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.
With the help of Daniel Burns of the University of Dallas, Jonah takes a break from punditry and tries to understand the ins and outs of the post-liberalism debate.
Shownotes
-Door Dash app, promo code REMNANT
–Daniel Burns in National Affairs
–Suicide of the West – Jonah Goldberg
–Why Liberalism Failed – Patrick Deneen
–Virtue of Nationalism – Yoram Hazony
-“Notes on Toleration” – Locke, Jefferson
–George Washington’s letter to the Quakers
–Alienated America – Tim Carney
–Fractured Republic – Yuval Levin
–G-File on “Riddle of a Republic”
–The half-baked ideas episode with Mike Gallagher
–Joint Economic Committee: “Zoned Out”
–Ramesh Ponnuru’s response to Sasse
Subscribe to The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg 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.
I remember how after Romney lost, Jonah Goldberg wrote an article for National Review online about how we should not just give up and recoil into our other interests. It seems that he basically has recoiled into intellectual history and wonkery and has chosen to give up on politics at least for the time being. He can’t pick a side anymore because well the Republicans have largely all the same positions they used to have, but Trump is bad. You can dig up instances of both Bush Presidents, Obama, Clinton, and Reagan implementing some protectionist policies, but the way Trump does it is uniquely bad. Obama suppressed political opposition via the IRS of the tea parties, Obama also had the Fast and Furios Scandal, Reagan/Bush had Iran Contra, Clinton seemed to have a new scandal every week, but Trump asking the Ukraine to look into the Biden family is uniquely and extremely bad (it’s not like anyone can deny that some form of graft was going on there. Hell, no one cares about what the Biden family graft issues – apparently, that’s all fine and dandy.)
I agree that Trump should be way more circumspect in what he does and says, but I just can’t get that riled up about it. It seems as far as policy goes I mostly agree with what he is actually doing. Admittedly, I favor being tougher on trade than we’ve been in a long time. I also really wish we could do something to at least make a dent in deficit spending, but I don’t think I was going to get that with anyone this time around (or last time around – maybe Ted Cruz, but regrettably his late endorsements and tepid support by Washington crowd were not enough to get him the nomination).
Is that so bad?
Intellectual history and wonkery are great. Politics? Blech.
I think the point was more about WHY Jonah has recoiled away from politics. The actual policies and goals etc are largely if not entirely the same, and for a change there’s actually things being DONE that were not done before, and very likely would not have been done by President Cruz, or President Rubio, etc. Jonah’s only problem is a personal distaste for the person doing the conservative thing that Jonah would otherwise be cheering and applauding. Which is not an admirable reason for “recoiling from politics.”
Jonah talks lots of politics. He also does tons of wonkery. I don’t think that’s a retreat from one or a wallowing in another. I like being able to find something different here. I always learn something new.
I think Jonah is on record as being very much against “vocal fry.” And yet Daniel Burns seemed to “croak” a lot.
And I’m not sure that all that many people really care all that much about their children and their childrens’ future. The number of registered Democrats argues against that. These days, at least, voting Democrat is far more about “What’s in it for ME?”
Not persuasive. It’s like telling Republicans they’re all racists and expecting them to listen to… anything.
Trump did pretty much nothing with a Republican Congress and his protectionist trade policies are a drag on some otherwise good deregulation going on and to me there isn’t much else to say. I am glad to hear some Trump free podcasts especially because the impeachment stuff is really annoying.
Not just Democrats unfortunately. That’s why decrying the debt by saying how it will hurt your kids and grandkids just doesn’t matter to a lot of people.
Both with debt and with…
… people of all kinds just tend to be short sighted. It is hard for them to imagine that something that seems good at the present moment (e.g. promises of trillions of dollars of new benefits raining down from
Santa ClausUncle Sam) will lead to trouble later. Democrats probably don’t thinkand probably think instead
I doubt they are afraid of going over a future cliff.
I suspect they cannot see any cliff.
In the episode they mentioned the disregard of higher institutions for equipping students with a grounding in history and the foundations of how our society works. Many students might have trouble passing a citizenship test.
