Uncommon Knowledge: A Charming Conversation

 

In his most recent episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson’s conversation with Richard Epstein and John Yoo focuses on the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, and Roe v. Wade, the most comprehensively and consequentially flawed Court decision in recent history. It’s a terrific show, a relaxed and thoughtful discussion with serious people about important things.

It’s always a pleasure listening to Richard Epstein, a man whose ability to speak intelligently, yet in complete pages without, apparently, pausing to breathe, has always impressed me. (I suspect his liberal use of the word “situation” has something to do with it: how many of us employ a four-syllable filler word?)

Professor Epstein is a man whose opinions I never take lightly, but I found myself in disagreement with him on the matter of Judge Barrett. He’s of the opinion that the potential political consequences don’t warrant her confirmation, and that the President should graciously defer. I understand his reasoning and agree that the risk of triggering a radical Democratic response is real. On the other hand, I think radical Democratic action is likely in any case, and am skeptical that forbearance on the part of Republicans will be met with moderation by a Democratic party that seems bent on increasingly extreme and radical transformation.

So I found myself agreeing with John Yoo, that sartorially impeccable culinary train-wreck whose recently published book is a welcome addition to the defense of President Trump by prominent intellectuals. Confirm Judge Barrett, and do it quickly.

Peter Robinson maintained his brilliant facade as the world’s most modest and congenial host, a mask that slips only on those increasingly frequent occasions when Rob Long is at his worst.

A fine episode well worth hearing. And Ricochet really does need to figure out how to host Uncommon Knowledge among its podcasts.

Published in Podcasts
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 58 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Are our positions intractable then? How do we deal with that?

    I think my last post was about that.

    You mean packing the court with originalist constitutionalists? :)

    I meant how do we deal with two very different populations the Morlocks and the Eloi living harmoniously or at least peaceably as one?

    Yes, that post. That is exactly how you have them live together.

    Unless the Morlocks are also revolutionaries, in which case I reckon they have to be defeated.

    Yes, they are.  But the courts mean nothing to them, nor the rule of law, nor the set structure of the government, nor human empathy or respect for civility or civil rights.  I’m no historian nor a soldier, but it looks like there are three ways to win: rhetoric, masses of townspeople rising up and beating up the insurrectionists, or smoldering guerilla warfare (assuming the army plays a passive role).

    • #31
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    My interest is in doing what’s best for the country. However satisfying, and justified, it might be to join the left in our methods, the most important thing, for me, is that we achieve the best results we can. Richard Epstein thinks, if I understand him correctly, that we do that by making a modest concession right now to preserve order…

    This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.

    I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.

    In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.

    There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.

    I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.

    Do you have a good example of where modest concessions saved norms?

    Bryan, you aren’t hearing me call for modest concessions. You’re hearing me call for a continuing respect for the rule of law on our part. I’m in favor of going ahead with the confirmation of Judge Barrett — even though it’s possible that Epstein is correct and it will come back to bite us in some awful way.

    (Having said that, I’ll note that your question is a hard one in that it asks me to tell you something extreme that didn’t happen because of something extreme we didn’t do. There’s a lot of speculation in that, and no way of knowing whether or not we’re correct.)

    I can give you one: Amnesty for Illegals. 

    Would you like some more? 

    • #32
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.

    I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.

    In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.

    There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.

    I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.

    Do you have a good example of where modest concessions saved norms?

    I liken this argument to a pickpocket that picks a guys pocket every week, and every week he goes before the judge and the judge rules that compromise is in order and the pickpocket should get half the contents of the wallet. After a couple of months, there’s too little to divide, and the judge rules that the pickpocket gets the remainder of the money … and the wallet, too … because he’s the only one with any money left.

    Concession and compromise seem to always work in one direction.

    Okay, let’s be clear here.

    When people talk about “concessions” and “compromise” in discussions like this, they’re generally talking about one of two quite distinct things.

    They’re talking about making political concessions in a good-faith hope that we’ll get similar concessions in return, or simply to be civil and gracious. Or they’re talking about meeting the opposition on its own ground, using the opposition’s tactics — in this case, violence, speech suppression, intimidation, criminal disruptions, etc.

    I’m with anyone who wants to say that we’ve made too many of the first kind of concession and we should make fewer in the future. We need to push back, in the politics and the culture. The left is not interested in compromise.

    I don’t approve of the violence and stuff.

