It’s the eternal cry of children, but does it apply to international trade? Scott Lincicome joins to explain why not. Jay and Mona then consider the Trump/Kim summit, the nationalists vs. globalists theme that’s making the rounds, and the pace of news in the Trump era.

Subscribe to Need to Know 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.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 22 comments.

  1. Member

    I will confine myself to commenting on just one thing from this excellent Podcast:

    I can now fully agree with my friend Henry about Jay’s generalizing: He does it too often. We Republican voters did not want Trump in the primaries. Many did, of course. But that is no excuse for implying that most did. The problem lay in the egos of the other 16 candidates. Unlike Scott Walker, who got out fairly early, and urged others to, most would not, until it was too late. In such a crowded field, it became hard for many people to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    I find that ego is a big problem nowadays, and until people learn to put the well-being of the country ahead of their own need to be in the spotlight, the more people who fancy themselves to be some sort of rescuers, like Donald Trump, are going to emerge.

    • #1
    • March 10, 2018 at 6:43 am
    • 3 likes
  2. Coolidge

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    The problem lay in the egos of the other 16 candidates. Unlike Scott Walker, who got out fairly early, and urged others to, most would not, until it was too late. In such a crowded field, it became hard for many people to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Indeed. They all thought they’d be the last man standing against Trump and they were too busy attacking each other and not seeing Trump as the real threat until it was much too late. But I must admit that I find it baffling that anyone thought that Trump was the best out of the 17 for any reason. I don’t think that even Trump himself believed that.

    • #2
    • March 10, 2018 at 7:37 am
    • 1 like
  3. Inactive

    Yes, I agree that it’s good to take a step back and, as Jay Nordlinger highlighted, recall how Trump was originally chosen by Republican primary voters and then won the electoral college.

    Mona Charen’s observation near the end was also poignant that our side has changed more in recent years than the left. And that our side is forgetting about the values and virtues it used to uphold. Abandoning free trade is the latest example of this altered state of things on the right.

    • #3
    • March 10, 2018 at 2:45 pm
    • 1 like
  4. Member

    WildernessYears (View Comment):
    Yes, I agree that it’s good to take a step back and, as Jay Nordlinger highlighted, recall how Trump was originally chosen by Republican primary voters and then won the electoral college.

    Mona Charen’s observation near the end was also poignant that our side has changed more in recent years than the left. And that our side is forgetting about the values and virtues it used to uphold. Abandoning free trade is the latest example of this altered state of things on the right.

    While I agree with this mostly, it is a fact, as I stated, that, considering there were 16 other people involved in the primaries, Trump was chosen by a minority of Republican Voters. Jay should have pointed that out. There are those of us who haven’t changed. We still believe in the virtues and standards that characterize the Republican Party, and we lament the changes that seem to have taken place.

    • #4
    • March 10, 2018 at 2:53 pm
    • Like
  5. Coolidge

    Mao Zedong remarked that a communist guerrilla is like a fish swimming in a sea of peasants and thus cannot be vanquished. An Islamic jihadist swimming in a sea of Rohingya peasants might seem similarly invulnerable. Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi and her generals have cut through this Gordian knot by drying out this sea. The clarity and simplicity of such brutal military action is impallitable to the Occidental mindset but is very popular among the Buddhist majority who have suffered far to long the depredations of these Islamic savages. Forget it Jay (and Mona), it’s Chinatown!

    • #5
    • March 10, 2018 at 2:58 pm
    • Like
  6. Inactive

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    While I agree with this mostly, it is a fact, as I stated, that, considering there were 16 other people involved in the primaries, Trump was chosen by a minority of Republican Voters. Jay should have pointed that out. There are those of us who haven’t changed. We still believe in the virtues and standards that characterize the Republican Party, and we lament the changes that seem to have taken place.

    I see where you are coming from regarding the heavy competition as the Republican primary unfolded. What would your estimation be today in terms of what percentage of Republicans agree with our position of lamenting theses recent changes?

    • #6
    • March 10, 2018 at 5:47 pm
    • 1 like
  7. Member

    So Mona and Jay contend that the Right has changed more radically than the Left has in recent years. But has it though?

    In this corner, in the red trunks, validating Mona and Jay’s contention, is the Right’s embrace of Trump-style big government/closed-minded, thick-headed populism.

    And in this corner, in the blue trunks, in direct contravention to Mona and Jay’s thesis, is the Left’s all-in embrace of identity politics, the repeal of “Dont ask don’t tell,” the legalization of gay marriage (unthinkable even 15 years ago), the successful passage of nationalized health care (which the Dems had been attempting to pass for 3/4 of a century), and a general repudiation of the type of center-left governance that characterized Bill Clinton’s presidency (witness his wife’s shameless decision to throw Bill’s crime bill under the bus during her campaign).

