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.
Goldberg v. Klavan
I’d like to say that I’ve been dying for a Goldberg/Klavan (of the Andrew variety) long-form podcast for almost three years, all about Trump. I don’t want a “debate,” despite the intentionally incendiary (or at least flammable . . . or at the very least dyspeptic) title. I’d like to hear two sides of a divide discuss their differences because I firmly believe most conservatives aren’t Trump purists or Trump haters.
Perhaps I am an anomaly. Nonetheless, for almost four years now I’ve scratched my head trying to understand one side of the conservative movement that I have always respected (and still respect). I imagine the feeling is mutual.
I admit to being unread and unlearned in the so-called “conservative movement.” I haven’t read much that could rightly be called conservative intellectual work like Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America (or the underrated Tyranny of Cliches). I do listen. I listen to this great network of podcasts (obviously, not all). I listen to National Review’s podcasts (obviously, not all). I listen to the Daily Wire’s podcasts (obviously, not all . . . can you tell I’m a lawyer yet?).
Before all that, I listened to my father and with my father to talk radio. Early, I thought “conservatism” was primarily about preserving the good of the founding, insofar as possible. This always meant things like maintaining a small government, maintaining federalism or maintaining legislative supremacy in the name of maintaining individual liberty. Or restoring these things as far as practical, because conservatives are nothing if not practical.
This, of course, leaves a big intellectual tent. And there is a long intellectual history, allowing for other things most conservatives tend to like. Some for obvious reasons, such as free markets, low taxes, and minimal regulation. Some for less obvious reasons (but, I think, still related to liberty) such as institutional stability, strong national security, and being pro-life. Of course, this is an extremely poor discussion of the issues that have motivated what we might call “conservatism” over the past thirty to forty years, yet it’ll do for my purposes.
I raise these issues merely to note that I think what I’ll call “Trump critical” conservative voices are, on balance, letting their distaste of Trump, the man, get in the way of supporting the conservative successes of the current administration. Let me define “Trump critical.” Here, I do not mean “Trump derangement.” There are former conservatives who, for my money, have decided they’d be happy and willing to abandon every principle they supposedly held because of their distaste for Trump. I also do not mean conservatives who are obsessed with Trump, such that they cannot get through a day without discussing the man. I mean conservatives like Jonah Goldberg, David French, Kevin Williamson and many others (please don’t make me try to compile a full list) who, in good faith and with good arguments, appear to believe that Trump is worse for conservatism (or the country) than he is good for conservatism (or the country).
The names I have listed are thinkers I respect and whose apparent hostility to the Trump administration, I can’t quite understand. Andrew Klavan of the Daily Wire has a different take. Of course, so do others but I think Klavan is among the most interesting and nuanced. He argues, among other things, that Trump is a man of necessity, not wholesome but needed to fight the media; that Trump should be praised for his apparent dedication to federalism and a reduction of executive power. On a different note, Klavan appears to argue that free markets (at least in terms of trade between nations) is more than it’s cracked up to be. Most of all, Trump, for all his faults, has been right where the “elite” was the wrong time and time again. Nonetheless, Klavan has not been unwilling to criticize Trump for some of his many faults. Since I’ve already labeled the other guys (likely unfairly), let us call Klavan “Trump positive.”
The point of this way too long note is as follows: I think the “Trump critical” and the “Trump positive” sides of the argument as outlined above are the conservative mainstream. I am sick and tired of hearing arguments between alleged conservatives who would vote for a resurrected Stalin over Trump and alleged conservatives who would personally abort a baby to ensure Trump remained in office. Furthermore, I am supremely tired of hearing what I have just labeled mainstream conservatives argue against the hypothetical straw-man version of their opponent. What I would like to hear is an hour-plus discussion between two of the most interesting and reliable people on either side of the “Trump divide,” as it were. Namely, Andrew Klavan and Jonah Goldberg. Make it happen.
If you agree, tweet this dumb little article to @realdailywire, @thedispatch, @jonahdispatch, and @andrewklavan to annoy them into a special episode of The Remnant or The Andrew Klavan Show or whatever forum they would like.
Published in Podcasts
This would be interesting. When Ricochet had its live event for the 250th podcast episode, in 2014, I wanted to meet Jonah and my wife wanted to meet Andrew. Those are the two pictures we took with the famous set, plus Pat Sajak interacting with our 14-month-old daughter. That’s probably why I still listen to Jonah even with his irrational treatment of Trump. I would like to see if Andrew could get Jonah to release some of his anger towards Trump.
I hear you but it is the elephant in the room with their disagreement.
The press have been poisoned by Watergate. Mark Felt picked his stenographers well. They all hope to be in a movie.
I was hoping you had read Eugene Burdick’s novel as I read the first paragraph. His model was Lansdale. Oddly enough Max Boot’s biography of Lansdale is pretty good.
Disagree but maybe I don’t see what you do because I have never been interested in Twitter,
I am far more cynical. I think NRO’s revenue dried up and the donors called the tune. Most of their donors are heavily invested in China.
How about rather than just a podcast, we take a page out of history and organize an old-fashioned stage debate:
Resolved: Trump has been, through his actions, the most successful and conservative president since as far back as Reagan, and therefore deserves the full support of all self-identified conservatives in the upcoming election.
For the affirmative position: Victor Davis Hanson, Andrew Klavan, Michael Anton, ????
