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.
Things You Can’t Say Without Being Castigated
Michael Gordon / Shutterstock, Inc.
- Nordstrom has every right to stop selling items that don’t sell well.
- Vladimir Putin is a vicious thug. He is in every respect America’s moral inferior.
- Yes, racism is still a real problem in America.
- Donald Trump actually did lose the popular vote.
- But voter fraud is indeed very real – not “nonexistent,” despite what so many in the media say with willful disregard for the truth.
- It was perfectly sensible both as law and policy for critics to say, as U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions said and as the Supreme Court confirmed, that the Voting Rights Act unfairly and unconstitutionally singled out certain states and locales for extra, vexatious administrative burdens.
- The original Violence Against Women Act was flawed in ways that had nothing to do with protecting women from violence.
- Racism, while very real (see #3) is not nearly as much of a problem in America as the Left and paid agitators say it is.
- It is extremely worrisome to read reports of a petulant President lashing out at allies such as Mexico, France, and especially Australia.
- It is unseemly for a President even to joke about “ruining the career” of a state legislator who disagrees with him on the proper boundaries for civil liberties.
- It is worse than unseemly for a President to poisonously attack the impartiality of a judge or judges, and to politicize court cases, even before a case has been decided. This rule applies whether the judge is Mexican, or is thought to be liberal … or, for that matter, if what’s at stake is one’s signature piece of health care legislation. (Yes, in other words, Barack Obama did it too, and he too was wrong.)
- There are indeed such things as alternative facts. But something that is false is not an alternative fact.
- If a President’s top aide accidentally conflates terrorist arrests with a separate terrorist “massacre” – and yes, there are enough such massacres that it is hard to keep track of them – and then admits she misspoke, then it is beyond asinine for multiple, major news outlets still to be obsessing about it with front-page stories a half a week later. Not all mistakes are malevolent, fergoshsakes.
- Just because not all complaints about the media are valid, and just because it is wrong for a President to give a tone of trying to throttle the press as an institution, this does not mean that the media as a whole is an honest or trustworthy institution.
- Yes, the establishment media leans way, way to the political left. And yes, it is prone to pack journalism of the most mindless sort. And yes, its double standards that favor the left are astonishingly blatant. And yes, its overall disdain for faith, for tradition, for traditional morality, and for “middle America” is obvious, obdurate, and obnoxious.
- Just because the media collectively exhibit all those flaws listed above, this does not mean that it is fair to disparage all members of the media or to lie when the media actually publishes the facts.
- By the way, facts do exist. Some things are not matters of opinion.
- There is not a very significant “pay gap” for women when adjusted for relevant factors such as years worked, hours worked, actual duties, and the like.
- All lives matter.
- The reason blacks make up a disproportionate share of the prison population is that blacks commit a disproportionate share of crimes.
- The absolute fact that blacks for years have committed a disproportionate share of crimes proves nothing about an individual black person’s propensity to commit crimes, nor does it mean that anything innate in blacks as a race is responsible for disproportionate criminality, nor does it excuse police profiling based on race alone.
- Police profiling based on multiple factors – such as style of dress, body language (and eye contact or lack thereof), and other behavior – is a valuable tool that in itself infringes on nobody’s rights, as long as police procedures related to the profiling are respectful, sensible, and of course lawful.
- Even though Coretta Scott King was admirable and well-intentioned, she also could be wrong. Even though US Rep. John Lewis merits admiration as a civil rights hero, he can be wrong and is not necessarily a saint.
- Hey, college kids: People have a right to have different opinions than you do. You have no right to be “protected” from those opinions. If you need a stuffed animal to hold and Play-Doh to massage because you don’t like election results, you’re pathe… er, you’re way too fragile for the adult world. And if you go beyond peaceful protest into interfering with the rights or property of others, or into violence, you should be arrested, charged, convicted, and heavily punished.
- If you don’t like # 24, grow up.
- US Sen. Chuck Schumer is a major hypocrite.
- US Sen. Elizabeth Warner is a massive hypocrite and a smear artist.
- Donald Trump is a smear artist. (See: Rafael Cruz, Heidi Cruz, Michelle Fields, the “Mexican judge,” residents of northern New Jersey, Ben Carson the “child molester,” and others too numerous to list.)
Trump is absolutely right that we should build a wall. - Trump was absolutely right when he insisted while campaigning that “we don’t do enough winning anymore.”
- Trump is dead wrong about trade in general, and about NAFTA in particular. NAFTA has been a huge net plus for the US economy, for the economy of North America as a whole, for geopolitical stability – and for keeping illegal immigration lower than it otherwise would have been.
