UnknownWhat follows is a complete list of those who know more about American politics than Michael Barone: . Okay

Barone is Jay’s guest, and they talk about conventions, primaries, parties, presidents, and the Fate of America. The guru is in: Michael Barone is in, expounding on the subject he has devoted his life to.

Subscribe to Q & A, Hosted by Jay Nordlinger 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.

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

There are 3 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    I thought you meant “inestimable” and goofed, but “estimable” is the right word after all. So I learned something from both of you today. Thanks.

    There’s no need of party bosses for the nomination system to be undemocratic. Staggered and open primaries suffice. Voters of later states do not have the same options or influence as early states.

    Has the significance of national party officials relative to state party officials changed in recent decades?

    That is the most reasonable justification of open primaries I have heard: that one might want to vote for a Republican at the national level and a Democrat at the local level in the same election cycle. But if the local party is truly not beholden to national party leadership, then why is this a problem? Why can’t one register with national party and local party separately? That leaves the potential dilemma of wanting to vote between Democrats for one local position and a Republican for another local position, but it seems we’re stuck with imperfect options.

    “How do you hold it together?” Keep it small. Keep it local. Maintain general agreement on the most fundamental perceptions of facts and morals. Which of those criteria is satisfied today?

    The two-party system seems to have provided stability and focus. Unfortunately, that stability remains through the transition from liberty to tyranny.

    • #1
  2. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    The core problem advocates of local, limited government face is that the Constitutional system was designed to frustrate growth and centralization of powers. It is not a favorable system for the undoing of tyranny, if ever such a system existed.

    Indeed, conservatism itself is oriented to preservation through modest changes, and not severe counteraction. There is no careful, measured path to restoration of America. Trump is the wrong arbiter of revolution. But the Right cannot defeat lawless, ruthless, aggressive Democrats with gradual strategies. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap is about as bold a plan as exists, yet it angles only to moderate problems over a course of decades (during which time, Democrats will surely regain power and undo whatever gains).

    The Constitution’s authors empowered the Executive in situations of war because war by committee is suicide. Human beings instinctively understand centralized leadership becomes necessary by degrees relative to the severity of imminent threats. The timidity or corruption of Republicans generally has created a common impression that the GOP offers little hope of bold leadership, so it’s not surprising that voters of varying ideologies and concerns now seek a strongman.

    It is easier to acquire debt than reduce it, easier to legislate than to repeal, to break alliances than to foster them, to disregard neighbors than to tolerate them, etc. Democrats have inherent advantages. Republicans cannot counter them with mild strategies. Gridlock is only beneficial while liberty and justice remain.

    Trump and Obama mark America’s French Revolution — desperation, revenge.

    • #2
  3. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    By the way, I’m currently where you are on the election. In November, I will probably write in Cruz. Trump is too unpredictable and unprincipled to be an acceptable gamble against Clinton.

    We’re stuck with an evil leader either way.

    • #3
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.