    Not to mention an avowed socialist coming within a hair’s-breadth of securing the Democratic nomination for President (also unthinkable just a few years ago).

    So. Which side’s change has been more dramatic? Very hard to say.

    • #7
    • March 10, 2018 at 9:54 pm
    • 3 likes
  8. Member

    WildernessYears (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    While I agree with this mostly, it is a fact, as I stated, that, considering there were 16 other people involved in the primaries, Trump was chosen by a minority of Republican Voters. Jay should have pointed that out. There are those of us who haven’t changed. We still believe in the virtues and standards that characterize the Republican Party, and we lament the changes that seem to have taken place.

    I see where you are coming from regarding the heavy competition as the Republican primary unfolded. What would your estimation be today in terms of what percentage of Republicans agree with our position of lamenting theses recent changes?

    That’s a really good, thoughtful question, one I hadn’t thought of. I would hope a lot. I think maybe a third to a half. See, I have no family, so I have time to think about these things. A lot don’t, I’d say.

    • #8
    • March 11, 2018 at 1:07 am
    • Like
  9. Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    So Mona and Jay contend that the Right has changed more radically than the Left has in recent years. But has it though?

    In this corner, in the red trunks, validating Mona and Jay’s contention, is the Right’s embrace of Trump-style big government/closed-minded, thick-headed populism.

    And in this corner, in the blue trunks, in direct contravention to Mona and Jay’s thesis, is the Left’s all-in embrace of identity politics, the repeal of “Dont ask don’t tell,” the legalization of gay marriage (unthinkable even 15 years ago), the successful passage of nationalized health care (which the Dems had been attempting to pass for 3/4 of a century), and a general repudiation of the type of center-left governance that characterized Bill Clinton’s presidency (witness his wife’s shameless decision to throw Bill’s crime bill under the bus during her campaign).

    Not to mention an avowed socialist coming within a hair’s-breadth of securing the Democratic nomination for President (also unthinkable just a few years ago).

    So. Which side’s change has been more dramatic? Very hard to say.

    Also, an interesting question. I would say the Left has been drifting the Sander’s way for years. Whereas, I would contend, the Right’s embrace of Populism (which is a radical departure from all that this country has stood for – despite some Ricoochett’s protestations to the contrary) is quite new.

    • #9
    • March 11, 2018 at 1:14 am
    • 1 like
  10. Member

    Although they reflect my views on tariffs, I can’t get too worked up over this at the moment. I am willing to wait and see how he leverages them into a negotiating advantage.

    I was pleased with the choice of Danzon #2 for ending bumper music. We are working on it in my community band. When we sight-read it, many of us were in a state of shock trying to catch up with the rhythms. Two more rehearsals and I am starting to get comfortable. Danzon#2 is addictive. After it ended on the podcast, I had to look it up on YouTube and played it a few more times while I cleaned up the dishes. Who picked it? Jay, Mona, Blue Yeti?

    • #10
    • March 11, 2018 at 7:18 am
    • Like
  11. Contributor

    So glad you liked it. My son’s orchestra played it in high school! It can give you a real brain worm, especially if you’re playing it.

    • #11
    • March 11, 2018 at 7:52 pm
    • 3 likes
  12. Coolidge

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    So Mona and Jay contend that the Right has changed more radically than the Left has in recent years. But has it though?

    In this corner, in the red trunks, validating Mona and Jay’s contention, is the Right’s embrace of Trump-style big government/closed-minded, thick-headed populism.

    And in this corner, in the blue trunks, in direct contravention to Mona and Jay’s thesis, is the Left’s all-in embrace of identity politics, the repeal of “Dont ask don’t tell,” the legalization of gay marriage (unthinkable even 15 years ago), the successful passage of nationalized health care (which the Dems had been attempting to pass for 3/4 of a century), and a general repudiation of the type of center-left governance that characterized Bill Clinton’s presidency (witness his wife’s shameless decision to throw Bill’s crime bill under the bus during her campaign).

    Not to mention an avowed socialist coming within a hair’s-breadth of securing the Democratic nomination for President (also unthinkable just a few years ago).

    So. Which side’s change has been more dramatic? Very hard to say.

    Also, an interesting question. I would say the Left has been drifting the Sander’s way for years. Whereas, I would contend, the Right’s embrace of Populism (which is a radical departure from all that this country has stood for – despite some Ricoochett’s protestations to the contrary) is quite new.