    There may be a third way. Not engaging in lies or violence, but not expecting the other side to deal in good faith. Maybe standing pat and not being too conciliatory is also a good way.

    It seems clear to me that whether the Dems intend it or not they are tearing the country apart and tearing it down.

    Oh, I’m with you there. I have no expectation of good faith from the left. (There are a lot of sensible, centrist Democrats — perhaps most of them. But the progressive left is something else.)

    I do believe that the left considers rules, laws, norms, fairness, and compromise to be dispensable, and will take what it believes is the most direct line to winning. That includes cheating in the election, suppressing speech, packing the Court, and making or breaking whichever rules it seems expedient to make or break. They are focused on achieving an end, and they have a self-righteous ruthlessness about it.

    If one side ignores the rules, then there are no rules. Period. 

    I’d like to beat them to the punch for once. We should have packed the court in the first two years of Trump’s term.

    • #33
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    There may be a third way. Not engaging in lies or violence, but not expecting the other side to deal in good faith. Maybe standing pat and not being too conciliatory is also a good way.

    It seems clear to me that whether the Dems intend it or not they are tearing the country apart and tearing it down.

    Oh, I’m with you there. I have no expectation of good faith from the left. (There are a lot of sensible, centrist Democrats — perhaps most of them. But the progressive left is something else.)

    I do believe that the left considers rules, laws, norms, fairness, and compromise to be dispensable, and will take what it believes is the most direct line to winning. That includes cheating in the election, suppressing speech, packing the Court, and making or breaking whichever rules it seems expedient to make or break. They are focused on achieving an end, and they have a self-righteous ruthlessness about it.

    Are our positions intractable then? How do we deal with that?

    We try to win the election. Every election.

    That does not help. Obamacare is still the law of the land. I was promised that it would be repealed once we had the House. Then all of congress. Then we needed Congress and the White House. 

    Still. Did. Not. Happen. 

    Don’t tell me to vote. Voting does not change things. Not at all. Our voices are not heard. Our needs are not addressed. 

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    We are there now.

    • #34
  5. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    There may be a third way. Not engaging in lies or violence, but not expecting the other side to deal in good faith. Maybe standing pat and not being too conciliatory is also a good way.

    It seems clear to me that whether the Dems intend it or not they are tearing the country apart and tearing it down.

    Oh, I’m with you there. I have no expectation of good faith from the left. (There are a lot of sensible, centrist Democrats — perhaps most of them. But the progressive left is something else.)

    I do believe that the left considers rules, laws, norms, fairness, and compromise to be dispensable, and will take what it believes is the most direct line to winning. That includes cheating in the election, suppressing speech, packing the Court, and making or breaking whichever rules it seems expedient to make or break. They are focused on achieving an end, and they have a self-righteous ruthlessness about it.

    Are our positions intractable then? How do we deal with that?

    We try to win the election. Every election.

    That does not help. Obamacare is still the law of the land. I was promised that it would be repealed once we had the House. Then all of congress. Then we needed Congress and the White House.

    Still. Did. Not. Happen.

    Don’t tell me to vote. Voting does not change things. Not at all. Our voices are not heard. Our needs are not addressed.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    We are there now.

    Bryan, I’m sure you’re not alone.

    I don’t think the moment calls for revolution. If you’re into that, have at it. Be careful, know what you’re pointing your gun at, try not to shoot the wrong people, etc.

    I’m going to work through the electoral process for now, and continue to advocate that we follow the law.

    • #35
  6. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    My interest is in doing what’s best for the country. However satisfying, and justified, it might be to join the left in our methods, the most important thing, for me, is that we achieve the best results we can. Richard Epstein thinks, if I understand him correctly, that we do that by making a modest concession right now to preserve order…

    This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.

    I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.

    In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.

    I’m not sure if you’re characterizing Epstein or me as being certain. For the record, I don’t claim to know the future. But I can recognize patterns. Placating the Left has not worked, so I don’t see any basis to expect it to work going forward.

    There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.

    That’s a different discussion. This isn’t about civil disobedience or the suppression of rights. It’s about nominating a Supreme Court justice, as prescribed by the Constitution.

    • #36
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

     

    I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.

    Sure, we’ll know. There will be not the least question about it.

    If they need this as a pretext they’ll use it, unless there is a better pretext to use. But I doubt they need one anymore.  

