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.
My lovely bride, Buttercup, and I often complain about how there’s nothing worth going to the movies to watch. For a movie fan like me, it’s pretty depressing.
If you want to just how badly Titanic sucks and why, it’s in the podcast. The upside is that it gave me the opportunity to reminisce about going to the AMC in Alexandria, VA last year to watch Blazing Saddles on the big screen. As I wrote at the time, the experience renewed my hope for America’s future.
But not because of the “big screen” part. Blazing Saddles, one of the five funniest English-language movies of all time, is great if you’re watching it projected on a bedsheet in a rural southern prison. The question raised by the return of Titanic is this:
What is the one movie everyone must see on the big screen? My answer: Lawrence of Arabia.
Good movie, great acting, magnificent filmmaking. The young, crystal-blue-eyed Peter O’Toole makes Ryan Gosling look like a deformed troll in comparison.
GOP already has a massive Millennial problem. When the GOP nominee for governor in purple-state Virginia loses voters under 45 (not 25… 45!) by 20+ points, that’s a major problem. These aren’t “have no heart/have no head” kids in transition from their youth. That’s a massive rejection of the GOP brand.
Roy Moore makes that Millennial problem even worse — whether he’s a teen-targeting perv or not. Last night on CBSN they carried some of his rally live. It sounded like one of the many church revival services I attended at South Congaree Assemblies of God in rural South Carolina. It sounded very unlike what most Americans expect to hear from would-be elected officials. Doesn’t mean Moore is a good or bad person, and I’m certainly not arguing that being a person of faith hurts candidates. But a Bible-thumping “them gays are gonna dee-stroy Uh-mer-ica!” guy is not likely to resonate with voters outside a narrow spectrum. And the younger you are, the weirder/more off-putting he sounds.
Moore makes the Trump Party “Moore” Trumpier. If Moore is in the US Senate, the Democrats are going to run against the Trump/Moore ticket in 2018. Every Republican outside a deep-red district is going to get pounded. Trump provides the ordnance for Democrats to carpet-bomb moderate districts. Roy Moore is a tactical nuke.
If the Democrat wins, the seat’s back up again — and Republican once more — next November. He’s basically Scott Brown — no chance of winning a regularly-scheduled general election. Meanwhile, Roy Moore is not on the floor of the Senate waving his pistol and preachin’ the Gospel.
Roy Moore in 2017 is Trump 2016 in reverse. Trump voters could say that Trump winning was bad, but not as bad as Hillary winning. That’s not the case in Alabama right now. At least, I don’t think so.
(PS: If I had to predict, I’d say Moore is going to win. That’s the sort of luck the GOP’s been having lately.)
My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period…
It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.
Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them…
Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”…
They protest: Have they ever said anything racist? Don’t they shovel the sidewalk of the new black neighbors? Surely, they say, politics — a single vote — does not mean we can’t be friends.
I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.
And let’s to ahead and get the obvious out of the way: Yes, if a white father taught his son to be suspicious of all black people/not to trust them/they are a danger to you/don’t be their friends, that white father would be vilified and probably reported to the Department of Social Services. The answer from people who think like Professor Yankah is that such counterfactuals are irrelevant and ridiculous because America is run by white people who have all the power. (Don’t bother mentioning two-term POTUS Barack Hussein Obama. It just annoys people who think like this)
I’m more interested in the parenting aspect. People are free to think whatever idiocy they want, and if you are, say, one of the intellectually-challenged feminists who thinks America’s just one election cycle from the patriarchal theocracy of “A Handmaid’s Tale,” that’s on you. (Really–a country with universal access to porn, a 40 percent illegitimacy rate and a “p****-grabbing” POTUS whose third wife is a supermodel is about to turn into Oral Roberts University with weird hats? You gotta be kidding me.)
