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.
The Bulwark (Once Again) Endorses a Democrat
The “Reagan conservatives” at The Bulwark really hate Ohio Republican senate nominee JD Vance. (“Trump’s Hillbilly” — they literally called him that.) So this morning, Bill Kristol and fellow Bulwark Operative Tim Miller endorsed his Democratic opponent. “If you voted for Matt Dolan, a totally inoffensive Republican in this primary and don’t want literal authoritarianism advanced by a charlatan who is at the mercy of Donald Trump’s whims go ahead a sign up to support inoffensive Democrat@TimRyan.”
Some say the end-state of Never Trump is becoming a full-on Democrat. I would argue these guys were closet Democrats all along.
Like Glenn Youngkin, Vance is too “Trumpian” for the bull-workers, too aligned to those grubby working-class folk who are upset about irrelevant issues like children being exposed to pornography in public schools, the unchecked import and distribution of deadly narcotics across our wide-open southern border, the mass export of American manufacturing jobs to China, and the replacement of American workers with cheap foreign labor.
In fairness, JD Vance was once a harsh critic of Donald Trump. But, like most reasonable people, his opinion on Trump evolved more favorably as President Trump showed himself to be a consistent advocate and advancer of conservative policies.
Speaking of advancing conservative policies, the New York Times token “conservative” Bret Stephen — who previously pitched the not-at-all radical left idea of repealing the second amendment — now says that a true conservative would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Stephens’s argument is — I am not making this up — that even though Roe was a terrible decision, it’s now precedent and overturning it would be “disruptive” to the political status quo. It would also upset leftists and reduce the esteem of the High Court in public perception.
As conservatives, you are philosophically bound to give considerable weight to judicial precedents, particularly when they have been ratified and refined — as Roe was by the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision — over a long period.
So, Stephens must likewise think the court erred in overturning Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States for the same reason.
Here, again, you may be tempted to think that overturning Roe is an act of judicial modesty that puts abortion disputes in the hands of legislatures. Maybe — after 30 years of division and mayhem.
Yes, Stephens is literally arguing that conservatives should not want the issue of abortion decided by elected representatives in state legislatures. Maybe Stephens views himself as merely being “prudent,” because the effects of a Roe repeal would be so wide-ranging and unpredictable. But this “principled conservative” notion that the role of conservatism is to preserve the gains of liberalism is precisely why the old Bush-Republican model is dying. And why Bret Stephens and Bill Kristol are reduced to sputtering about “populism” while collecting checks from their left-wing paymasters.
Published in Politics
Yes, and the world is flat, we never landed on the moon, Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and Santa Claus lives.
There are a couple of threads you are conspicuously absent from. Why don’t you check in and let everyone know once again that this was the cleanest, most secure election ever.
My new favorite quote from Wm. F. Buckley: “why does the baloney reject the meat grinder?”
“Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” Mark Twain
BTW, they are interesting threads.
Good one, but my all-time favorite which he made in response to someone saying, “Frankly, Mr. Buckley, I just don’t understand your point” is “Lack of understanding seems to be the primary characteristic of your epistemological process.”
Mine applies better to the situation, though. ;-)
He said it in response to someone asking him why Robert Kennedy wouldn’t appear on Firing Line with him.
Yeah, I’m old enough to have seen him say it. Your quote may be more appropriate here, but mine applies across many of his interactions.