    • #37
  8. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Compromise with the left means they win and we lose.

    Yep.  We’ve lost too much ground to the left due to incrementalism.  Sometimes you have to put your foot down and say “No!” in no uncertain terms . . .

    • #38
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

     

    Do you have a good example of where modest concessions saved norms?

    Sure!  There was that time Nevill Chamberlain came back after a compromise with Adolf Hitler and . . .

    Sorry, bad example.

    • #39
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    As I’ve made pretty clear, I think we should take a no-compromise approach to the left while remaining within the law and the Constitution, remaining honest, and treating people decently.

    There’s a tendency, when we get our backs up and start talking about the need to push back against the left, to speak with a kind of ambiguous bravado. It isn’t always obvious where people would like the lines to be drawn.

    I have no interest in revolution, nor in adopting the worst practices of the criminal left. I don’t want anyone shouted down, don’t want riots, don’t want cheating, don’t want dishonesty. That’s their shtick and the very act of sinking to that level would cost more than I want to give.

    What we can and should do is painful enough. We have to be willing to openly challenge the various progressive narratives. We have to be willing to risk offending family members and friends, to be called a racist or sexist or homophobe for pointing out that identitarian politics is ugly and stupid. Often, the challenge is to remain polite and sensible when engaged by a progressive nutjob, because people are watching and they, not the crazy leftist, are the ones we have a hope of pursuading. Sometimes it means talking to your own kids in a patient, thoughtful, compassionate way that gains you a bit of credibility, even though you think what they’re hearing in school and repeating back to you is idiotic and misguided.

    I don’t want talk of revolution. I just want us to be willing to offend in a polite way.

    • #40
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    So when is the time for revolution? When are we allowed to fight back against people burning city centers?

    How is that not now already a problem?

    • #41
  12. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    So when is the time for revolution? When are we allowed to fight back against people burning city centers?

    How is that not now already a problem?

    Bryan, I suppose that’s something we each have to decide.

    My own position is that I wouldn’t call for revolution unless I believed that both of the following are true:

    1. the political and legal processes have completely broken down, and there is no hope of moving the nation in a better direction through peaceful means, and
    2. revolution has a serious prospect of working and substantially restoring freedom.

    I don’t think either of those things are even remotely true right now. We’ve gone through greater civil turmoil, even in my lifetime, than we are right now. The press has been as corrupt (though perhaps not as smug about it), the politicians as crooked. We’re in a bad place, but we’re far from the point where I’d give up on voting and the rule of law.

    And we’re very far from the point where any significant number of people would support a revolution. In fact, we’re still at the point where even talking about it is likely to get one branded as kind of nutty, and I’d be hard pressed to raise an objection to that characterization.

    • #42
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    As I’ve made pretty clear, I think we should take a no-compromise approach to the left while remaining within the law and the Constitution, remaining honest, and treating people decently.

    . . .

    I don’t want talk of revolution. I just want us to be willing to offend in a polite way.

    Excellent.

    • #43
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    So when is the time for revolution? When are we allowed to fight back against people burning city centers?

    How is that not now already a problem?

    Bryan, I suppose that’s something we each have to decide.

    My own position is that I wouldn’t call for revolution unless I believed that both of the following are true:

    1. the political and legal processes have completely broken down, and there is no hope of moving the nation in a better direction through peaceful means, and
    2. revolution has a serious prospect of working and substantially restoring freedom.

    . . .

    I dig. The Lockean answer.

    • #44
  15. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens, Trump Aveng… (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.

    I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.

    In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.

    There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.

    I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.

    Do you have a good example of where modest concessions saved norms?

    I liken this argument to a pickpocket that picks a guys pocket every week, and every week he goes before the judge and the judge rules that compromise is in order and the pickpocket should get half the contents of the wallet. After a couple of months, there’s too little to divide, and the judge rules that the pickpocket gets the remainder of the money … and the wallet, too … because he’s the only one with any money left.

    Concession and compromise seem to always work in one direction.

    Okay, let’s be clear here.

    When people talk about “concessions” and “compromise” in discussions like this, they’re generally talking about one of two quite distinct things.

    They’re talking about making political concessions in a good-faith hope that we’ll get similar concessions in return, or simply to be civil and gracious. Or they’re talking about meeting the opposition on its own ground, using the opposition’s tactics — in this case, violence, speech suppression, intimidation, criminal disruptions, etc.