If Professor Yankah wants to believe that Americans have the same views on race today that they did in the era of Jim Crow; if he wants to believe he’s surrounded by racists who truly want to strip him of Constitutional rights because of his skin color; who wish him ill because his ancestors came from Africa instead of Europe–if he wants to be that immune to facts, logic, and reason–that’s a shame, but he’s an adult. He’s entitled to his own stupidity. I merely roll my eyes and move on.
But when he announces to the world that he’s teaching his son to be afraid, to be suspicious, to reject 60 percent of his fellow Americans as possible friends and instead declare them implacable (or in the best-case scenario, unintentional) foes–I stop moving and start glaring. What an awful, awful way to raise a child.
I don’t want the state to kick in his doors and take his son away–you know, the way some liberals want kids taken away from parents who teach them that homosexuality is a sin. Professor Yankah absolutely has the right as a parent to raise his kids with his values.
But Americans of all colors are entitled to be sickened by it.
Professor Yankah means his article to be a challenge. He’s trying to put a moral burden on white people, essentially saying: “See what you’ve made me do? See how awful you are? What are you going to do about this racist America of yours?”
In my opinion, he’s done the opposite. His reaction to the imperfections of America is to poison the mind of his own son against millions of people who, if they found him lost on a park or hurt at a playground, would gladly help him, protect him, keep him safe? It’s both ridiculous and obscene.
I say white people would protect his son, except we couldn’t because the poor boy would run away from us, having been brainwashed to believe we’re there to hurt him, that he can’t trust the white cop/nurse/crossing guard/soup-kitchen volunteer/pastor/whoever trying to help.
Yes, Professor Yankah is a bad person, but I have resigned myself to bad people. It’s the fact that he’s such an awful parent that still inspires my outrage.
In today’s podcast I talk about my experience watching the 2016 election returns roll into the newsroom of the Washington Examiner. The Examiner’s crew was a good mix of conservative Republican views, from angry anti-Trump libertarians to happy pro-Trump populists. And none of us could get our minds around what was happening.
Throughout the evening, smart reporters kept making comments about “we haven’t heard from…” or “wait until the numbers come in from…” The exit polls had set everyone up for a solid Clinton win, and when the real numbers hit, the cognitive dissonance was almost audible. Or rather, inaudible. Newsrooms aren’t normally quiet places. This one was.
Even the die-hard Trump fans were reluctant to believe what they were seeing. There was a lot of shrugging and looking around at each other with a “what the heck?!” message. The moment I remember most:
After an evening of “Trump’s only hope of winning is sweeping Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin,” the spin on the cables (and in some corners of the WEX newsroom) transformed into a desperate “Hillary can still win if she can sweep Pennsylvania.” And it just hit me that Hillary had become the underdog. She was the one who needed to pull out a Hail Mary victory.
In the podcast I mention the opening scene of the Joe vs. The Volcano (A mediocre movie but one of my faves). That is what the streets of Washington DC looked like on Wednesday morning. People–regular, riding-on-the-Orange-Line-with-me people–were stunned. Shocked. Almost zombie-like.
Terrific conversation in the podcast today with Cam Edwards of NRATV. Along with Charles C. W. Cooke (of Mad Dogs and Englishmen), two of the best people to talk to about gun issues and the Second Amendment, in part because he acknowledges the legitimacy of some of the concerns gun control advocates have.
One key area where I disagree with these two (and remember–they are much smarter than me) is on the question of Second Amendment politics. They both reject the idea that, as Cooke put it recently, “it’s up to gun rights supporters to come up with gun control laws. The burden is not on us. It’s on those who support gun control.”
Well, yes…if you want gun laws written by people who hate gun rights. I don’t. I want people who respect the Second Amendment to take the lead on reasonable gun ownership restrictions, for the same reason that I want pro-law-and-order conservatives to lead on criminal justice reform and dealing with bad cops: The other side will use “reform” as an excuse for “damage beyond repair.”
