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.
A Thought from Tonight’s Editor Podcast
First, I invite you all to join the Edit This! podcast hosted by our editors, Jon Gabriel and Bethany Mandel at a closely guarded time every Monday evening. It’s a lot of fun and a Ricochet podcast in which you can actually speak and badger the hosts, unlike the fru-fru flagship podcast that only the true bluebloods can attend.
Secondly, during tonight’s podcast, I had a thought that maybe hadn’t occurred to me before. We all know that the media and what I call the opinion-shaping elite (Hollywood, the universities, the newsrooms, etc.) tilt left. That’s something we’ve been battling for decades, and proof — I assert — that our 50/50 divided America is in fact much more intrinsically conservative than many believe.
But tonight’s discussion touched on issues of the Bulwark and the Never-Trump elite, people like Bill Kristol, and other nuevo-leftist former presumed-conservative commentators. Bethany asked, reasonably, if Bill Kristol and his ilk had ever really been conservative. That’s a fair question.
And that’s when it occurred to me that we have a potential problem having to do with the nature of the media and opinion-shaping classes, a problem that could apply as much to Ricochet (though I hope it doesn’t) as to any other (new-)media outlet.
The people who write their opinions for a living, conservative or liberal, have a lot in common with each other.
I want the post-Trump Republican party to be more muscular, more working-class, more cross-cultural (because I believe that the working class is cross-cultural), more rural, more masculine, and, frankly, less educated and credentialed than it has been in the recent past. I want this because I think the conceits of the current opinion-shaping elite are proving themselves to be unworkable and bad for America, and I want a resurgence of a simpler, more common sense, more visceral, and less erudite ‘merica!
Once upon a time, back before j-school, journalists were drawn from that population. Is it possible to build something similar on the internet today, something ruddy and rough and matter-of-fact that harkens back to a simpler time of clarity and rugged self-confidence?
Can we find journalists and pundits who, unlike the sissies at The Bulwark, CNN, NBC, etc., actually have balls?
I think that’s what we’re going to need if we’re going to restore America.
Because right now these clowns are tripping over their pronouns. And that’s no way to run a great country.
Published in Journalism
It’s true that it is exhausting to go up against relentless pessimism, but I’m not sure I agree that the battle hasn’t yet begun.
If you think relentless pessimism is exhausting, try going up against relentless optimism. :-)
Don’t blame me. Blame human genetics for being so faulty.
With regard to history, what movement has ever taken power that didn’t have a spokesman who was unusually good at either giving speeches or writing?
Do you have evidence for this?
Fair.
Two responses. First, who says that normal people who are not employed in media can not write and speak well?
Secondly, as regards history, isn’t it true that everything that has ever been done was necessarily done the first time, and that it had never been done before then?
As James Lileks says, you do you. I will remain hopeful.
Some of you may find this interesting. This is me debating a Principals First ruling class functionary. I think I won, so be nice to me. lol
If you don’t know what PF is, it’s a Trump hating organization. They think like eighth grade civics classes or some thing. Bill Kristol and Mona are on the stage etc. when they have their convention. It’s the whole orbit of the bulwark.
Aren’t all the woke corporations against war.
Well just for one, they seem fine with the war against conservatives, which is also pretty expensive. And not just in terms of what it costs to punish conservatives, but the cost of NOT stopping/punishing the left, as they burn buildings etc.
There is a middle ground here. I’m not optimistic about America’s future because I’m not optimistic about human nature in general. That said, human nature is not a death sentence. America itself is evidence that, if we are mindful of human nature and diligent in contending against it, great things can happen. I’m an Eyeore by nature, but I recognize that we have something here worth fighting for. People like Andrew Klavan (and our own @henryracette) have got me feeling more hopeful than I have in years. The Left has pushed things too far and “normal” people are waking up, albeit slowly. It’s true that conservative types aren’t as inclined to make politics the center of their lives. But it’s also true that they love and appreciate the miracle of America and will rally to defend it when it is threatened. And there can be no doubt that it’s being threatened.
I thought you were smarter than this. C’mon…
Generals retire and go to work for Raytheon, McDonnel Douglas, and so many more Hundreds of defense contractors. But media companies do very well in war. Anchors and shows get more viewers. Many more corporations thrive. And since when did you believe corporations believed anything they said being woke? That’s the PR strategy. They’re not conspiring, they are geese flying south in a flock. Not a hard concept to grasp for someone of your intelligence.
So these globalist types encourage forever wars for profit? That sounds far too Marxist to me. Wars are started by politicians as far as I can tell. People have always believed otherwise but I’ve never heard of a convincing argument. Crony corporatism is endemic among our corrupt elite so the big government stuff makes sense.
