue hard things.
Go survival camping. Start a food garden, set up your home for limited electricity. Go on a diet or learn to fast. Figure out how to survive outdoors and how to put food on the table in the absence of full grocery store shelves, power outages, and supply interruptions.
Start writing about it and encouraging and educating others on what you are doing to be less dependent on the wealthy lifestyles that are costing us our freedoms.
I entirely agree. I also encourage folks to be involved in the Republican Party (local, state, and national) in order to keep it on the right track. There are elections to win and a party to correct.
You were top of my mind when I wrote the post, Glen, and one of the reasons I wrote it.
Since I just commented on my bad habit of scolding the defeated for their willingness to drag everyone else down, I guess I’ll let that go.
(Incidentally, there’s a name for that thing I just did, of saying, in essence, “I’m not going to say that…” and then proceeding to say what you said you’re not going to say. It’s called praeteritio, and Trump has been accused of doing it a lot. It has its place.)
I figured. But what is amazing to me is why it is so unpalatable to some in the GOP to want a new start. You quote Franklin. But you’re quoting Franklin on the tail end of the Revolutionary War. A time when they said the time for negotiation is over. This is about the kind of society we want to live in. Franklin didn’t compromise with the British Monarch. They didn’t find a way to accept his taxes on them. They threw it all over and then built a new edifice. The GOP did the same to the Whigs along with Lincoln. Why is it so unpalatable to do what they did? And look what we got for it? We got a new nation, reconstruction, the era of good feelings, abolition of slavery. Why do we need to be wedded to this vehicle that can’t even stand up for its own constituents time and again? The founding fathers only put up with so much until they threw it all over. Conservatives need to come to the conclusion that conserving the Republican Party is not Conservatism or any party for that matter. And we also need to realize that the left doesn’t have the monopoly on “progress.” We can define progress on our own terms too.
As long as the GOP still thinks it’s politics as normal, then they aren’t a good bet. I’m not out voting for democrats. But I’m not voting for Romney or any other George Will approved candidate, either.
They may not be willing to take up arms against me (maybe), but the won’t be defending me, either.
E xcept my comment ultimately wasn’t one of defeat, was it? It was a pretty concrete list of things we can do to change my ultimate observation.
Its also the route I think most likely to get us back to freedom. More than politics as normal or voting for do nothing republicans.
I think I do consider going native/survivalist as a kind of defeat. The goal — my goal, at least — is to win elections and improve government, not learn to survive on less during the coming hard times (though there may be some practical value to that as well).
I think there is no realistic path that replaces the Republican Party with another conservative party that doesn’t go through a prolonged, multi-cycle interval of absolute Democratic Party control of the government. I’ve explained my reasoning about this before, so I’ll say it briefly here: the media and institutions are leftist, are crooked, and will pounce on any opportunity to divide the right. It would be trivially simple to fragment the right once a viable alternative to the Republican Party begins to grow. It would be Job One, and an absolute piece of cake, to keep people misinformed and worked up by competing caricatures of both the Republican Party and the new party or parties.
I’m always amused, and a bit perplexed, by people who think it’s easier to build a party from scratch than to reform a party that already leans the way we want it to lean. That’s revolutionary thinking, and I believe in evolution and continuous improvement. Revolutions end badly more often than not.
In fact, when I hear people who claim to be conservative speaking with revolutionary zeal, I wonder about the rest of their motivations and agendas. It’s a flag, for me.
Oh, and it is also quite rich that you quote Franklin for the fact that he gave up his relationship with his son who was the Governor of New Jersey. His son was of the mind that we can work these differences out and considered Benjamin Franklin to be a traitor for being apart of the revolution. Much the same way George Will, Jonah Goldberg, and the rest of that cadre of losers feel about us who are fed up. Franklin gave up his relationship with his son to build a new nation. I can certainly give up mine with George Will. You see Franklin’s son being the governor of a colony was made mighty uncomfortable thanks to his elite status in the crown’s bureaucracy. A similar phenomenon is happening when George Will and Mona Charen are a little too embarrassed to be associated with a GOP that doesn’t habitually take it and lose. Not so nice when those liberals on the cocktail circuit and DC book gatherings are really sickened by you for not losing for once. So they turn around and lecture on principle to keep the downcast gaze of their liberal elite buddies from being a little too hot. The same way Franklin’s son lectured on principle to his father because all those friends of the crown looked down on him a little too hard for being the son of a principle figure of the revolution. Franklin was actually the brave principled one and his son wanting no vituperation from his fellows was the unprincipled coward. The same phenomenon applies here. And we aren’t even getting into how men way above the common man in their social and economic status threw away their meal ticket and put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line to fight with them and for them. Sounds a lot like Trump if you ask me. But the DC cocktail and cruise ship conservatives are the “principled” ones. Sureeeeeeeeeee.
So you would have been against the American Revolution by these standards. So why are you quoting Franklin again? Why don’t you quote the people who were against revolution and said it would turn out badly? I’ve read many of their writings. They all sound like you. It is a fool’s errand, too hard, wild eyed unscrupulous people with no principles, shady characters, too many variables, no telling what chaos and disaster it would bring etc. etc. Why do you quote the revolutionaries who founded this society by revolting?
The country was founded on revolutionary zeal. And they got their freedom in spite of the naysayers.
I think our zeal should be to defend the Constitution; given the cultural climate, that is revolutionary.
Or “restore” the Constitution. But that’s just me…
I agree. And I think overthrowing the bureaucracy by civil disobedience, arresting federal employees who abuse citizens, defunding it, punishing its inhabitants with onerous laws and the like is what needs to happen. It can’t happen yet because we need to fight the GOP to be able to fight these leftist entrenched institutions. We need to create a new culture and institutions made in our image. That is the real revolution.
Hank, I was the offending commenter with respect to the Weiss interview of Shrier, I think. I don’t think that I simply labeled them “woke” in an off-hand or unfair manner. My recollection is that I started by expressing respect for their work, indicated that I’d probably listen to the podcast (sorry, I haven’t yet), and then explained the reason that I considered them to be “woke” — which was their support of the trans-agenda among adults. I do think that such support is “woke,” as the trans-thing immediately leads into the compelled speech issue with respect to so-called “deadnaming” and the whole pronoun thing.
I’m sorry if you thought that my comment was over the line. I thought, and continue to think, that my position is reasonable, though debatable. Accepting the trans-thing among children is worse than accepting it among adults, but I find the former to be something like “woker than woke,” while perhaps you draw the “woke” line between the two.
Sawatdeeka, I wasn’t expressing support for the Treasury proposal about reporting gross deposits and withdrawals from bank accounts. I was objecting to the erroneous mischaracterization of the proposal as requiring reporting of every transaction, which it does not.