Many gun-rights proponents completely disagree. They subscribe to the “Give No Quarter” theory of gun laws. Fight them all: Bump stocks, massive magazines, sniper rifles, whatever. “What part of ‘shall pass no law’ don’t you understand?” And as I conceded to Cam in the podcast, that strategy is working. Today.
In the Heller era of the SCOTUS, gun rights look pretty secure. Today, with 70 percent of Americans supporting the right of private citizens to own hand guns, it’s “no worries.”
But 40 years ago, a majority of Americans believed private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own handguns. Ten years ago, the idea of legalized gay marriage as the law of the land seemed like a long shot. Six months ago, Harvey Weinstein was one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. My point: times change.
My fellow Second Amendment supporters are betting that there is no gun crime that will impact voters and change their views. That’s a pretty risky bet. The second bet is that, even if they lose the political fight, the courts will stop “we, the people” from passing gun restrictions. Tell that to the folks who passed the “Defense of Marriage Act.”
In my opinion, the NRA should have jumped all over the bump stock ban. Lead the way. They should be working with medical professionals on a mental-health standard that creates an obstacle for people with legitimate issues who try to buy guns, but doesn’t simply strip them of their rights. And if there are other good ideas, they should becoming from our side, not Barack “Australia Model” Obama. By offering solutions, we build support among the vast majority of non-gun-owning Americans.
Or we can just hope that the “enough is enough” moment doesn’t come, that the brittle, unbending “go screw” position doesn’t break under the weight of a last straw.
Two major studies showed that mankind has more empathy for pooches in dire circumstances than suffering people, according to a report in the Times of London.
A UK medical research charity staged two phony donation campaigns — one for a dog and the other featuring a man. Of course, the pooch drew more contributions.
“Would you give 5 pounds to save Harrison from a slow, painful death?” the separate ads said, featuring a canine and human “Harrison.”
Then a Northeastern University study showed that only a baby human could compete with man’s best friend.
Students were shown fake newspaper clippings about a baseball-bat attack on a puppy, an adult dog, a year-old infant and a 30-year-old adult. They were asked questions to gauge their empathy and the adult finished last in sympathy.
“Respondents were significantly less distressed when adult humans were victimized, in comparison with human babies, puppies and adult dogs,” according to Northeastern researchers. “Only relative to the infant victim did the adult dog receive lower scores of empathy.”
Look, I’m more misanthropic than the average person, and I get Mark Twain’s point–just as I laugh at the great line about W.C. Fields: “Anyone who hates dogs and babies can’t be all bad.”
But if, in fact, you really do hate dogs and babies, there’s something wrong with you. And if you really would give your last $5 to alleviate the suffering of an animal and leave one of your fellow human beings in pain…you are a lousy “fellow human being.”
There’s a name for people who can’t tell the difference between animals and humans: “Children.” (Or sociopaths. But I repeat myself.) Children think that doggies can talk and kitties like to watch TV when the people aren’t home.
Grown-ups understand that animals are just animals. The idiotic comment I’ve heard a million times about how “animals are innocent, while people are evil” is an embarrassingly juvenile argument. Animals aren’t evil or good, because animals can’t make moral judgments. They don’t make decisions. They live on instinct and training. Humans are human because we can make choices, we can choose self-sacrifice, we can show compassion to, among other things, dumb animals.
No, your pet is not your child. No, your dog is not your “fur baby.” No, your cat cannot say “Mama.” (I actually had this argument with a grown woman in Charleston, SC) No, no, no.
If this were an isolated trend, I’d shrug and move on. But it’s not. It’s part of an overall movement towards a more juvenile society. When 20-something men and women use the verb “adulting” to talk about the (formerly) everyday behavior of 20-somethings, there’s a problem. When a record number of 18-35 year olds are still living with mom and dad, that’s a problem. And when apparent adults have the same attitudes about animals as the target audience of animated Disney movies…
There is nothing wrong with loving people more than animals. There is something wrong with loving animals more than people. The fact that I have to type that sentence is frightening.
