Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Thank you, Lois. Very interesting to get other’s perspective, especially when they were not born here. As much as I no longer admire Dennis Prager, he still says some worthwhile things, such as it is impossible for one who was born into a country like the former Soviet Union to fully understand what we have in our country, and vice versa.
As you know, I agree with you about our current president. I cringe almost every day at some of the things he says and does. That being said, he is our President. And I can’t understand those who will not admit it, and give him credit when he does do right. If you love your country, I can’t see any other way.
Europeans are a weird lot. America is vulgar and crass and certainly racist by their measure yet they are the continent with the history of colonialism, empires and bowing and scraping to birth-right royalty.
Democrats (and many Republicans) are Europhiles at heart. They have their own royal family in the Kennedys, Barons and Earls in the Congress and the courtiers of show business. They treat Chelsea Clinton and the Obama girls as princesses.
I enjoyed reading an unfiltered POV. The only explanation I can offer is it is evidence of the degree of brainwashing that has taken place here. Too many have been convinced of the “right” political position. They did not arrive at this conclusion through experience, education and critical thinking. They came to believe it because they were told to do so.
What a travesty that so great a system is manifest (we elect a black man, then we elect a man considered unelectable) yet so many don’t see the merits of the system, they fixate on what is wrong with the man. They ignore the facts:
It is very interesting. I am going to pass out a Pew study this term to my students that shows Americans are actually MUCH more tolerant of immigrants, despite the xenophobia label that is so often attached to us by Europeans.
I think Americans are often dishonest with themselves about how much they are attracted to “royalty.” Our fascination with celebrity–and the English royal family–shows this. (How many times has Princess Di been on the cover of People, one of the most widely circulated glossies in the country? Even after her death two decades ago???)
This is human nature, I think. I also feel this was a bit of what my friend was trying to say. We should laud the greatness of the system rather than trying to tear it down, which is–actually–not what Donald Trump is doing but the media is doing. (The tearing down thing.)
To provoke and sow dissent generally seems in accordance with Russian goals, at least as I’ve heard them described. Not MAGA but MATEO (Make Americans Troll Each Other). Evidently, many Americans find outrage at other Americans an absorbing pastime.
True on the first point, but it seems the reality that Americans live in perpetual outrage means no one needs to help them board the trolling boat.
I think it’s in part because I believe Russia does not have America’s best interests at heart–but I know my Russian friend cares about this country–that I found the perspective interesting.
I largely agree with the first paragraph, and largely disagree with the second.
Europeans are weird. Look at the way France reacted to the Bill Clinton shenanigans! They think “playing around” is normal. We are decadent because we think it is something to be frowned upon. And the part about colonialism, etc., is surely right.
Never having been a Democrat, I can’t really say if they are Europhiles. But I think Republicans are too individualistic for that. I do think, as Lois states, a lot of Americans are fascinated with royalty. But there are reasons for this: It is a different culture. People can be fascinated by the different. It doesn’t mean we want to be like them. We treasure our independence. We broke away from “the Mother country”, didn’t we? Nobody that I can think of wants to go back.
Alexei Navalny pointed our much the same thing in his YouTube video the day after our election, and suggested that it would be good if Russia could have unpredictable elections, too.
All you have to do is get into discussion on health care and they’ll reveal themselves.
This only applies to a minority for whom politics is entertainment and more. Some people live politics as if it were important. Now, I agree that tax law is important and expect Trump’s election to return some amount of prosperity. The culture wars have gotten so ridiculous that I think they contain their own destruction. I remember reading somewhere that “There are some ideas so illogical that only a tenured academic could believe them.” That is not a direct quote but expresses the sentiment, I think.
Yes. I usd to read and comment on a left wing blog but once I made an argument that single payer health care is not a useful system, I was attacked so viciously, then banned, that I gave up. The left do not understand that most European health care systems are not “single payer,” for example.
I do see what you mean by this. They do seem to like the fact that Europeans seem to “give” their people everything.
I think, by the the way, that this is a good refutation that the two parties are so much alike. I know I do not have much of an egalitarian streek, and I’ve been a Republican for close on to forty years.