    I’m with anyone who wants to say that we’ve made too many of the first kind of concession and we should make fewer in the future. We need to push back, in the politics and the culture. The left is not interested in compromise.

    I don’t approve of the violence and stuff.

    There may be a third way. Not engaging in lies or violence, but not expecting the other side to deal in good faith. Maybe standing pat and not being too conciliatory is also a good way.

    It seems clear to me that whether the Dems intend it or not they are tearing the country apart and tearing it down.

    Oh, I’m with you there. I have no expectation of good faith from the left. (There are a lot of sensible, centrist Democrats — perhaps most of them. But the progressive left is something else.)

    I do believe that the left considers rules, laws, norms, fairness, and compromise to be dispensable, and will take what it believes is the most direct line to winning. That includes cheating in the election, suppressing speech, packing the Court, and making or breaking whichever rules it seems expedient to make or break. They are focused on achieving an end, and they have a self-righteous ruthlessness about it.

    If one side ignores the rules, then there are no rules. Period.

    I’d like to beat them to the punch for once. We should have packed the court in the first two years of Trump’s term.

    You don’t think that Trump hasn’t done that?  This has been an epic success of the Trump Administration.

    • #45
  16. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You don’t think that Trump hasn’t done that? This has been an epic success of the Trump Administration.

    Please look up the meaning of “court packing” and get back to us.

    • #46
  17. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You don’t think that Trump hasn’t done that? This has been an epic success of the Trump Administration.

    Please look up the meaning of “court packing” and get back to us.

    Basil, don’t suggest that there is any transgression the Transgressor In Chief has not accomplished. I don’t believe it.

    • #47
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You don’t think that Trump hasn’t done that? This has been an epic success of the Trump Administration.

    Please look up the meaning of “court packing” and get back to us.

    Basil, don’t suggest that there is any transgression the Transgressor In Chief has not accomplished. I don’t believe it.

    Well over 10 million people have died since President Trump took office. And that’s just in the United States. Those who voted for Trump have blood on their hands.

    • #48
  19. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Henry Racette: A fine episode well worth hearing. And Ricochet really does need to figure out how to host Uncommon Knowledge among its podcasts.

    Thanks for the very nice words, Henry. But please: it’s not a podcast. Yes, we release an audio only version for the convenience of some people in our audience. But we spend a lot of time and effort to put out a video show (we used to spend a lot of money on the video too — but not in the age of COVID). 

    • #49
  20. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    The podcast is available to normal podcast apps. I suspect it’s a matter of royalties. Whatever it is, they should fix it.

    We post the video of the show on Ricochet the day it comes out. Because IT’S A TV SHOW NOT A PODCAST.

    And yes, I have taken the liberty of embedding the Epstein/Yoo Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson VIDEO in your post. Hope that’s OK.

    • #50
  21. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    So I found myself agreeing with John Yoo, that sartorially impeccable culinary train-wreck whose recently published book is a welcome addition to the defense of President Trump by prominent intellectuals

    If you want to consume the show as a podcast, you are welcome to do that. But we don’t have to make it easier for you. 😜

    • #51
  22. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    The podcast is available to normal podcast apps. I suspect it’s a matter of royalties. Whatever it is, they should fix it.

    We post the video of the show on Ricochet the day it comes out. Because IT’S A TV SHOW NOT A PODCAST.

    And yes, I have taken the liberty of embedding the Epstein/Yoo Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson VIDEO in your post. Hope that’s OK.

    Scott,

    Don’t try to cloud my mind with facts and reasonable explanations.  I don’t want sensible compromise. I want all my lilies gilded. Can’t you do that for me? 

    I’m not saying you should do it for free. Take the cost out of Rob’s share. I’m sure it’s fine. 

    Thanks,

    Hank 

    • #52
  23. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    So I found myself agreeing with John Yoo, that sartorially impeccable culinary train-wreck whose recently published book is a welcome addition to the defense of President Trump by prominent intellectuals

    If you want to consume the show as a podcast, you are welcome to do that. But we don’t have to make it easier for you. 😜

    As I said before, Blue Yeti says IT IS NOT A PODCAST. So BY has said and so it is done. 😳

    • #53
  24. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    This interview is a prime reason I’ve never called myself a “conservative” and shows why I don’t like “conservativism.”