Prager University, a nonprofit that produces short, educational videos from conservative perspectives, is suing YouTube and its parent company, Google, claiming the tech giant is illegally censoring some of its content as part of a wider effort to silence conservative voices.
A lawsuit filed Monday evening in federal court in San Francisco says YouTube’s more than 30 million visitors a day make the site so elemental to free speech in the digital age that it should be treated as a public forum. The suit argues the site must use the “laws governing free speech,” not its own discretion, to make decisions about what to censor.
The nonprofit, known as PragerU, alleges that by limiting access to some of its videos without clear criteria YouTube is infringing on PragerU’s First Amendment rights. [emphasis added]
So a conservative organization is demanding that the government override the private-property rights of a private media company, and instead treat this private media outlet like a government organization? A conservative plaintiff is saying that?
And these “conservatives” are also insisting that a private company be required to meet the “First Amendment” standards of public entities?
I wonder how the folks at Hillsdale College feel about that? Or Liberty University? Or Chick-Fil-A?
I’m thinking that private companies should have control of how they run their businesses, up to the point that they are directly endangering others.
On the other hand….
As I said on the podcast today, this is a tough call because 67 percent of Americans really do get their news via Facebook. Newspapers call it “the real front page,” the place where most of their customers access the news content. YouTube is the portal for video content that millions of people in the real world actually use. So while libertarian ideals sound great, in fact if YouTube does shove conservative content onto the back shelves, the practical impact is very real. The Right is already getting our head handed to us in popular culture (and not even trying to fight back). Getting marginalized on YouTube on top of that is very troubling.
So which comes first: The conservative principles of private property and individual choice, or the political survival instincts for ideas that could literally die in darkness?
I look forward to hearing what the Ricovanchists think!
Are Republicans doomed when it comes to Millennial voters? If so, then the GOP is doomed…period.
Millennials are the largest group of voting-aged Americans, and that numerical superiority will only increase as the Baby Boomers die out. Listen to the Talk-Right and you’ll hear a lot of talk about simply writing these voters off: “Kids don’t vote, anyway!”
Well, they’re not “kids” anymore, and they’re getting older every day. How is “write them off” a winning strategy?
Pessimists like (the brilliant and funny) Kristen Soltis Anderson say the GOP is pretty much screwed no matter what. The Millennials didn’t like the GOP much two years ago, and they really, really hate Donald Trump. The result: The GOP brand is so damaged among Millennials that Republicans will never get enough of their support for a winning coalition in the future.
But in today’s “Michael in the Morning” podcast, John Della Volpe offers a (tiny) glimmer of hope for the Right. Della Volpe oversees polling for Harvard’s Institute of Politics, and they’ve been polling Millennials twice a year for almost 20 years. And while the GOP’s numbers are pretty lousy, he argues that there are actually two groups of Millennials. The older ones really didn’t like George W. Bush and the really loved Obama and they’re pretty much lost to the GOP.
But their younger brothers and sisters came of age during and after the “Great Recession,” watching their families and neighbors suffer. They’re more open to economic arguments that address their fears and concerns, and they’re willing to consider more independent ideas.
Two issues that poll well with Millennials: School choice and “cracking down on countries that engage in illegal or unfair trade practices that hurt American workers.” Can the Right use these issues to make inroads? Or should we “right off” the Millennials and reach out to Generation Y?
But whether it’s Millennials or Gen Y, does anyone see any evidence the Right is even trying to speak to young people? Haven’t we simply abandoned them to the tender mercies of late-night TV hosts?
Which is why the “we’re doomed” argument is so strong, in my opinion. What am I missing?
To say that I’m not a big fan of Sen. John McCain (R-NYTimes Editorial Board) would be an under-statement.
