Donald and Chuck and Nancy, Oh My

Jon Gabriel (@ExJon) and Stephen Miller (aka @RedSteeze) chat about the future Senator Kid Rock, media coverage of Hurricane Harvey, and the left’s rapid about-face on Antifa.

The intro song is “Ran” by Future Islands. Stephen’s song of the week is “Day I Die” by The National and Jon’s is “Green Eyes” by Hüsker Dü (RIP Grant Hart). To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our Spotify playlist.

Subscribe to King of Stuff 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.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

Dollar Shave Club

Zip Recruiter

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 20 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Umbrasjg Inactive

    I’m 40 minutes through the podcast, just getting to the Bernie stuff, but this episode is so full of WIN. Outstanding. I too am laughing at all the Trumpkins in the Mist trumpsplaining why dealing with Schumer/Pelosi is now conservative, sorry Trumpservative.

    Edit: finished it. Sanders stuff was also outstanding. Well done.

    • #1
    • September 15, 2017, at 4:37 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. Fred Houstan Member

    Miller; “Jesus took away my Beastie Boys.”

    This is an unnecessary mock of my faith.

    • #2
    • September 15, 2017, at 5:00 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. filmklassik Member

    A lot of intelligent points, as always, but the boys are wrong in their prediction that going all in on national healthcare is going to be a losing proposition for the Left. It won’t be. (Although I wish it was!)

    Ricochet’s own Jay Nordlinger made the observation last week that most Americans want big government. Liberals, Conservatives — they all want big government. And no, Donald Trump didn’t win because his supporters had a reflexive, Tea Party-like aversion to metastasizing government. He won because they had an aversion to identity politics.

    But most Americans don’t give a damn about rugged individualism. Few people do.

    The reason the great Conservative reformer Margaret Thatcher was able to make drastic changes to her own government but dared not touch the National Health Service was because she knew healthcare was the third rail. Her fellow Brits had by that time become habituated to it — much the way Canadians, Australians, and the denizens of Western Europe have all become habituated to it.

    And the U.S. is no different. Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public are happy to accept government largesse even when they know that it is only adding to a stratospheric national debt.

    Consider: The reason that GOP lawmakers didn’t do everything they could to repeal Obamacare is because they knew — waaayyy deep down — that their constituents didn’t want them to.

    • #3
    • September 15, 2017, at 8:54 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  4. Kim K. Member
    Kim K. Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I agree with a lot of what is said in concept, but man, oh man, gloating is best served in smaller portions.

    • #4
    • September 15, 2017, at 8:57 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. filmklassik Member

    Kim K. (View Comment):
    I agree with a lot of what is said in concept, but man, oh man, gloating is best served in smaller portions.

    Ha! I actually love the gloating. I can’t begin to express the magnitude of my contempt for people who would call themselves conservative and then reject everything conservatism stands for. Yep, Donald Trump was a big fat repudiation of conservatism — an upraised middle finger to Burke, Hayek, Buckley, Sowell, etc. And he has done more to tarnish the conservative brand than any individual of the last hundred years (Question: How many young people would consider embracing the precepts of Conservatism now? Answer: A vanishingly small minority).

    I’m gloating too.

    • #5
    • September 15, 2017, at 9:06 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  6. George Townsend Inactive

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    A lot of intelligent points, as always, but the boys are wrong in their prediction that going all in on national healthcare is going to be a losing proposition for the Left. It won’t be. (Although I wish it was!)

    Ricochet’s own Jay Nordlinger made the observation last week that most Americans want big government. Liberals, Conservatives — they all want big government. And no, Donald Trump didn’t win because his supporters had a reflexive, Tea Party-like aversion to metastasizing government. He won because they had an aversion to identity politics.

    But most Americans don’t give a damn about rugged individualism. Few people do.

    The reason the great Conservative reformer Margaret Thatcher was able to make drastic changes to her own government but dared not touch the National Health Service was because she knew healthcare was the third rail. Her fellow Brits had by that time become habituated to it — much the way Canadians, Australians, and the denizens of Western Europe have all become habituated to it.

    And the U.S. is no different. Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public are happy to accept government largesse even when they know that it is only adding to a stratospheric national debt.

    Consider: The reason that GOP lawmakers didn’t do everything they could to repeal Obamacare is because they knew — waaayyy deep down — that their constituents didn’t want them to.

    These are all fine points. All the more reason we must NEVER let Americans get addicted to Socialized Medicine. The way we can stop it is to keep calling it that. And then stop emphasizing the economic parts of it. While it is true that it is a fraud economically too, and will further bankrupt us, it won’t move anybody. The Health aspects of it should be emphasized: The fact of long lines that happen in countries that have it; the fact that, by doing away with the profit motive, it also discovers innovation, which is what makes our country’s healthcare the envy of the world. The right approach to these things, I believe, will enable people not to be so quick to embrace them.

