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.
Bill shares his thoughts on the Roy Moore situation and how Republicans should handle it. Next, Bill welcomes Steve Wynn back to the show to discuss the Democrats’ wins in last week’s elections as well as the president’s important trip to Asia. Then, Bill talks with John Hinderaker about the Roy Moore predicament and whether or not Attorney General Jeff Sessions should appoint more special prosecutors to go after Democrat scandals. Finally, Bill interviews Joel Farkas of the American Strategy Group about the “experts” who predicted that Pres. Trump would ruin the country and the economy and why none of that is coming true.
Subscribe to Bill Bennett Show in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Published in: Domestic Policy, Politics
DonorsTrust
DonorsTrust is the community foundation for the liberty movement. Any donor-advised fund will simplify your giving and offer great tax benefits. Only DonorsTrust shares your principles. Visit donorstrust.org/ricochet to get your free prospectus.
I hate to say this, because I have always been a big fan of William Bennett. But, as with Dennis Prager, who I also used to admire, Bill has become a big disappointment, seeming to care more about politics than what is right. Of course you judge a man in his totality. You also judge him according to his ability to show some humility. Is he able to apologize for any mistakes he may have made? This is what is missing in the Roy Moore story. He is so busy saying that people are out to get him, he doesn’t seem to think it necessary to call a press conference, at which he could say something like the following: “I have made many mistakes in my life. When I was in my thirties I did things that were inexcusable. Especially because the voters had placed me in a position of trust. And I abused that trust. For that I offer my heartfelt apologies to the people of Alabama. And, after I beseech God for His forgiveness, I humbly ask many fellow Alabamians for theirs.” If he had said that, I don’t think there’d be much of a problem. In the absence of that kind of contrition, I simply do not understand Bill’s position.
Yes, this. This times 10. I really am so disappointed with Bill, because he still seems to be trying to have it both ways: saying character matters and politics too, and somehow his compromise is not really a compromise. His humble-sounding “I just don’t know” is really a weak-willed way of simply choosing not to face the fact that he is trading off one principle for the other. If he wants to say “keeping a Senate seat in conservative hands is more important than character,” then fine. But he seems to think he can say “character matters,” and then that doesn’t make the trade-off really a trade-off as long as those words are said.
He cites Moore’s apparent “good character” in the last 40 years, which I guess we can define as “he hasn’t been aggressively targeting teenage girls after he was in his 30’s.” Is that good character? That is an extremely low standard, one that pretty much every other human being is meeting at the moment. What Bill really means is “40 years of supporting the right causes,” which, let’s be honest, is really what he cares the most about. I just wish he would admit it. Also, Moore is strenuously denying any wrong-doing, something they keep failing to mention. Do we say “well, no one is perfect, and people can change” when the person is insisting that they have nothing to apologize for?
Also galling is his dismissive “yes, I wrote the Book of Virtues, but….” I was a teenager in the 90’s, and The Book of Virtues was on our family bookshelf, and I read it with interest. It was the first time I had ever heard of Bill Bennett, in fact. Hearing what he has said starting in 2016 about virtues has been depressing. His favorite line is “I wrote the Book of Virtues out of a sense of need,” as in “I wrote it realizing that we are all sinful people who need virtues. not because we already have them.” But if that is true, then applying these standards evenly and uncompromisingly is even more important, not less, especially in that it should make us demand contrition and apology from those we support. He seems to believe this then allows us to detach ourselves from having to ever insist that anyone we support ever practices them.
And finally, there is the obvious fact that if the shoe were on the other foot, and if all these politicians were liberal Democrats, I simply can’t picture Bill talking like this. The fact is, standards of character are applied subjectively depending on whether or not we support the politics of the person we are judging. Period. In other words, character doesn’t really matter that much.
One thing I didn’t say but need to: Bill’s guest kept saying it was 40 years ago, and then laughing about it. Well, the Nazis were over 70 years ago. Should we forgive them, because of the time? Now, I hasten to say that I am not comparing Ray Moore to a Nazi. I think that thinking people understand that. What I am saying is that, if we use this guy Hinderocker’s yardstick, we would forgive the Nazis also.
Well, to be fair to them, their point is that the same person who did something bad 40 years ago hasn’t apparently done it again in the 40 years since, so that’s evidence that he changed, if it’s true. Your Nazi analogy isn’t quite the same, since the same Nazis aren’t around 70 years later. They aren’t just saying something 40 years ago isn’t bad, because it was so long ago.
But it’s still a very weak argument, because Moore hasn’t admitted or apologized to anything, so this isn’t a “people can change over time” situation. And he has admitted to things very close to it (dating teenage girls with the permission of their parents) which tell me these allegations are probably true.
I guess it is easy to miss what I meant, Icarus. I did mean the same Nazis who were around. It is my fault; I went back too far, and did not say precisely what I meant. I was thinking of those Nazis who fled to Argentina, for example. We would not say of them that, because they may have led a clean like, that they should not pay for those crimes they committed.
As you say, we do want to be fair. But, to me, Hinderoker seemed to be saying that time diminishes evil. Perhaps he didn’t mean it. But his laughter left that impression with me. And I didn’t think the implication should go unchallenged.
There was a guest who said Red China and the US are equivalent because both have done bad things in the past. This reminds me of the Trump interview where he said thing about Russia and the US. Is this what now passes for “conservative” analysis?
I guess this is what conservatism has come to in some circles. I wrote a piece for Ricochet, in which, among other things, I mentioned that interview, where it was called to Trump’s attention that Putin was a murderer. Trump’s reply was that we kill people too. And I said that really bothered me. I got two responses to that part of the essay: One said that, yes, we kill people too, and it is a good thing. Another backed up Trump’s assertion by citing Ruby Ridge and Waco – not even bothering to point out the strong differences.
I really weep for my country, Fred, when these kinds of things pass for analysis!