I’m a huge fan of his military service, but as a senator he has only two speeds: Irrelevant and Obnoxious. When he’s not voting like a pretty traditional Republican and going along with the party, he’s out declaring how much better he is than the party he regularly carries water for.
You think Steve Bannon likes beating the crap out of the GOP? He’s a piker compared to John McCain who, since 2000, has made a fetish of it. During the 2008 presidential primaries, I created the website “MyDearJohnLetter.com” where conservatives could post their break-up messages with the Republican candidate who clearly had such a low opinion of GOP voters.
So yet another speech from Sen. McCain about how much he doesn’t like Republicans is nothing new. However, I was struck by his comments rejecting “half-baked” nationalism. And they reveal yet again how much McCain–and many longtime Republicans–can’t seem to learn the lesson of the Trump moment.
On my podcast today I quoted Ross Douthat who pointed out that virtually every conservative/Right movement in the West has a populist or nationalist branch. As we just saw in Austria, populist/nationalist movements can even win elections in the plurality-politics world of European parliamentary elections. Douthat also suggested, and I agree, that it’s virtually impossible to see a center-Right governing coalition that doesn’t include the (for lack of a more facile phrase) Trump voters.
Yes, McCain and Charles Murray, and my good friend Bill Kristol can (theoretically, anyway) banish populism from the Republican Party. But the party that remains will never get 50% +1 of the votes. It will be a rump party, alongside a rump “populist/nationalist” party.
On an earlier episode of the podcast, Charles Murray explicitly called for the conservative/libertarian/traditional Republicans to follow McCain’s lead and kick the populists out. We should join with the small-l liberals left in the Democratic party for a new, third way. But then he agreed with my point that there aren’t any small-l Democrats left and the result would be a permanent minority. Is that really what McCain and others want?
I wish America was a nation of small-government, self-reliant, Constitution-loving individualists. But it’s not. A majority coalition on the Right is going to have a significant number of populists–“half-baked’ or otherwise. So why not pursue the “half-baked” strategy? Instead of attacking the nationalist/populist voters, insulting them and driving them out, find some issues where traditional conservatism and populism overlap. Or at least don’t directly contradict?
The obvious example is immigration. There is nothing anti-conservative about “everyone has to obey the law and play by the same rules.” Instead of joining McCain’s “anyone who cares about the borders is probably a closet racist” approach, why not stand for fairness, justice and rule of law–and do so without apology?
The fight against jihad-inspired terrorism is another. There’s probably some dealing that could be done on trade, too.
Personally, I like my populism “half-baked.” Because if the Right doesn’t figure out how to accommodate these voters, the likely result is a populist full loaf.
“Maybe not ‘GOOD riddance,’ but ‘riddance,'” he replies.
Gee, I wonder what his sponsors think of that approach to broadcasting. After all sixty million Americans voted for Donald Trump. A majority of Americans support private gun ownership. And Obamacare is only somewhat popular today because it’s being compared to theoretical GOP plans. For nearly 8 years, Obamacare was public-policy poison for a majority of Americans.
And Jimmy Kimmel is telling those people, “Go screw, Republicans! Don’t bother watching my show–or the ads!”
Uh…and this is a win for Nissan, Gillette, or Chase Bank? Don’t they want Republican customers, either?
I can’t boycott a show I don’t watch (Jimmy Fallon is much funnier), and I don’t generally support boycotts. But if a broadcaster is going to invite me to tune him out, I might want to let his sponsors to know I’m taking him up on the invitation.
I’ve made a commitment on the podcast to having truly pro-Trump voices in the conversation. Not the usual “I know Trump is awful, but here are some good things” case, but a straight up, no-qualifiers case.
There aren’t a lot of pro-Trump voices out there, and most of the arguments on his behalf are largely arguments of negation: “Electing Trump stopped Hillary…”, “I love the fact that the liberal media hate Trump,” “Things would be worse without Trump,” etc. Bedford argues (and you can listen to him do it around the :29 minute mark here.) for Trump in the affirmative. He says Trump’s character and behavior are worthy of emulation and we can learn life lessons from the president.