- Nonetheless, Trump is right that the United States does experience some trade disadvantages that are correctable, and that blue-collar workers disproportionately suffer from those disadvantages.
- Trump is wrong that the way to improve our trading posture is by “getting tough” on foreign trading partners. Instead, the way to improve the situation is by reforming our tax code, massively streamlining regulations, and outcompeting — not punishing — foreign rivals.
- Trump was hardly unique in identifying laborers as a too-oft-ignored voting bloc with honest, legitimate concerns. Plenty of analysts recognized that reality, and so did a significant number of politicians.
- …Nonetheless, far too few politicians, or business leaders, or establishment media outlets, recognized the reality and acted accordingly to help. And because those with the most power were among the least interested in Middle America, Middle America did, broadly speaking, get rooked.
- Therefore, even though Trump’s act of giving voice to these forgotten Americans indicated no particular genius or particularly acute sensibility, it is still to Trump’s credit that he focused heavily on this reality and stuck to his guns.
The list could go on (and on, and on). For each opinion or fact above, an essay (or at least a mini-essay) could be written. All of them could be done respectfully. (Well, except for the assertions that Schumer and Warren are hypocrites. But the facts there are so numerous and obvious, and the harm caused by their hypocrisy so manifest, that a lack of respect can’t help but exist.)
The list is almost evenly divided between statements anathema to some on the right and to ones anathema to some on the left. But, watch the comments that come below: Many will be furious, disrespectful, and full of name-calling without any actual arguments. Many will be so blinded by any apparent “attack” on their team that they lash out while refusing to recognize the central point here: Both sides are prone to shibboleths, both sides prone to yelling down opposing opinions (or even facts) – and, therefore, that rather than getting furious, we should consider assertions thoughtfully, on their merits, and be willing either to reconsider our own thoughts or to try to persuade people that our viewpoint is correct, by using right reason.
Maybe one or more of this column’s assertions are wrong (factually) or wrongheaded (not well reasoned). If so, bring on the respectful discussion. But leave the insults behind.
This article was re-posted from QuinHillyer.com.
Quin Hillyer is a Contributing Editor of National Review magazine, a Senior Editor for The American Spectator magazine, and a nationally recognized authority on the American political process.
Published in General
Why is it ludicrous? We are told that there are 11 million illegals in the country. (That estimate is probably really low.) An awful lot of them are working here, using forged papers or stolen identities, and in violation of the law. We don’t know how many, exactly, but an awful lot. It would surprise me greatly if it was less than 3 million. After all, why did all those people come here if not to work? And if 3 million of them (and probably a lot more than that) are working illegally using forged papers, then why is it “ludicrous” to believe that a similar number vote illegally? Especially after they were told that Trump was going to round them up and throw them out of the country. They really believed that it was important to beat Trump, and they had the means to vote against him. Why is it “ludicrous” to think they would use that opportunity?
Semantics. The point stands.
Understand the nostalgia. Getting on with life after electoral gladiatorial combat used to be a bit calmer, but that’s not where we are now. The only route to step back from the precipice is to begin enforcing the law and shutting down anarchy, which is the correct word for where our civil speech lives now.
Calling it semantics dodges the point. Words matter.
There is no such thing in our federal elections as a popular vote. The “popular vote” appears to be some kind of emotional life raft for the obsessives who can’t seem to accept reality. It was with Gore, it is again for Satan the Hildabeast, and it probably will be again for Fauxahontas. Only states vote in any manner that affects who the resident is at 1600.
The point stands refuted.
It is ludicrous because it is nonsense. Suggesting that voter fraud on the scale that would be necessary to affect a 3 million vote aggregate margin for one candidate (something for which there is zero actual evidence for) is akin to believing that the 1969 moon landing never really happened and was actually filmed on a movie set, that the government successfully hatched a grand conspiracy to assassinate its own president in 1963, and that aliens are walking among us.
Everyone knows what is meant when the term “popular vote” is used. No one uses it in the technical context that suggests that our presidents are elected by a “Popular Vote”. Everyone who uses it is actually referring to the aggregate total of votes. That was the context of the statement in #4, everyone knows that was the context, and because of that, #4 is correct.
I agree with your conclusions in #23. However, having lived in Atlanta until 2000 and having witnessed Coretta Scott King’s actions over the years (one of which was “up close and personal” from two feet away), it is my considered opinion that she is neither admirable nor well-intentioned.
Perfection is unobtainable. The question becomes, what level of electoral corruption is acceptable? What are we willing to spend? And why do some people oppose rules no more onerous than rules applied to air travel or check cashing?