For the negative position: Jonah Goldberg, David French, Mona Charen, Bill Kristol
Since the purpose of this is not to pit “left wingers” against “right wingers”, but rather as a debate within the conservative movement, there is no need to include those such as Frum or Brooks, who hardly still qualify as conservatives. (Yes, I realize that Kristol could be considered in that camp as well.)
You’ll notice that this is not about being pro-Republican, either, since that there might be things you would do for the good of the party that do not necessarily fit as supporting conservatism. It might be a different debate if it was just about the future of a party.
You’ll also noticed that this is not about “liking” the president, but about actions that support the conservative cause, or do not, and how the next election can either further conservatism or set it back in practice. You do not need to like someone to believe they can help achieve your goals.
Who to moderate? Maybe Peter Robinson?
That was my first thought too, at least about Jonah. I don’t listen to Klavan much, I find him repetitive and tedious, even more/worse than Dennis Prager. But the idea that Jonah doesn’t have TDS and just has “honest disagreements” with Trump’s policies/actions, is laughable.
Maybe the Klavan monologue could be replayed as-is, or as-was. But not the rest. Jonah’s TDS has gotten much worse in the intervening ~30 months.
I UNDERSTAND it too, as I understand other personality problems. But that doesn’t make it valid.
But in a formal debate, each side is required to present actual arguments, not just personal animus. If that rule were enforced, any true moderator(s) would likely end up having to just make Goldberg, French, and the others on that side, just keep quiet.
I think one reason why Trump could lose in November is because a lot of people are stupid enough to believe that you could take a booming economy (at least how it was before corona) created by a conservative administration and conservative policies/actions, hand it over to liberal fools, and it would just keep chugging along PLUS you could get all the free stuff they promise.
Jonah is just calling balls and strikes. Sure his strike zone for Trump is from the ankles to the neck but he’s just an ump.
It is sad and hard to understand about Jonah. I read “Liberal Fascism” and even met him on an NRO cruise. Lowry, I have disdain for as I think he has killed the magazine, beginning with John Derbyshire. Jonah seemed to have sense. I still assume it about donors.
John Derbyshire still never severed his connections with white identity politics.
Doesn’t sound like all that interesting of a debate. They probably don’t differ on much, just one has the creds to call Trump out far more than the other one. What would they debate? “Hey Andrew, wouldn’t you love to trash Trump as much as me without losing your income?”
There not much intellectual about Trumpism, therefore, theres just not much to debate/discuss. You’ve either decided to succumb to it, ala Vichy France…..or you’ve decided that its a temporary abomination and the fight goes on. Klavan is Vichy. Oh well. We’ll see if he’ll look back on that fondly in 5 years.
Ahhh, that highly intellectual, well-reasoned, thoroughly rational argument of implying someone with whom you disagree is the equivalent of Hitler. I guess you’re right, you wouldn’t get much out of an actual debate on the issues.
I saw an article a while back (or maybe it was a podcast) that went through and analyzed how far back you had to go to find a Republican President that the Press didn’t hate while in office.
Spoiler alert: Teddy Roosevelt.
What I noticed is DC media is more impressed with Political theater than policy. Look at the way Cuomo was covered (even by some people on the right). He made horrible policy choices that directly impacted the spread of Covid-19 but they loved his press conferences. Trump is crude, not well versed in political theories and does not seem well read. But during this Covid-19, he allowed Federalism. Do you think HRC would have done that. These actions do not enough credit, esp by the writers at places like the Dispatch
It’s a preference for style over substantive policy. You’d think they’d be embarrassed.
Such a well-reasoned comment bears repeating. Good on you, Larry, for articulating it and for the choice you made. Wise man.
What gives you the feeling that he’s not well-read?
Chiming in late here to say I really like this idea, although I don’t know much about Andrew Klavan. Someone else mentioned a Mollie-Jonah matchup (on The Remnant, or similar) which would be amazing.
What is particularly galling is Mona Charen’s column from March 13th, titled “After This, Voters Will Take Their Responsibility Seriously.” From that article (emphasis mine):
Isn’t preserving conservatism’s meager gains a sacred responsibility? Is it responsible voting to sit on your hands, when there is a real possibility that Hillary Clinton could wind up filling a critical vacancy on the Supreme Court?
It is an absolute certainty that we would have a left wing supreme court right now, if Hillary had won. It was scarily close, and Never-Trumpers sneer at the so-called “But, Gorsuch!” argument. Why do they sneer? They don’t have a counter argument.
Also, there is no evidence that Trump is handling the Covid-19 crisis badly. Speaking of emergencies, Ms. Charen, how do you like the way Sec. Clinton handled the Benghazi situation?
Never-Trumpers are on shaky ground when they lecture people on “responsible” voting.
Excellent discussion.
Neither have I. I am still white and wonder why all those POCs are trying to get into this racist country,
The Federalist is one of Jonah’s bete noirs of the relatively new conservative websites, which seems to be part of the animus between him and Mollie. Be interesting to hear a debate about The Federalist between Jonah and Mrs. Ben Domenech….
Jonah tends to display his animas toward anyone who is not sufficiently anti-Trump. Don’t get distracted by policy discussions, it’s just a Trump thing.
My opinion, he displays his animus against those he believes are “too” favorable to Trump. Those apostates fall into two categories: mindless cheerleaders and grifters. People who are onboard the Trump train because of filthy lucre and influence.