    Here we have a discussion with a man who advocates forcefully for torturing prisoners and another man who thinks we should surrender at every opportunity to the leftist/progressive/communists controlling the democrat party.

    Since being on Ricochet, I’ve lost a lot of respect for Richard Epstein.  He knows nothing about guns, but yet he spouts all sorts of ill-informed opinions about guns.  Here he recognizes that a Supreme Court nomination is political, yet he thinks we should have allowed Obama to appoint the succesor to Scalia and that Trump shouldn’t appoint a successor.  He can’t even be consistent in something so simple in his headlong rush to surrender political power to the democrat/communist/leftists/progressives.  

    I guess I should be thankful for Ricochet for further cementing my cynocism of politics.  

    This is more reason to admire Trump.  He doesn’t listen to idiotic advice, no matter what credentials it comes from.

    • #54
  25. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    My interest is in doing what’s best for the country. However satisfying, and justified, it might be to join the left in our methods, the most important thing, for me, is that we achieve the best results we can. Richard Epstein thinks, if I understand him correctly, that we do that by making a modest concession right now to preserve order…

    This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.

    I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.

    In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.

    There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.

    I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.

    The Dems will do it anyway… let’s not be naive

     

    • #55
  26. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.

    I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.

    In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.

    There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.

    I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.

    Do you have a good example of where modest concessions saved norms?

    I liken this argument to a pickpocket that picks a guys pocket every week, and every week he goes before the judge and the judge rules that compromise is in order and the pickpocket should get half the contents of the wallet. After a couple of months, there’s too little to divide, and the judge rules that the pickpocket gets the remainder of the money … and the wallet, too … because he’s the only one with any money left.

    Concession and compromise seem to always work in one direction.

    Okay, let’s be clear here.

    When people talk about “concessions” and “compromise” in discussions like this, they’re generally talking about one of two quite distinct things.

    They’re talking about making political concessions in a good-faith hope that we’ll get similar concessions in return, or simply to be civil and gracious. Or they’re talking about meeting the opposition on its own ground, using the opposition’s tactics — in this case, violence, speech suppression, intimidation, criminal disruptions, etc.

     

    Oh, I’m with you there. I have no expectation of good faith from the left. (There are a lot of sensible, centrist Democrats — perhaps most of them. But the progressive left is something else)

    There are a lot of sensible centrist Democrats?

     

    • #56
  27. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.

    I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.

    In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.

    There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.

    I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.

    Do you have a good example of where modest concessions saved norms?

    I liken this argument to a pickpocket that picks a guys pocket every week, and every week he goes before the judge and the judge rules that compromise is in order and the pickpocket should get half the contents of the wallet. After a couple of months, there’s too little to divide, and the judge rules that the pickpocket gets the remainder of the money … and the wallet, too … because he’s the only one with any money left.

    Concession and compromise seem to always work in one direction.

    Okay, let’s be clear here.

    When people talk about “concessions” and “compromise” in discussions like this, they’re generally talking about one of two quite distinct things.

    They’re talking about making political concessions in a good-faith hope that we’ll get similar concessions in return, or simply to be civil and gracious. Or they’re talking about meeting the opposition on its own ground, using the opposition’s tactics — in this case, violence, speech suppression, intimidation, criminal disruptions, etc.

     

    Oh, I’m with you there. I have no expectation of good faith from the left. (There are a lot of sensible, centrist Democrats — perhaps most of them. But the progressive left is something else)

    There are a lot of sensible centrist Democrats?

     

    I believe so. I maintain that most people, Republican and Democrat, are relatively apolitical and basically conservative. The progressive left lies about its intentions, much as Biden does right now, in order not to scare away normal people who would recoil from much of what the progressive left represents.

    I think that’s why, when someone like Obama steps up and starts being overtly radical, states start throwing Democrats out of office. The left succeeds by trying to present itself as moderate, while simultaneously caricaturing centrists conservatives (like Trump) as reactionary.

    • #57
  28. RPD Inactive
    RPD
    @RPD

    Regarding justices moving left (around 43 minutes in) I wonder if part of the issue is that Dems nominate leftist ideologues whom Rep senators approve, going along with the idea that a president gets their justices, but then Rep presidents nominate relative milquetoasts and “centrists” with the hope of getting them approved without much of a fight with the Dems, They already start further to the left than one would hope. I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are examples of this in that they weren’t very controversial people other than what the opposition dreamed up.

    • #58
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.