“Things You Can’t Say Without Being Castigated”
The great James Taranto would probably file that under “Longest Books Ever Written.”
Respectfully, I’m not so sure about “everyone.” I’ve seen dozens upon dozens of left-leaning friends & family post/whine on social media about the “popular vote.” They are wielding it as a weapon to say the results of the election are wrong, unfair, or even fraudulent.
It’s a very real thing to them.
Exactly my point. When people use the term “popular vote”, they are using it in a vernacular sense, referring to the total aggregate vote (not as a proper descriptor referring to the actual method by which we elect our presidents).
And you are quite right also, of course, that the hystericals on the left point to the very real and true difference in popular vote totals and claim – incorrectly – that this difference de-legitimizes Trumps victory. Trump’s victory was perfectly legitimate as he won under the only vote tally that matters.
The core problem of this particular conversation is that Trump – and others – play into the grievance of the left by legitimizing their argument with the farcical claim that “voter fraud” was responsible for the aggregate 3 million vote difference. It was not. More people in the United States voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. This was not due to millions of fraudulent votes. It was due to Hillary Clinton not at all unexpectedly receiving 6 million more votes than Trump in California and New York where Democrats have a 20% or more party registration advantage.
Actually, we manufacture more now than we ever have. But because the machinery is so much more efficient, industry employs fewer humans than in decades past. Even China has fewer people working in manufacturing than it used to, although production is up. We have far fewer people working on farms than 40 years ago but it doesn’t mean we don’t make our own food anymore, it means that machinery has displaced a lot of manual labor.
I’m in total agreement with the rest of your comment.
Hillary Clinton did win the “popular vote” and the Atlanta Falcons won the first half of the Super Bowl. Unfortunately for fans of each, those aren’t the scores that count in the end.
We could go around that topic forever, but my unassailable point is the need for an emotional life raft.
When and where reasoned criticism of ideas is called for, regardless of who that person is that proposes an idea, it should be offered. The converse is true as well when it comes to praise.
Yeah, I was talking about my 79-year-old dad saying that. I show him things all the time that we make here. But he still says it all the time, probably more when I’m not around. There are a lot of things like TVs and Laptops that we don’t make any more, and I think that’s mostly what he means.
Understandable. People look at all the things that cost $30 or less and they are almost always made elsewhere. They don’t realize that we are exporting very expensive Boeings, Caterpillars, John Deeres and heavy equipment like that. Or that the operating systems and software running much of the world’s computers was produced in the U.S.A. And as @skipsul pointed out in this article, the label on something only tells you where the final assembly was done, not all of the countries that it’s materials and components came from.
Welcome aboard, Quin!
You are wrong about Nordstrom. The Co President said this in November “Ultimately, Nordstrom went on, “Every single brand we offer is evaluated on their results—if people don’t buy it, we won’t sell it.” And since the Ivanka Trump brand, he wrote, “has grown to be a sizable and successful business,” Nordstrom has concluded that it’s not worth jettisoning, even if some of its customers feel passionately that it should.”
I doubt that things changed that much in 3 months. They obviously caved to the totalitarian left.
Some concern could have been paid to us Listophobics. I had to make an appointment with my shrink after reading this. Thanks a ton Dude.
I think that Mr. Hilyer mostly gets this exactly right, which is an improvement over his post-Katrina commentary.
I would add, RE 20 and 21, a (rough, from memory) quote from WF Buckley: “You cannot say that white racism is responsible for Situation X. However, Situation X does not exist.”
Yup. Semantics are the most important thing.
I agree with all except 11. Maybe its true for most but barely, there really has not been impartiality for a long time when it comes to judges because they are trained as lawyers and 80% of lawyers make the 10% look bad.
This seems to me deliberately obtuse. Of course there is a popular vote. That is what we call the nationwide vote totals. It is a statistic that is measured in every presidential election, but it is meaningless from a Constitutional standpoint.
I have no problem with the use of the term “popular vote”, but I do have a problem with saying, “‘X’ won [or lost] the popular vote”. I can understand why people say that, as Americans tend to be focused on winning and losing. (For example, Chance the Rapper, upon receiving a Grammy award, thanked God for this “victory”, when it would have been classier to have said that he was thankful for the “honor”.) Anyway, the proper formulation should be, “‘X’ received a majority [or minority] of the popular vote”.
But good luck trying to get people to refrain from saying “won” or “lost”.
Nationwide vote totals is like yardage in a football game — very important but not the measure that scores victory.
Also, I wish this was said more often: If the rules were changed to be the popular vote determines the winner then how do people know that Trump wouldn’t have won under those rules? We don’t know because that experiment wasn’t run.