Sleaze sells, just like sex sells. And our media has almost completely succumbed to the lure of cash. If it bleeds it leads has been replaced by whatever it takes to get the most viewers. Mostly to pay the exorbitant salaries of the pop star ‘anchors’. Not entirely the fault of the media though, the consumers don’t have to buy the product.
I remember reading about a study on a troop of some social primate, I think Rhesus monkeys. Anyway, they had one of those setups where they pushed a lever and got some juice or something they liked. They were then given another choice: looking at pictures (maybe videos? I don’t remember) of the top ranking monkeys in the troop. Many exhibited a preference for the pictures over the juice.
My first thought: “People Magazine!”
“In a free society, our journalists should always critically examine our leaders’ actions/policies/ideologies, etc. and not worry about their execution as happens in … uh …some countries. (One must broach some subjects gingerly?)”
Your above statement is the problem – they don’t examine anything – they waste time hating the current president, have no interest in backing their work with facts and research, and are clearly liberal –
There are quite a few Eastern Europeans working here in my area who are not fond of Putin – there are reasons why they come here to work, start businesses and get their families out of there.
That’s true, but we have had some political “dynasties.” Perhaps there was a backlash to this with Jeb, though his last name was not his fault.
Cool!
There is truth in that, for sure.
God, I hope so.
Who could argue? I think that the president should have ignored the book more than he did though, whatever the media highlighted. Trying to suppress sleaze in a non-Russian state almost guarantees higher sales.
Hilarious. Can I admit it? I used to really like this magazine when I was much younger. Someone gave me a subscription recently, and I find it almost entirely unreadable now. Yet I still flipped to the article about Harry’s new (American) bride-to-be. I can’t help myself. I don’t want a queen–to @georgetownsend‘s thoughts–but I find England’s royal family sparkly. And I want Harry and Wills to be happy, which may be weird since… you know. I don’t have them on speed dial. (Yes. I watched their mother’s funeral. My poor husband thought I was deranged!)
Of course it feels like this when looking at quite a large number of journalists working today, and this is what my friend was observing. It would be no surprise to me to hear a conservative Republican note that some members of the media are revealing biases that destroy credibility, but I was surprised by someone from another country commenting that the media is actually hurting the country on an international stage.
That’s not just disheartening. That’s a serious problem, I think, though I don’t see a way to fix it.
Why not?
Donald Trump hatred clearly sells, so that’s what will continue to be pitched.
I think part of being a conservative is respecting ancient traditions, even if you wouldn’t necessarily want to emulate them.
Well, that. Plus I liked Di’s hats, now Kate’s. Plus I cry when little boys lose their mothers, and I started studying history because I found the Tudor dynasty to read like my grandmother’s soap operas.
But thanks for trying to intellectual-it-up for me, @umbrafractus! :)
How ancient are you talking about? If you really want to try an interesting one, go into a store that has high end cosmetics and estheticians or cosmetologists helping the customers with the products. Wait until they’re well into it, and then just sort of defocus your eyes so you’re seeing body language but not looking at the actual brush techniques or whatever.
Or just tell us if you see any similarity between this
and this
I’m just sayin’.
I like monkeys.
Orwell: There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.
May I register some more thoughts, plus a slight quibble?
I take your point about dynasties, but could it be that, when it happened, Americans were not expressing their desire for a dynasty but just picking the person they (we) thought might be better for the job?
Some people carry dislike for a monarchy too far. I think you are closer to the feelings of most people, Lois: We don’t want this type of arrangement, but it can fun watching all the pageantry. I think part of the attraction is that we know the queen has no real power. It is just, if you like, show business. So, what’s the harm? I watch Special Report every night, and, the other night, Charlie Hurt (not one of my favorites) was on the panel. He was asked if he would go to the upcoming wedding? He said “No”, going on to say that we kicked these people out once. Huh? It’s a wedding, Charlie. You are not being knighted!
I’ve heard it said that there are two kinds of people in the world – those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t. I’m usually in the “don’t” camp, but it does seem that there are two ways that people look at politics. There are people who pay attention to the things a politician says, and those who pay attention to the results achieved. This isn’t a bright line dichotomy, of course. It’s somewhat a continuum. But the world outside the US sure seems to be way, way over on the “what he says” side of the spectrum.