Bedford says Trump is a good dad and, throughout his life, a good man. His life offers lessons for all of us, separate from “He beat Hillary Clinton.”
It’s a novel argument to say the least and I heard quite a few things I rarely hear outside the voices in Sean Hannity’s head (“I think Trump is doing a phenomenal job!”). And Bedford speaks for millions of Trump supporters across the country.
In the end, I didn’t find the argument persuasive. I still have to do a double-take when I see a news item “Donald Trump To Address Values Voters.” But hey, what do I know?
That’s why I’d like to hear from you in the comments!
Last night I attended dress rehearsal for Boston Lyric Opera’s Tosca. The soprano, Elena Stikhina, was terrific–which is pretty much all you need for a quality version of Tosca– but the character that caught everyone’s eye was baritone Daniel Sutin as Scarpia.
Or as the crowd noted in hushed whispers, “Harvey Weinstein.” That topic was all the buzz during the intermezzo. (And part of my podcast today.)
If you don’t know the story, Tosca’s in love with a guy who helps a pro-Napoleon political prisoner in Rome circa 1800. The royal prosecutor is Scarpia, a total lech who uses his power to coerce women into sex. When he put his moves on Tosca last night, it was hard not to think of the day’s headlines. It didn’t hurt that Sutin did a great job in the role.
So how about it–is Harvey the real-life Scarpia? Or is there some other fictional character who comes to mind?
(Note the word “fictional.” You can kill the Bill Clinton jokes now.)
But instead of talking about his travel-ban win in the Supreme Court or the NFL caving on anthem protests or the fact that whackjob lefties are still trying to kill the jobs created by the Keystone XL pipeline, Trump had to say this:
Gee, Mr. President, at what point is it appropriate to use the power of federal regulations to punish a media outlet for criticizing you? I think most small-government conservatives would answer “Never.” Or “Absolutely not!” Or, to be a bit more accurate, “Are you out of your mind?!”
And others would be really upset…
As with all things Trump, I assume that I’m completely wrong and that there’s a win here that I am congenitally incapable of grasping. So perhaps a pro-Trump person could explain in the comments below how a POTUS talking this way is good for conservatives, Republicans, a free press, or pretty much anything else.
So please explain to me the connection between “conservatism” and “powerful government agent threatens the use of federal regulatory power to silence his critics.”
Because it sounds an awful like what the Talk-Right used to hate about the Obama Left.
It’s awful because it’s full of pretentious music that people who like having cool opinions about music more than they actually like listening to music like: Radiohead, PJ Harvey, Radiohead, Neutral Milk Hotel, Radiohead…
Can you name another bit of pop music that is a purely partisan appeal on behalf of a politician? And not just some generic “I like Democrats” dirge. The Texas Songbird knows his stuff:
Kenneth Starr, pull up on my president cuz you don’t have nothing to show for all the money you spent. All this investigating…. ain’t nothin but playa hatin’
Hargrove–whose other hits include “I’m Just Trying To Hold Onto My Women”–also talks about the economy (“He showed us how to turn a dime into a dollar, you see…”) and the fact that “everybody’s done something wrong.” Hint, hint, Newt?
Folks, we didn’t get spin this good on Crossfire back in the day.
I invited Cam Edwards of NRA TV to the podcast today to talk about the current debate over gun rights and the relative strength of the NRA. Several commentators have suggested that the NRA’s political standing has been weakened by the reaction to the Las Vegas shooting, though it’s too early to get any reliable data.
But when it comes to the goals of the Left on gun control “gun safety,” the data is clear: They want to kill the Second Amendment.
One of the great disconnects of our history is how a nation birthed on the premise that all men are created equal could enshrine an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being. We tried to fix that, through our bloodiest war and a series of amendments that followed.