Ok, first, rewriting my words in some bumper-sticker format , then claiming my concept to be unproven as such reveals mal-intent or possibly just insane attachment to a belief. Labeling it Marxist is also rich. I guess Eisenhower was a Marxist? ( using you ridiculous style) But go ahead, answer. Was Eisenhower a Marxist?
Corporations are out for themselves. They have no conscience. They are like sharks. So, quite naturally, companies who make weapons, systems, logistical support for military, etc. will be more inclined to see the world in terms of military solutions. Politicians who are in the CIA/Miltary Industrial complex echochamber like John McCain will often ( always, in Mc Cains case?) prefer military action and intervention, as well as perpetual presence (every new base around the world) .
Do you know that retired generals take tons of money from these corporations and then advocate for military solutions as “advisors” and pundits on television, and the audience is not told they are on the payroll? That’s today’s corporate media for you.
You will never hear a convincing argument for anything you don’t already believe. That’s my assessment. You seem unbelievably naive to me.
No he was not. Eisenhower understood that societies have iron triangles that we need to look out for. Marxism suggests that everything is based on economics and money. He was worried about the undo influence of the military industry as he should but he was did not view corporations as a unified class that all thought the same like Marx.
I think that John McCain agrees with military interventions because he actually believed in America as a force for good in the world.
I think the Iraq war and the mistakes made were made because politicians made bad decisions because they didn’t understand the Islamic World and the full corruption of human nature. In summary, I believe in political cock-up rather than economic determinism.
Listen to yourself, man. Adolf Hitler also thought Germany was a force for good in the world. Doesn’t make it so. I can say at this point that it’s highly questionable if America is or can be a force for good in the world. Especially with people like McCain in charge.So he’s also wrong.
Economic forces and incentives are part and parcel to belief systems.
A pol like McCain who has martial belief systems will attract and be rewarded by those who benefit from wars. It doesn’t much matter which comes first. The two elements reinforce each other iteratively. They give each other rationales, money and support.
By the time we get into it, McCain beloved those who were against intervention in say, Syria or Libya, were of questionable patriotism. The execs at Raytheon would probably agree. Everyone thinks what they do is the most important thing in the world.
This is true all across the board. Gender Studies majors are deeply invested in seeing the world through gender issues.
That’s primarily ideological rather than financial. With both Adolf Hitler and John McCain, the beliefs came first and the corporate money followed. Additionally, don’t the war companies and the Bill Gates of the world completely separate financial interests?
Primarily, but not exclusively. And self-reinforcing.
To your second question, the answer is, no, they don’t.
Let me ask you this: Name corporations that clearly suffer during wartime, who therefore have strong incentives to be generally anti-war. How many can you come up with? I can’t think of many.
Not to forget, we are talking about war in far away places. Of course, few want war close to home.
Which are the most powerful corporations? I would rank media at the pinnacle since they can craft the narrative and force politicians to toe the line. I know this may sound “Marxist” to your ears, but oil companies thrive too.
Anything that amplifies the importance of politicians – they’ve discovered pandemics! – gets priority.
I’m not reflexively anti-war, I just don’t believe them and don’t believe they necessarily have America’s best interests in mind.
In general corporations suffer from the wasteful government spending money on stuff that doesn’t go to them. Of course the corporations that do benefit have more incentives to lobby as is always the case with pork.
Pork and powerful influencers are always something to worry about but I’ve never been convinced that they start wars. I’ve just never heard compelling arguments that they do. It’s always nations and politicians that do so.
Anyways, what similar interests do the globalists have that let them influence everybody?
Wars and conflicts pre-exist all over the globe, so it’s never a question of “starting” wars, it’s whether we should join and engage. On some level our Intel agencies are already involved and they are prone to lobby for escalation after being involved in the fray.
No one said globalists “influence everybody” – not me… but apparently, you.
The similar interests are, international blanket treaties, enforcement of shipping lanes for (their) commerce, open borders in the US, exporting jobs and factories to poor areas to save on labor , and so much more.
Global trade and globalism isn’t all bad, and should not be stopped ( and can’t be stopped) but our country has interests – unique interests in some cases ( freedom for one thing!) and these interests should be advanced. Other countries vie for advantage and get it. China?
Then what is your point? How powerful are these globalists?
I think my point – at this point -has been made. Over and out.
Well, I admit I have not followed that long and undoubtedly interesting discussion, but I’m glad you gentlemen found a place to have it. ;)
I used to have a good explanation of the word globalist, but I can’t remember what it was.
They don’t like personal agency and they want power to keep being pushed up, even over borders.
This was the original brouhaha.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to interpret your comments as suggesting that globalists and war profiteers are the same people which would be odd.