For reasons I still don’t understand, much of the world (and the US) considered Obama to be a great orator. Personally, I thought that every word I ever heard come out of Obama’s mouth was utterly inane. But it is indisputable that the world liked what he said. They gave him a Nobel Peace Prize before he actually did anything, much less achieved any results. Just because they liked what he said. His results, of course, were the antithesis of peace. The Middle East in flames. An Islamic State established in Syria and Iraq. An increasingly hostile and dangerous North Korea. Increased terrorism worldwide. Weakened relationships with our historical allies. Russian military adventurism on two continents. Aggressive Chinese actions to establish hegemony in East Asia and the Western Pacific. Genocidal conflicts in Africa. Half-hearted American involvement in multiple wars. And, of course, the utterly idiotic doctrine of “leading from behind.”
Obama failed at absolutely every goal he set for himself, and yet the world cheered him. Now, with Trump, we have the mirror image. Most of the world pays no attention to the results he has achieved, but rather is hysterically obsessed with hating everything he says. And with anything anyone says he said, whether he actually said it or not. The defeat of Isis is far less important to them than Trump’s latest tweet. Record high stock market and record low unemployment are far less important to them than Trump tripping over a word in a speech. Economic growth that exceeds anything seen during the Obama years is far less important to them than Trump engaging in hyperbole at a rally.
Well, I think that attitude is a load of [CoC]ing [CoC]. So I declare myself to be in the other camp of the two kinds of people in the world. For at least the next three years, this former NT is interested only in results achieved. Go Trump!
I thought President Obama gave two great speeches… One was about no red or blue america during the Kerry convention, and one was about race when he was first running for election.
To your point, however, I learned that President Obama didn’t actually mean many of the things he said, so I’m with you in thinking that words can be inane.
As for the current state of leadership… I’d probably like a bit more polish from Trump, but my political heroes are men like Winston Churchill who both spoke and did great things at the same time.
I also don’t really care what the rest of the world thinks about our president in general, as long as they still follow our country’s lead. I lived in Europe during the W years, soooo…
The difference here was that my friend felt the American coverage of Trump makes the country look foolish, not the actual figure of Trump (or W, or Reagan, or any other Republican ever). That is new, and I think it speaks to a pressing need for reforms in American journalism, though I don’t know how to make people report objectively if they think–as they seem to show every day–that it is more ethical to distort and lie than it is to just report.
The bottom line for me is that the free press cannot serve as any sort of real check on power when even people from the outside feel the free press is nothing but corrupt.
Yep, just so. Glad you wrote it so I don’t have to.
He gave two speeches with content that wasn’t whacko. That doesn’t make him a great orator, just a moderatly good politician. He was and is just an OK orator, not even approaching greatness say like Kennedy, Reagan, Proxmire or many others. His advantage was in following Bush II who was pretty bad at oratory even though most of what he said was more founded in sound thinking than the pap Mr. Obama peddled.
I do enjoy listening to great oratory but am more interested in the substance of what has been said than the form and polish with which it has been delivered. I’m afraid that puts me in a pretty small minority today.
I think both attitudes are a load. Being grateful for the good does not mean we have to ignore the bad, nor does acknowledging the bad mean we have to deny the good. Too many people on both sides of the debate insist that one negates the other. If we want any of the good to stick then we need to acknowledge that the bad is a liability. There is a very real possibility that Donald Trump may lose in 2020 on the basis of his personality, and if we continue to insist that those who are concerned about this are just butthurt NeverTrumps then we make that possibility more likely.
Ninety percent or so of the people on Ricochet know how I think about Mr. Trump. So I will just say this: Words matter. People during our Revolution were persuaded, by both the printed and spoken word, that we were doing the right thing. The Revolution was that much more great because of the words that were in that beautiful document: The Declaration of Independence. Actions matter, of course, as do the results. But it all starts with words – which spur the action.
That being said, we live in a superficial age. And the way people sound, and project, is more important, it seems, than what they actually are saying. The fact that Obama won twice proves this. As does the reaction to Oprah’s speech. Does anybody know what important thing she said? No. The fact that she said it well is why she is talked about as running for president.
Oh, my word, yes.
I don’t think that puts you in a minority on Ricochet.