    • #6
    • September 15, 2017, at 9:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Profile Photo Member

    Umbrasjg (View Comment):
    I’m 40 minutes through the podcast, just getting to the Bernie stuff, but this episode is so full of WIN. Outstanding. I too am laughing at all the Trumpkins in the Mist trumpsplaining why dealing with Schumer/Pelosi is now conservative, sorry Trumpservative.

    Edit: finished it. Sanders stuff was also outstanding. Well done.

    Dealing with Chuck Schumer is not conservative, as it wasn’t when Marco Rubio did so, but somehow his fanboys don’t hold it against him.

    • #7
    • September 15, 2017, at 9:57 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Fred Houstan Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    I’m gloating too.

    I say it’s too early to gloat. I would like to hear from the usual Always Trumpers on how wrong Stephen and Jon are.

    • #8
    • September 15, 2017, at 9:59 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  9. George Townsend Inactive

    Fred Houstan (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    I’m gloating too.

    I say it’s too early to gloat. I would like to hear from the usual Always Trumpers on how wrong Stephen and Jon are.

    You won’t, because Stephen and Jon are not wrong. Even Dennis Prager does not spend every day telling us how great Trump is, the way he used to spend his radio time.

    • #9
    • September 15, 2017, at 10:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Ralphie Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    And the U.S. is no different. Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public are happy to accept government largesse even when they know that it is only adding to a stratospheric national debt.

    I agree. There are a lot of conservative talking people that live liberal lives and I am related to a lot of them. They complain about others, but not what they get. Scalia talked about the normalization of government charity, in that even conservatives don’t recognize it. “I’ve paid into SS and I demand to get what I paid” people hardly stop to do the math.

    The most difficult thing in the world is to live by a creed that costs you something.

    • #10
    • September 15, 2017, at 10:17 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. Umbrasjg Inactive

    BD1 (View Comment):

    Umbrasjg (View Comment):
    I’m 40 minutes through the podcast, just getting to the Bernie stuff, but this episode is so full of WIN. Outstanding. I too am laughing at all the Trumpkins in the Mist trumpsplaining why dealing with Schumer/Pelosi is now conservative, sorry Trumpservative.

    Edit: finished it. Sanders stuff was also outstanding. Well done.

    Dealing with Chuck Schumer is not conservative, as it wasn’t when Marco Rubio did so, but somehow his fanboys don’t hold it against him.

    Bet you the Rubio deal with Schumer from 2013 will be way better than the Trump deal upcoming…..

    • #11
    • September 15, 2017, at 11:23 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. filmklassik Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    We must NEVER let Americans get addicted to Socialized Medicine. The way we can stop it is to keep calling it that. And then stop emphasizing the economic parts of it. While it is true that it is a fraud economically too, and will further bankrupt us, it won’t move anybody. The Health aspects of it should be emphasized: The fact of long lines that happen in countries that have it; the fact that, by doing away with the profit motive, it also discovers innovation, which is what makes our country’s healthcare the envy of the world. The right approach to these things, I believe, will enable people not to be so quick to embrace them.

    Emphasize the health aspects? I don’t know. I like the theory of what you’re saying, but it seems to me it’d be an easy thing for the Left to counter. All they’d have to do is say, “If socialized medicine is so bad, why is it so popular? If it’s so bad, why are all the people who have it, fighting so hard to keep it?”

    And then we’d be standing there sputtering, “Because- because- the people become DEPENDENT on it! It’s like HEROIN! So people end up loving it, but it’s still BAD!”

    And that may be an accurate statement, but it doesn’t sound very persuasive. “Sure, the people who have it, love it, but dammit, it’s still unhealthy” is way too abstract an argument for the average person to heed.

    See, the whole problem with socialism is that it is insidious and soul destroying, but also very seductive.

    • #12
    • September 15, 2017, at 1:35 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. filmklassik Member

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    The most difficult thing in the world is to live by a creed that costs you something.

    God, that is so true! Well said! Wonder what percentage of people are up to the challenge where gov’t benefits are concerned?

    I bet it’s less than 20.

    Maybe far less.

    • #13
    • September 15, 2017, at 1:39 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. George Townsend Inactive

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    We must NEVER let Americans get addicted to Socialized Medicine. The way we can stop it is to keep calling it that. And then stop emphasizing the economic parts of it. While it is true that it is a fraud economically too, and will further bankrupt us, it won’t move anybody. The Health aspects of it should be emphasized: The fact of long lines that happen in countries that have it; the fact that, by doing away with the profit motive, it also discovers innovation, which is what makes our country’s healthcare the envy of the world. The right approach to these things, I believe, will enable people not to be so quick to embrace them.

