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.
Uncommon Knowledge: Victor Davis Hanson
Hoover Institution fellow Victor Davis Hanson discusses Russia, China, and the danger of American withdrawal from the world stage. In addition, Hanson talks about immigration and assimilation in the United States throughout time. Hanson notes that, when immigrants assimilate and embrace the United States, then immigration works and strengthens us, but that when immigrants seek to separate themselves and reject US values and culture, then immigration becomes detrimental. Hanson ends the interview talking about the 2016 presidential candidates and election.
Published in General
Very well done. I watched the whole thing and I don’t often do that. I think VDH’s comments about contemporary politics are right on.
Another person I follow to learn things is David Goldman who thinks Trump is going to win.
“https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/10/20/the-roof-blows-off-the-echo-chamber/”
As “Spengler”in the Asia Times, I have read his writing for ten years. I have read nearly all of Hanson’s books. Maybe all, I can’t recall.
What a strange year we are in. I can’t figure out how to embed links here, I guess.
I think Eric Metaxas, great writer that he is, may be more suitable for the label of “virtue monger” than some of the unnamed conservatives that VDH refers to near the end of the video. Just saying.
Oh come on this just isn’t fair, I had stuff to do tonight.
[A palliative for post-debate angst. Seriously, this is good – whether you are pro-Hillary, pro-Trump, undecided, or not-voting – take the time to sit down and watch this.] – That is what I sent out with the url to everyone I know.
Suppose that Uncommon Knowledge, or that format, with Peter Robinson presiding, were to take the place of the presidential debates, can you imagine a one-on-one with PR & Trump; PR & Hillary? OK, neither can I. So, at least have each of the primary candidates do an interview with him. Something has to replace the circular firing squad that has resulted in the worst candidates.
Peter,
It’s really simple. VDH may be the only adult left in the room. The kiddies better stop flexing their jaw muscles with their brains on hold and listen.
Regards,
Jim
I’m five minutes in and I’m already annoyed: China, Germany and Japan do not “beat us economically”, The United States is the richest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen, come on Victor.
Near the end, Hanson remarks that we have a clear choice of this or this and staying neutral isn’t an option.
But I can’t understand how someone who can think with such depth and complexity and speak so clearly without a single “um” for 40 minutes doesn’t address the strategic implications of a Trump victory for conservatives. How can this be reduced so simply?
Trump has been offering something and consistent with that offering. He believes conservatism is toast, conservatives are losers, and it’s time for something new.
Trump and his supporters are in agreement with his opponents that the government should be primarily run through bureaus and agencies under the Executive Branch. The disagreement is about who should be in charge.
If Trump wins, he also takes the helm of the Republican party. We then have two big government parties and no conservative party.
For conservatives, not voting is not staying neutral. For conservatives, not voting is being a patient running back waiting for the play to develop before picking a hole and making a move.
There are several possible scenarios that can develop. The most difficult scenario is not another Dem 4 year victory but what happens if small government/limited government conservatives don’t have party power to effect our ideas. There’s no reason, at this moment, to convert away from conservatism.
Best of the year!
That is summed up in VDH’s analysis that this is a Manichean election – I think he’s wrong on that analysis, but it certainly explains his conclusions.
It’s not a Manichean election, Jamie? How do you figure that? Where’s Victor mistaken? (I’m not taking sides here. I’d just love to have the benefit of your thinking.)
I see very little difference between the two people running. There is no conflict between good and evil here, no black and white, just shades of horrible, horrible gray. You are choosing the form of the Destructor Dr. Venkman, and if he comes as a giant orange marshmallow man or a sickly blonde demoness it matters little. The world spins on, America will be here in 4 years and it’s up to us to maintain our sanity, dignity, and ideas so that we can oppose whatever destruction the next President decides to rain down on us.
Then elect Rubio/Sasse in 2020.
There are multiple dimensions at work here.
For the last many years we had a struggle between left and right. This year Trump and his supporters entered. So now you have left vs right, left vs Trump, and right vs Trump.
Now follow me here, Peter. The right can’t win this year. If the left wins, the right loses. And if the left wins, then Trump loses.
If Trump wins, the left loses and the right loses.
Where it gets tricky is that Trump and the right are in the same party. That party is the primary vehicle for opposing the left. If Trump loses then conservatives have a chance to win back the party. If Trump wins then he’s won the party.
If that happens then the primary opposition to the left is not a small government opposition but a big government opposition. That is, we can run this machine better and more efficiently than you can.
If we want small/smaller/smallish govt, then we need a party to effect that. Furthermore, the bulk of ready for prime time 40ish/50ish political talent in this country is conservative. A Trump victory could mean we miss that wave. That wave might be the only wave we get forevermore. At the very least, 8-16 years.
There’s so very much more to think about than good vs evil. But nobody is.
This is why I am so disappointed in Ricochet having come back after a year. [Redacted]. Sorry but that is how I see it.
Presidents matter a little but the party, its ideology and the perch, momentum, reach and power of the total apparatus matters far more. That’s his point and he’s right.
In what way does suborning conservatism to Trumpian Populist Nationalism or is on a path to a better society? How will it increase the future power, perch, reach, etc of conservatives? My opinion is that it undermines it.
Shades of Grey is the Spectre Way. Horrible choices are our business.
=========Begin Quote==================================
=================End Quote=============================
It’s the difference between our abstractions and the reality of power. Abstractions give us direction, help us think through complexity, provide some rules to help us turn chaos into ordered chaos, but they still aren’t reality. The reality is a binary choice between a crass, shallow, ignorant man who will be a weak president and a crooked, vindictive, power hungry harridan who will have the accumulated power of the progressive establishment, organized interests, key board rooms behind her Alinsky trained abstractions
Reality is what nobody is talking about. The binary choice argument is an abstraction.
Of course, it is reality that in this election there are two real choices this year. But this isn’t the world series where someone goes home with a trophy at the end. This is politics where everything is linked to everything else.
We need to deal with reality. We need to examine what is actually happening. In real life. Not in news life.
To view this election as a binary choice between left and right or good and evil is to force our new reality into a left-right abstraction.
Here’s my post summarizing my attempts over the last 5 years on Ricochet to figure out what is happening in this country.