    Trump’s success shows us that the Republican Party is coming to be the heir to both the old Republican Party and the old Democratic Party. Trump is a moderate Democrat of the old style. That we get any conservative policies from him, we should be grateful. As Andrew Klavan says, when Trump won the nomination, we (i.e. conservatives) already lost.

    This explains why wise conservatives are supporting Trump, because he is the only game in town. It’s not because most conservatives have suddenly gone mad, which seems to be Mona and Jay’s preferred explanation. I guess they find it ego-gratifying to imagine themselves as as the “remnant of the remnant”, the only people who are right when everyone is wrong.

    The new Democratic Party is, of course, the heir to the old Socialist parties and Communist Party. For generations, conservatives have complained about the rising tide of leftist indoctrination in the universities, then the teachers colleges, then the public schools — but they never, ever did anything about it. Well, guess what: that indoctrination is finally bearing fruit.

    You say there is not enough support for free trade? Well, where would anybody learn about the benefits of free trade? Certainly not in school.

    P.S.: On Michelle Pfeiffer, three words: Into the Night.

    • #12
    • March 11, 2018 at 10:13 pm
    • 2 likes
  13. Inactive

    Taras (View Comment):
    You say there is not enough support for free trade? Well, where would anybody learn about the benefits of free trade? Certainly not in school.

    What does free trade mean anyway? I would assume it involves free movement of both goods and labor. But that obviously won’t ever happen in a pure form, nor should it. So some lines of restriction will be drawn but where? Does it mean believing that unfair trading practices on the part of our trading partners are so inconsequential to us, perhaps even beneficial, that such practices should be ignored? Does free trade mean favoring consumers over producers?

    • #13
    • March 12, 2018 at 5:15 am
    • 1 like
  14. Inactive

    On tariffs, we already have several. Some at Republican hands. So 1) they aren’t definitive disqualifiers from a broader free trade approach nor have they resulted in some unstoppable feedback loop of price increases , 2) they aren’t suddenly any worse simply because they are from Trump.

    • #14
    • March 12, 2018 at 5:20 am
    • 2 likes
  15. Member

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    On tariffs, we already have several. Some at Republican hands. So 1) they aren’t definitive disqualifiers from a broader free trade approach nor have they resulted in some unstoppable feedback loop of price increases , 2) they aren’t suddenly any worse simply because they are from Trump.

    You are certainly entitled to hate free trade, and to define it the way you do. But the history of free trade shows that it works, and that has benefited all people, in the end. It really has nothing to do with one’s views on Donald Trump. It has to do with a principle.

    • #15
    • March 12, 2018 at 6:01 am
    • Like
  16. Inactive

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    On tariffs, we already have several. Some at Republican hands. So 1) they aren’t definitive disqualifiers from a broader free trade approach nor have they resulted in some unstoppable feedback loop of price increases , 2) they aren’t suddenly any worse simply because they are from Trump.

    You are certainly entitled to hate free trade, and to define it the way you do. But the history of free trade shows that it works, and that has benefited all people, in the end. It really has nothing to do with one’s views on Donald Trump. It has to do with a principle.

    Oh George just stop. I don’t hate free trade. Also, I don’t recall offering a definition; I specifically asked what it means.

    • #16
    • March 12, 2018 at 6:42 am
    • Like
  17. Member

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    On tariffs, we already have several. Some at Republican hands. So 1) they aren’t definitive disqualifiers from a broader free trade approach nor have they resulted in some unstoppable feedback loop of price increases , 2) they aren’t suddenly any worse simply because they are from Trump.

    You are certainly entitled to hate free trade, and to define it the way you do. But the history of free trade shows that it works, and that has benefited all people, in the end. It really has nothing to do with one’s views on Donald Trump. It has to do with a principle.

    Oh George just stop. I don’t hate free trade. Also, I don’t recall offering a definition; I specifically asked what it means.

    As I recall, you said that we already have tariffs, with saying what they were. You also implied that we were upset because it was Donald Trump imposing them. I would be upset at anyone imposing them. I think the carrying on is just the reverse of what you alleged: Trump can get away with things that, were a Democrat doing them, there would be howls of protest from what use to be my side.

    By the way, I do go along with one thing: When a government subsidizes products, you can hardly call it free trade. But we can’t help what other countries do. I think that is harming their people. I do not want our government harming us, in order to retaliate.

    • #17
    • March 12, 2018 at 7:41 am
    • Like
  18. Coolidge

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    On tariffs, we already have several. Some at Republican hands. So 1) they aren’t definitive disqualifiers from a broader free trade approach nor have they resulted in some unstoppable feedback loop of price increases , 2) they aren’t suddenly any worse simply because they are from Trump.