    Emphasize the health aspects? I don’t know. I like the theory of what you’re saying, but it seems to me it’d be an easy thing for the Left to counter. All they have to do is say, “If socialized medicine is so bad, why is it so popular? If it’s so bad, why are all the people who have it, fighting so hard to keep it?”

    And then we’d be standing there sputtering, “Because- because- because- the people become DEPENDENT on it! It’s like HEROIN! So people end up loving it, but it’s still BAD!”

    And that may be an accurate argument, but it doesn’t sound very persuasive. “Sure, the people who have it, love it, but dammit, it’s still unhealthy” is way too abstract an argument for the average person.

    See, the whole problem with socialism is that it is insidious and soul destroying, but very very seductive.

    I just don’t understand why you wanna give up! You like my theory but you don’t even wanna try it??! The answer to what you say is a counter argument is this: “The people who like it don’t get really sick. They probably go to the doctor as regularly as they can, and they don’t get sick. But they will one day, and will have to wait on long lines. Then it will be too late.” But you’ll probably have an argument against this too. I don’t get this. Do you want the country to go down the drain? I don’t. We have to fight. I am sorry that you seem to want to give up.

    • #14
    • September 15, 2017, at 1:47 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. filmklassik Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    I just don’t understand why you wanna give up! You like my theory but you don’t even wanna try it??! The answer to what you say is a counter argument is this: “The people who like it don’t get really sick. They probably go to the doctor as regularly as they can, and they don’t get sick. But they will one day, and will have to wait on long lines. Then it will be too late.” But you’ll probably have an argument against this too. I don’t get this. Do you want the country to go down the drain? I don’t. We have to fight. I am sorry that you seem to want to give up.

    My friend, come up with an argument that would persuade the average low-information voter (which is 80% of the electorate) and I will climb on board faster than a refugee fleeing a police state. But come on, saying: “They probably go to the doctor as regularly as they can, and they don’t get sick, but they will one day, and will have to wait on long lines” — who’s that going to convince? What chance does an abstract argument like that have against “It’s FREE!! And countries that have it, love it, and make fun of us for NOT having it, and it’s FREE!!!”

    Of course, you and I both know that nothing is ever “free,” but I am talking now about the type of argument we’d be up against.

    And I don’t know what the solution is. I wish I did. What I do know is, Edmund Burke famously said, “Experience is the school of Mankind and it can learn at no other” — and I’m afraid he’s right. And nothing I have seen in my 51 years of life has convinced me otherwise.

    • #15
    • September 15, 2017, at 2:09 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. George Townsend Inactive

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    I just don’t understand why you wanna give up! You like my theory but you don’t even wanna try it??! The answer to what you say is a counter argument is this: “The people who like it don’t get really sick. They probably go to the doctor as regularly as they can, and they don’t get sick. But they will one day, and will have to wait on long lines. Then it will be too late.” But you’ll probably have an argument against this too. I don’t get this. Do you want the country to go down the drain? I don’t. We have to fight. I am sorry that you seem to want to give up.

    My friend, come up with an argument that would persuade the average low-information voter (which is 80% of the electorate) and I will climb on board faster than a refugee fleeing a police state. But come on, saying: “They probably go to the doctor as regularly as they can, and they don’t get sick, but they will one day, and will have to wait on long lines” — who’s that going to convince? What chance does an abstract argument like that have against “It’s FREE!! And countries that have it, love it, and make fun of us for NOT having it, and it’s FREE!!!”

    Of course, you and I both know that nothing is ever “free,” but I am talking now about the type of argument we’d be up against.

    And I don’t know what the solution is. I wish I did. What I do know is, Edmund Burke famously said, “Experience is the school of Mankind and it can learn at no other” — and I’m afraid he’s right. And nothing I have seen in my 51 years of life has convinced me otherwise.

    I am not arguing with anything you have to say. Of course government programs are a narcotic, which people don’t want to give up. The whole point is not to get them hooked to begin with. You say you don’t have an answer but you put up arguments against those of us who at least are willing to try to search for an answer. You seem like an excellent person, with the correct diagnoses, but your unwillingness to come up with a try at a treatment leaves me cold.

    • #16
    • September 15, 2017, at 2:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. filmklassik Member

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    George Townsend

    Of course government programs are a narcotic, which people don’t want to give up. The whole point is not to get them hooked to begin with. You say you don’t have an answer but you put up arguments against those of us who at least are willing to try to search for an answer. You seem like an excellent person, with the correct diagnoses, but your unwillingness to come up with a try at a treatment leaves me cold.