Not so with guns. The Second Amendment, as applied in the last 30 years or so, has become so perverted, twisted and misused that you have to see it now as the second original sin in the founding of this country, after slavery.
Gun rights, the “second original sin?” An evil protected by the Constitution comparable to slavery? Which means that defending the Second Amendment is the equivalent of defending pre-Civil-War slavery?
Some gun owners will find this argument repugnant. Others will note the irony that the same guns required to end slavery and defend individual liberty are now being linked to the oppression they helped end.
But I think we can all agree that it’s very difficult for gun-rights supporters to enter good-faith negotiations over gun law reforms with people who’ve announced up front that they want to confiscate your guns, strip you of your constitutional rights and think of you as the moral equivalent of Simon Legree.
What I found most interesting was Sen. Lee’s absolute, uncompromising position on guns: No compromise. He didn’t even tip his hat to the idea that, in the wake of recent mass shootings, pro-Second-Amendment politicians might need to take some action.
Sen. Lee’s response to CT Senator Chris Murphy’s cry that congressional Republicans need to “get off your [expletive]” and fix the gun-violence problem was to put the entire burden on gun-control advocates. Sen. Lee knows of no gun laws he would like to see in effect, and he says it’s up to people like Sen. Murphy to come up with their own ideas for solutions.
My question for you: Is this smart, long-term politics?
As Kevin Williamson pointed out in yesterday’s pod, right now gun rights are pretty secure. The courts are on board and Americans are split on the issue. As a result, gun-rights advocates have the political upper hand.
But is that going to last forever? The horrors of Sandy Hook and Pulse and Las Vegas may not be having any impact on Americans’ attitudes towards guns….or there could be a cumulative effect and a future shooting could be the proverbial straw on the proverbial camel’s back.
Is Sen. Lee right to dismiss any suggestions for gun-law reform? Or would it be smarter for Second Amendment folks to craft and promote smart and effective gun laws–say in the area of mental health or bump stocks–that would protect gun rights in the long term by showing ambivalent Americans that the Second Amendment community is working to promote “gun safety,”** too.
In today’s “Michael in the Morning” podcast (which I’m sure you’ve already listened to), the Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes lays out the four legs of the new GOP stool. Gone are the days of the Fiscal/Social/Anti-Communist coalition of the Reagan era. According to Hayes it’s:
The GOP Establishment (McConnell, K Street, etc.)
The Traditional Conservatives (Senators Mike Lee and Ben Sasse)
The “America Firsters” (Jeff Sessions, free-trade skeptics, etc)
The “Ever Trumpers.” (Sean Hannity, die-hard Trump activists, etc)
My social media timeline is filled with “smart” people attacking Trump over his current fight with athletes protesting the American flag and the national anthem. Much of the criticism includes eye-rolling over notion that showing disrespect to the flag is a big deal. It’s clear many people in the mainstream media think the notion that the flag should be respected is silly.
If that’s you, former Democratic nominee for president Michael Dukakis has two words for you: “Flag factory.”
In New Jersey on Tuesday, the vice-president sought to keep Old Glory at the forefront of his campaign with a tour of an American flag factory. He told employees of Aninn & Co. here: “The flags you make fly over an America that today is stronger and more prosperous than at any time in its proud history.”
While some critics disdain the pledge issue, it appears to have hurt Governor Dukakis, particularly with the kind of middle-American voters who backed Ronald Reagan in 1980 and ’84.
During his first term as governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Dukakis – after receiving an advisory opinion from the state’s highest court – vetoed a bill that would have required teachers to lead their classes in the pledge each day. The legislature overrode the veto overwhelmingly, but the state’s attorney general ruled that the law was unenforceable.
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush seized on the issue:
“Should public school teachers be required to lead our children in the Pledge of Allegiance? My opponent says no – but I say yes.”