In the “half-baked ideas” category, what if government funding of higher education was tied to a weighting factor according to average scores on a required “citizenship” type of test given to all of their graduating students.
Schools with students that score better will get a somewhat more generous contribution, while those that score poorly will get a somewhat less generous contribution.
I’d love to see schools compete for excellence on an exam like that. It should be viewed as an essential aspect of a full education, including at the high school level and below. It’s important for all citizens, including people who don’t go on to college and instead follow a different path forward.
One potential issue with anything like this is, who decides what the test is, and how to score it, etc, etc? I can easily see someone like Nancy Pelosi or Kamala Harris insisting that the test be based on how well you remember Howard Zinn’s claptrap. Can’t you?
This is one reason why I’m not too concerned with being considered “unpersuasive.” I’m not yet convinced that such people are persuadABLE.
On the other hand, it’s not too difficult to understand why a lot of people have trouble taking debts and deficits very seriously. There have been cries of “The End Is Nigh!” for DECADES, and yet things keep chugging along. I’m reminded of a somewhat alarmist author friend who was once credited with having predicted 11 out of the last 2 recessions…
There will, of course, be some people you cannot persuade.
If you really thought there was no one you could persuade, there would be no reason to talk or comment. If you could not change any other mind, all your attempts would be futile. If everyone believed that about you, there would be no reason to consider your arguments. If it is reasonable to seriously consider your statements, that requires that there are people who are reasonable enough to change.
There are always some people who are in fact persuaded by those who are persuasive. Even some who were on the left are on the left no longer. Still others will change in the future. People can grow. People can learn. People can wise up. Some people are willing to consider and change.
Because there are those people who will change, it is valuable and worthwhile to be persuasive in a way that draws them toward (not away from) better realizations.
One big problem with the proxy voting for children until they reach 18 I’m surprised wasn’t even mentioned is which parent gets the vote? I kept expecting them to discuss how it would be implemented but they never took it to the next step.
The children still don’t get a vote. The parents just get more than one vote each. Stupid.
The way I heard it was that everyone gets a vote at birth, but it is entrusted with the parent until you turn 18. I only have a daughter. Do I get to use her vote? Does my wife? With multiple children, are the votes split? It’s a silly idea and I don’t see how any alleged benefits outweigh the hassle of implementing it.
Whichever parent gets to the polls first gets to cast the votes.
Regarding the supposed lack of vocabulary for a President who wins the electoral vote but not the popular vote: We have a perfectly good word – “President”.
As the old joke goes:
Q: what do you call the person who graduates last in their class in Medical School?
A: Doctor.
Maybe if we ever get our act together to insure voting integrity. Even just the finger-dipped-in-ink method would be an improvement.
I immediately had exactly the same question and was surprised that they never discussed it. But I did find the answer to the question. It was explained in the episode (yay @jackbutler ) that this is the idea of Demeny voting.
So the proxy votes of a parent only count as half votes in the final counts.
I haven’t considered it much and don’t have a position for or against. That article includes Advantages and Disadvantages, as well as an interesting History of how it has been seriously considered in several countries: France, Germany, Austria, Japan, Hungary, and a bit in Canada.
That might seem like it answers the problems, but it really doesn’t.
So many single parents these days, does that mean the absent one still gets half a vote for children they have nothing to do with? What if either or both parents has a criminal record and thus not allowed to vote? What if either or both biological parents doesn’t have legal custody? What about a child in foster care, or some kind of government facility (orphanage)? What if the father is an unknown sperm donor, to a single woman or a same-sex “couple?”
etc, etc.
Thanks. That answers the splitting of the vote between parents question but brings up more. Not sure there’s a problem that needs to be solved with this.
Well there might be an argument that children have a stake in how the country operates even before they turn 18. And having a more direct impact on policy based on children and the people who have them – which is absolutely necessary to keep any society going – versus just getting a tax write-off which people who can’t be bothered to have children might oppose as being “unfair.”