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.
John Yoo is where?? Mexico!?!? So after all that talk the last couple weeks saying the situation at the southern border did not constitute an “invasion,” now he’s in Mexico on some undisclosed clandestine mission. Which makes no sense: they don’t even have McRibb there.
Taking John’s place this week is Inez Stepman of the Independent Women’s Forum, frequent contributor to the New York Post, First Things, The Federalist, and other premier outlets, co-host of the High Noon podcast on the Ricochet network—and American bourbon drinker. She was more than game to join Lucretia in beating up on Steve about Laphroaig and other crucial questions.
We invited Inez to weigh in on the long-running debate we’ve been having here about the Civil War, how to understand it correctly, and how presidential candidates like Nikki Haley shoulf talk about it. From the we take a look of David Frum’s quixotic attempt in The Atlantic to “uncancel Woodrow Wilson,” to which were in heated agreement that David is off his rocker.
Then John Hinderaker joins us to give us the latest news about the firebombing of his office this past week, plus a few summary impressions of the Michael Mann vs. Mark Steyn cage match playing out in court in Washington DC, where John sat in on the trial several days last week. Does this politically-motivated arson fire presage a return to the bad old days of the Weather Underground of the late 1960s?
Thematic exit music this week is “Burning Up My Time” by Pigeons Playing Ping Pong.
Subscribe to Power Line 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.
The firebombing news is horrible. I hope they find the culprits and (unlike the gangster illegal immigrants who beat up the cops in NY) they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I also think Steve is right that there will be more of these, and I fear if Trump wins there will be “peaceful protests” leaving cities in ruins across the nation but pray I’m wrong.
That aside, Inez meshed nicely with our hosts, and it made for an informative and entertaining hour. Was David Frum ever on his rocker? I eagerly await the return of John Y. so we may hear about his adventures south of the border.
Concerning the firebombing, when I moved to San Pedro for work, the Elk lodge had been set on fire about six months earlier. The authorities learned that the arsonist purchased his gas at a gas station down the hill on his way to attack the lodge. I was surprised he hadn’t planned ahead and bought the gas far away from the scene.
Hey great band in the outro – Pigeons Playing Ping Pong – if you get a chance see them live! Nice Steve!
Inez is a fantastic guest, she should be a must-have on almost any panel. Her ideas a fresh but founded in traditional knowledge and she still stays away from being a parrot of any “tribe” under the big-tent of Republican party. She is voicing so much sanity in an insane time. Everyone should listen to her podcast and she should return again and again.
The firebombing hopefully turns into a fringe insane person instead of the harbinger of a return to the 70s political violence. Then again, that fringe insane person committing political violence might be the new manifestation of the 70s violence. Ugh. Glad everyone is ok!
On the Civil War stuff – I want to follow up on my comment from last week asking about the Constitutionality of succession, which wasn’t addressed in that thread (there was plenty to discuss that episode so quite understandable) but I’m sure there are arguments for why it was/wasn’t.
I wanted to ask about this notion that the Civil War was about slavery – I mean of course it was a huge issue of injustice, and I am not trying to ignore it – but is not more accurate to say it was about keeping the Union intact first and foremost? I’m no scholar by any means on this chapter in our history, but I do know that Lincoln made endless gestures to keep the Union intact through keeping the institution of slavery intact all the way up to finally supporting an Amendment to the Constitution to specifically legalize slavery. I know these gestures were to preserve the Union – which I think supports my comment that keeping the Union intact is the driving force for the war – unless I’m missing something.
Which I accept that I likely am. I don’t know all the arguments, but would like some direction to learn more since I think preserving the Union was a very Hamiltonian-like drive in Lincoln that can be easily understood.
Well, as an LA County Sheriff’s deputy friend of mine was fond of saying, “We don’t catch the smart ones.”
I think it comes down to the phrase “what it was about.” Do we mean what caused it? Do we mean what causes were the combatants fighting for? The answer is yes to both. Most wars have many factors leading up to their outbreak. What was WWII about: Punishing Germany for invading Poland, countering overall German aggression, punishing Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor, countering overall Japanese aggression, preserving international treaties, stomping out the Nazi and fascist ideologies, etc. Many discrete factors, yet all related to the overall theme of the good guys defeating the bad guys. Without Nazism/Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, no WWII. Likewise, the Civil War had more than one factor. Yes, it was about keeping the union together. But why was it coming apart? Slavery. Yes, it was about states’ rights. But states’ rights to have what? Slavery. Thus, slavery is the sine qua non — without the issue of slavery, no Civil War.