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.
There is a lot to comment on, Michael, with this morning’s Podcast. Let me restrict to the areas Rich commented on…
While I hardly ever disagree with the astute Mr. Lowry, I think he was wrong about Nationalism and Populism. We should reject them out of hand. I would not say this if most people were as nuanced as Lowry, and the folk at the National Review. But they are not. Certainly not Steve Bannan. To me, he is the 2017 equivalent of Abby Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, of the 60s: He just wants to burn things down. His answer to not trusting anyone over 30 is not to trust anyone belonging to the establishment – whatever that is, in his adolescent mind! In his hands, Populism and Nationalism would quickly become the Provence of the Alt-Right.
I do agree with his – and yours – take on the events of the past week, concerning Gold Star Families. Neither side covered themselves with Glory. But the press did start it. I am not a Donald Trump supporter. But he is our President. And too many in the press are out to destroy him.
As far as you are concerned: While you are too Trumpian for me, you always do an interesting and thoughtful show. So, thanks!
Interesting. Why does “the Trump audience” need to be addressed or respond as some sort of separate entity, why can’t they just listen to Bush’s speech as Americans? Sounds pretty snowflakey. Similarly, as Jim Geraghty pointed out on a different Ricochet podcast, if Trump and his fan base have successfully disavowed white nationalism, then why get so defensive?
I think because “nationalism” and “white nationalism” aren’t the same thing. There is a nationalist/populist/America First attitude among many voters that’s not about ethnicity. These voters aren’t going to go away. They were turned into a voting bloc by the refusal of either party to address their concerns/desires. Smart customer service = finding a way to address them while achieving your broader goals.
Michael, I would really appreciate if you would speak to my point. saying that this attitude and white nationalism are not the same thing, and then leaving at that is not good enough. I said that there is a matter of nuance here. But, because there are millions of voters who subscribe to populism/nationalism, and that it isn’t going away is not answering the why of this. With all do respect, you seem to be saying that we should heed this cry for populism because, if we don’t, we will lose votes. I am not convinced. This is not what statesmen do. They tell us why we should do this or that. When they don’t do that, we are in danger of following a path that is ladened with disaster.
George,
Nationalism is great. We look to our own interests first – we don’t submit to a global test (in John Kerry’s phrase) or take actions that return no benefit upon the USA. It’s fundamentally based on patriotism, which is anathema to the Left nowadays, despite a long tradition of patriotic Democrats. In the US, nationalism is not inherently ethnic, as we are tied to our founding documents and traditions.
With regards to your theory of statesmen, where does the influence of the people of the United States come into play? After all, they are the sovereign in the US.
Omega,
I disagree with both of these.
First of all, Nationalism can be great. This is why, going back to my fist comment, I always have stressed the nuances that Rich Lowry, and the folk at National Review, bring to the table. They had a debate about it. It certainly should not be inherently ethnic, as you point out, but the way Steve Bannon and that crowd use it, it is. People like Richard Spencer are even worse. They think that we are special because of the whiteness of America’s founders. Spencer certainly believes that. You and I have no argument, as far as I can see. It are these folk, on the hard right, who have usurped the word. Why don’t we just use the word “Patriotism”? I don’t know if you are for free trade or not. I certainly am. And history backs me up. It is how everyone becomes richer. Nationalism implies, to many of us anyway, that we go it alone. And in 2017 that is just impossible.
As far as my “theory” of statesmanship goes, why should you have a problem with that? All I wrote was that statesman explain policies to the people. They just don’t go along with what is popular. A King used to be popular until our Founding Fathers showed us a better way. Slavery used to be popular until Lincoln proved that owning people was evil. You like our founding documents and our traditions. So do I. They are based on true republicanism not populism.