    You are certainly entitled to hate free trade, and to define it the way you do. But the history of free trade shows that it works, and that has benefited all people, in the end. It really has nothing to do with one’s views on Donald Trump. It has to do with a principle.

    Oh George just stop. I don’t hate free trade. Also, I don’t recall offering a definition; I specifically asked what it means.

    When economists talk about free trade benefiting “everyone“, I think they really mean something like the following hypothetical scenario.

    Over a certain period, Massachusetts benefits from free trade — that is, the absence of international trade barriers — to the tune of $100 million. In the meantime, Michigan’s income is reduced by $20 million. Massachusetts is then in the position to be able to hand over, say, half of its $100 million gain to Michigan, leaving them both in the black: Massachusetts up $50 million, and Michigan up $30 million.

    Without that transfer from the winners to the losers, of course, then you can’t really say that everyone is better off from free trade, even if the vast majority of people is.

    It’s very similar to what happens when Walmart comes into a community: the vast majority is benefited by lower prices, more choices, and greater convenience, but a few shop owners that compete too directly with Walmart will have to change or go under.

    • #18
    • March 12, 2018 at 7:50 am
    • 2 likes
  19. Inactive

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    On tariffs, we already have several. Some at Republican hands. So 1) they aren’t definitive disqualifiers from a broader free trade approach nor have they resulted in some unstoppable feedback loop of price increases , 2) they aren’t suddenly any worse simply because they are from Trump.

    You are certainly entitled to hate free trade, and to define it the way you do. But the history of free trade shows that it works, and that has benefited all people, in the end. It really has nothing to do with one’s views on Donald Trump. It has to do with a principle.

    Oh George just stop. I don’t hate free trade. Also, I don’t recall offering a definition; I specifically asked what it means.

    As I recall, you said that we already have tariffs, with saying what they were. You also implied that we were upset because it was Donald Trump imposing them. I would be upset at anyone imposing them. I think the carrying on is just the reverse of what you alleged: Trump can get away with things that, were a Democrat doing them, there would be howls of protest from what use to be my side.

    We do have tariffs. Look it up. I didn’t imply anything; you inferred. Both Reagan and Bush presided over tariffs – some grumbling as I recall but no howls or calls to excommunicate them from the broader free trade community. One could call that “getting away with it”. Again, that isn’t suddenly worse simply because Trump is the one getting away with it.

    • #19
    • March 12, 2018 at 8:04 am
    • 2 likes
  20. Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View

    The new Democratic Party is, of course, the heir to the old Socialist parties and Communist Party. For generations, conservatives have complained about the rising tide of leftist indoctrination in the universities, then the teachers colleges, then the public schools — but they never, ever did anything about it. Well, guess what: that indoctrination is finally bearing fruit.

    Not sure what Conservatives could have done to prevent (or even stem the tide of) Left wing indoctrination in our schools and universities. But this phenomenon, as well as cultural amnesia (Mao and Stalin? Who are Mao and Stalin?) and the fact that the media views everything through a Left wing lens, is certainly the crux of the problem.

    But I’m not sure the solution is any-port-in-a-storm thuggish populism, though. And even if it is, I want no part of it.

    • #20
    • March 12, 2018 at 2:31 pm
    • 1 like
  21. Member

    Jay and Mona —

    Here’s Ben Shapiro, speaking on his show today, March 12, 2018 (it occurs at minute 13:27):

    There are a couple of charts out there that show the Democratic and Republican Party splits — meaning where the Right has moved and where the Left has moved. And what the charts show is that basically since 2010, the Republican Party has been static but the Democratic Party has been moving wildly to the Left. They’ve been moving solely to the Left. So the greater partisan pull or gap that’s being created right now is being created by the Left moving harder to the Left, not by the Right moving harder to the Right.

    Strange how three equally bright Conservative thinkers can have such wildly contrasting points of view about something whose truth is manifest.

    • #21
    • March 12, 2018 at 2:53 pm
    • 1 like
  22. Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    Not sure what Conservatives could have done to prevent (or even stem the tide of) Left wing indoctrination into our schools and universities. But this phenomenon, as well as cultural amnesia (Mao and Stalin? Who are Mao and Stalin?) and the fact that the media views everything through a Left wing lens, is certainly the crux of the problem.

    To give one possible answer to your woundering if anything could have been done: The baby boomers of the sixties, who could have done something about the rebels of that time (and I wasn’t quite old enough, being only ten when the Beatles were on The Ed Sullivan Show) didn’t have to let them take over the universities. I believe that if they had not been so squishy (as we say today), today’s problems might not be so bad.

    • #22
    • March 12, 2018 at 2:54 pm
    • Like