Fast-forward to today: According to a new survey, the #1 reason fans tuned out the NFL last year was…protests why wealthy athletes against the national anthem and American flag.
So if this is the fight the Left is going to pick against Trump: Good luck with that.
In a recent podcast I asked the brilliant Charles Murray what political issues could provide Trumpkins/Never Trumpers (oops, just saw the memo) Trump friends and foes in the GOP an “open door to walk toward each other and unite.” Murray’s answer was to suggest abandoning the Right’s coalition and create a new coalition among non-Trump-GOP and non-crazy American Left. (The latter regularly meets at a single booth in an Ohio Denny’s.)
I’m not sure his math works, but Murray’s description of how Trump’s base views the President (“He’s our murder weapon”) was brilliant. I thought of my question again while watching President Trump’s UN speech. Why couldn’t this speech be one of those “open doors?”
On the one hand, Trump played to his base with the language and tone he used. “Rocket Man?” “We could destroy North Korea.” His great quip mocking Venezuelan socialism? You could hear the cheers from the Talk-Right. It’s awfully close to the speech I wanted to hear.
On the other hand, his promotion of a vigorous US foreign policy, challenging our enemies, promoting a form of nationalism that allows for an outward-looking America — there was plenty in the policies for my good friend Bill Kristol to love. And for Steve Bannon to hate.
Why couldn’t this speech provide the first opening for Republican rapprochement? Trump supporters can climb on board the neo-con-leaning policy bandwagon and the Trump opponents can lay off the “Despite the fact that he’s a total moron who thinks the ‘UK’ plays in the SEC, Trump got something right” language and simply praise and promote the policies. Is that really asking too much?
Who knows. And just a reminder to both sides: We could find ourselves in a similar position on tax cuts in a few days, too.
Is there any real chance for GOP unity? What can I say? I’m a Jesse Jackson Republican: “Keep hope alive.”
My name is Michael Graham, and I’m an alcohol…wait — wrong intro.
I’m actually a recovering radio talk host, and I pretty much own the “stand-up-comedian-turned-GOP-political-consultant” niche of the conservative market. (Trust me: GOP consulting was much funnier.)
Like you, I’m a fan of what radio programmers call “the spoken-word format.” Or as my dad down in Columbia, SC puts it, “Michael won’t shut up.”
I love conversation. It’s my second-favorite form of entertainment (I’m a married man, so I only vaguely recall what my favorite is.) And I love podcasts because I can take them where I go and listen when I want. I don’t just listen to and enjoy Ricochet podcasts—I use them. To be entertained (GLoP) and to get smarter (not GLoP) on my schedule.
Thus, “Michael in the Morning.” It’s essentially a “morning drive” radio show that starts when your morning does. You get the top stories of today, newsmaker interviews on the must-know topics, celebrity guests, and the odd “Michael Graham” rant for which I am famous (and banned from several South Boston bars).
“Michael in the Morning” hits the feed around 7 a.m. eastern every weekday. So I hope that, when you get in the car or head out for your morning workout or get on the train, you’ll take me along. If you do, I guarantee:
You’ll get to work knowing all the big stories.
You’ll have facts about those stories your MSM-consuming co-workers won’t.
You’ll have a good time … even if it’s only from mocking the host.
Listeners are what make conservations work. Which is why my favorite part of talk radio was always … all the free food, booze, and swag. But my other fave was the instant feedback from callers, tweeters, and texts. I truly look forward to hearing from you about the show, the topics and most of all, how I can make this show more useful in your daily life.
Get smart. Have fun. Then get to work. That’s the “Michael in the Morning” podcast on Ricochet.com.
…is Judge Roy Moore winning.
Are Republicans doomed when it comes to Millennial voters? If so, then the GOP is doomed…period.
To say that I’m not a big fan of Sen. John McCain (R-NYTimes Editorial Board) would be an under-statement.
My name is Michael Graham, and I’m an alcohol…wait — wrong intro.