Kevin and Charlie discuss bad weather and celebrity politics.

Show Notes:

You can access the full archive of Mad Dogs and Englishmen at NationalReview.com/podcasts, where you can listen to four episodes per month for free, or get the entire back catalogue with an NR Plus membership. Visit NationalReview.com/subscribe for details.

Subscribe to Mad Dogs and Englishmen in iTunes (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 iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 8 comments.

  1. Coolidge

     What Charlie doesn’t get is that progressives are utilitarians.

    Whatever process gets them to their goal is the ethical process at that moment, because ethical rightness or wrongness resides in the ends, not the means. 

     Charlie criticizes their inconsistencies in Constitutional interpretation, but they are completely consistent about the only thing that matters to them, the result. 

    • #1
    • October 10, 2018 at 6:24 pm
    • 2 likes
  2. Thatcher

    Gentleman,

    I shall refrain from giving my in-depth dissertation on hurricanes being a long time Florida resident. However, I shall comment on English constitutional matters. The major principle that we see developed through English-British Law and carried over into the American Constitution is the principle of separation of powers to protect against the dangerous autocratic exercise of power.

    We start with Magna Carta, a document which forces the King autocrat to share power with his aristocracy. The King can’t drag the country into an economically disastrous foreign war without first gaining the consent of the aristocracy. Although this first move seems very minor to those used to a full constitution with enumerated rights, in reality, this practical measure addresses a specific issue that was consistently dragging feudal regimes into total control by irresponsible autocrats. The next step is where we begin to get a sense of constitutional right but is more centered around bringing another player to the table. The Petition of Right is again a practical measure to force the autocrat to yield some power to the legislative body. The King may not:

    1.) No person should be forced to provide a gift, loan or tax without an Act of Parliament.

    2.) No free individual should be imprisoned or detained unless a cause has been shown.

    3.) Soldiers or members of the Royal Navy should not be billeted in private houses without the free consent of the owner.

    4.) Restricting the use of martial law except in war or direct rebellion and prohibiting the formation of commissions. A state of war automatically activated martial law; as such, the only purpose for commissions, in their view, was to unjustly permit martial law in circumstances that did not require it.

    These completely basic restrictions of the autocrat’s power, severely limit the King’s ability to abuse his power. This also empowers the parliament to control state taxation and thus state finances. Number 2 is habeas corpus one of the most fundamental rights of citizens in a free society. One step at a time the absolute power of the autocrat is pulled away from him. Of course, the King resists and it ends in a civil war with Cromwell. Neither the King nor Cromwell survives but the Petition of Right stands to this day. When we think of these first steps we should not be rushing to compare them with an extremely advanced document like the US Constitution. Rather we should compare them with the behavior of modern illiberal regimes. If we do, we will realize that the lives of the citizens of these illiberal regimes would be greatly improved if they had the simple guarantees of the Petition of Right.

    It would also be prudent to remember that the ‘history of repeated injuries and usurpations’ that the colonists are referring to in the Declaration of Independence are exactly about the rights that they already possess in British Law. This is what gives their arguments such profound leverage. It is very much easier to start on the road to a constitutional government when you already have a foundation to work from.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #2
    • October 10, 2018 at 6:25 pm
    • 1 like
  3. Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    What Charlie doesn’t get is that progressives are utilitarians.

    Whatever process gets them to thieir goal is the ethical process at that moment, because ethical rightness or wrongness resides in the ends, not the means.

    Charlie criticizes their inconsistencies in Constitutional interpretation, but they are completely consistent about the only thing that matters to them, the result.

    I couldn’t agree more. This is why people who say that the ends justify the means is a conservative idea don’t know what they are talking about it. It is a “progressive” idea (and these leftists are not progressive at all; but that is another story). If you listen to them, on virtually anything, they have no principles at all; attaining power is their “principle”.

    • #3
    • October 11, 2018 at 8:56 am
    • Like
  4. Member

    There are also the folks that stay to help others.

    • #4
    • October 11, 2018 at 9:37 am
    • Like
  5. Coolidge

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    What Charlie doesn’t get is that progressives are utilitarians.

    Whatever process gets them to thieir goal is the ethical process at that moment, because ethical rightness or wrongness resides in the ends, not the means.

    Charlie criticizes their inconsistencies in Constitutional interpretation, but they are completely consistent about the only thing that matters to them, the result.

    I couldn’t agree more. This is why people who say that the ends justify the means is a conservative idea don’t know what they are talking about it. It is a “progressive” idea (and these leftists are not progressive at all; but that is another story). If you listen to them, on virtually anything, they have no principles at all; attaining power is their “principle”.

     The chilling part of this is that hard-core Never Trumpers, increasingly delusional, want the progressives to win.

     Even a relatively rational anti-Trumper like Jonah Goldberg blames the progressives’ unprincipled behavior on Trump; as if they would have politely accepted the nomination of Brett Kavanagh if he had been nominated by, say, Pres. Ted Cruz or Pres. Marco Rubio. 

    • #5
    • October 11, 2018 at 10:26 pm
    • Like
  6. Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    What Charlie doesn’t get is that progressives are utilitarians.

    Whatever process gets them to thieir goal is the ethical process at that moment, because ethical rightness or wrongness resides in the ends, not the means.

    Charlie criticizes their inconsistencies in Constitutional interpretation, but they are completely consistent about the only thing that matters to them, the result.

    I couldn’t agree more. This is why people who say that the ends justify the means is a conservative idea don’t know what they are talking about it. It is a “progressive” idea (and these leftists are not progressive at all; but that is another story). If you listen to them, on virtually anything, they have no principles at all; attaining power is their “principle”.

    The chilling part of this is that hard-core Never Trumpers, increasingly delusional, want the progressives to win.

    Even a relatively rational anti-Trumper like Jonah Goldberg blames the progressives’ unprincipled behavior on Trump; as if they would have politely accepted the nomination of Brett Kavanagh if he had been nominated by, say, Pres. Ted Cruz or Pres. Marco Rubio.

    Listen, I didn’t vote for either Hillary or Trump. While I was glad Trump won, I was never impressed with him, to say the least. Nor am I now. His policies are fine, most of them; but, for me, he is not fit for presidency. Because of that, I have been called a Never Trumper on this site, which greatly offended me. I never thought the term made sense, especially today. As with Jonah, I’ve always called myself a Trump Skeptic.

    I don’t care what the people who call themselves progressives think or say. Too many conservatives react to Trump because of them. It may be understandable but it is wrong. They will never accept anything a Republican does. This is True. They hate us. But that shouldn’t make us embrace Trump. He is a vile person, and does not do our cause any favors, with his bizarre antics.

    He is my president, and I have to accept him. But that does mean I have to like it, nor stop wishing he would resign.

    • #6
    • October 12, 2018 at 1:30 am
    • Like
  7. Member

    Did I miss the discussion of Brooks Brothers pajamas?

    • #7
    • October 12, 2018 at 8:10 am
    • 1 like
  8. Coolidge

    Kevin succinctly describes Robert Francis O’Rourke perfectly: an entitled d-bag.

    • #8
    • October 12, 2018 at 9:16 am
    • 1 like