    I get that a lot. Many of my friends get impatient with me because I get impatient with their arguments.

    My IQ is actually around average – – maybe slightly, and only slightly — above average. What I do have is a lot of emotional intelligence. I tend to know which arguments are going to “play” with other people and which ones aren’t. It’s something I’ve always had. And I’m frankly astonished at how many otherwise intelligent people (most of them much smarter than I am) seem to lack this capacity.

    When it comes to politics, people aren’t moved by abstractions. In other words, ideas don’t persuade people — events do. There are many remarkable examples of this throughout history. Here’s one: America was an isolationist country prior to 1941. People were making great arguments for why we ought to get involved in WWII — and they all fell on deaf ears. Nobody wanted to hear it.

    …Then Pearl Harbor happened (America was attacked!! Thousands of young Americans lie dead!) and literally overnight, everyone was burning to beat the hell out of Germany and Japan.

    Literally overnight.

    But we had to get attacked first.

    So if you want to make an unimpeachable argument against socialized medicine, you have to show people how insidious it is. They have to see it for themselves. And I don’t know how to do that. Showing them pictures of squalid hospitals in Venezuela and Cuba isn’t going to work, because the opposition will just point to hospitals in Canada and Europe.

    • #17
    • September 15, 2017, at 3:03 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. George Townsend Inactive

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    So if you want to make an unimpeachable argument against socialized medicine, you have to show people how insidious it is. They have to see it for themselves. And I don’t know how to do that. Showing them pictures of squalid hospitals in Venezuela and Cuba isn’t going to work, because the opposition will just point to hospitals in Canada and Europe.

    You are probably right. So you deduce that we should do nothing. Let the medical system crash and burn around us, and maybe then people will realize what has happened. Meanwhile, people will have died to prove your point that nothing could have been done to save them. All this while you congratulate yourself on seeing what people will say. Many of us can anticipate like that.

    George Washington probably foresaw that his cause was hopeless, and wanted to say to his scraggly bunch: “Okay, boys, we might as well go home. We are up against the greatest military the world hasever seen. And you boys are staving. Let’s go home.” Only he didn’t. Thank the Lord you weren’t around then to call the retreat!

    I am leaving now, because this circular argument makes no sense. “I give up” is what you keep saying. Well, I won’t. Good night!

    • #18
    • September 15, 2017, at 5:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. KarenZiminski Coolidge

    Stephen, I live in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney was a not very good governor. When Romneycare became law, I lost my plan, I lost my doctor, premiums went up by ridiculous amounts. So in 2012 the Republicans couldn’t come up with a better candidate than Romney for president. Stephen, you are one of the few people on the right who sees Romney for what he is…not a conservative, not a libertarian, and not deserving of his high clout/substance ratio.

    • #19
    • September 17, 2017, at 6:31 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. Arahant Member

    As some others have said, the gloating was not pretty. Plus, you are still fighting the last war. The 2016 election is over and done with. Yes, we were right. Like Jon, by the time the primary came to my state, it was between Cruz and Trump. I voted for the conservative. When the general election came, I voted for the moderate, unprincipled Democrat schmoozer over the full-on leftist hack. The election wasn’t pretty, and I would have voted for Billy-Bob Satan to keep Hillary out of the office. I was also in a purple state where I didn’t feel I could take the chance of a principled stand and yell, “A pox on both your houses!” Still, I was never under any illusions on who Trump was.

    So, now we’re at a crossroads. Trump is doing the things that we knew he would do. (Some of us are pleasantly surprised we got Gorsuch rather than his sister on the Court. Having low expectations often leads to pleasant surprises. I know I’m happy it has taken so long for him to tag team with the Democrats.) We have a choice. We can back the early Trump fans into a corner and yell, “See! See! We were right, you ignorant, ignoble, blind fools,” all while waving two fingers at them using both hands. The result of that will not be contrition on their parts. It will be defiance. The best outcome is that the Republican Party will split.

    Or, we can be much more conciliatory. We might deliver a sly, “Well, who would have ever predicted that?” here and there. But leave them room to come back and say, “You did.” Leave them room to come to their own conclusions without rubbing noses in the mess. Leave them room to save face.

    I know you have neither love nor respect for these people, and especially in Jon’s case, you have good reason for it. But we do not build and keep a majority party by driving people out of the party wholesale. We need more grace in defeat and magnanimity in victory. We need to teach, rather than beating them over the head with past mistakes. We need to forgive the past, including 2016 and all that went with it, and look to the future.

    Now that the predictions have come true, what do we do? How do we mitigate the fact we have a moderate and unprincipled Democrat schmoozer as our President?

    • #20
    • September 21, 2017, at 3:34 AM PDT
    • Like