Fresh off another road trip, but not in fresh clothing, Jonah makes time for some rank punditry on Nikki Haley, Kavanaugh, and tribal escalation.

You can access the full archive of The Remnant at NationalReview.com/podcasts, where you can listen to four episodes per month for free, or get the entire back catalogue with an NR Plus membership. Visit NationalReview.com/subscribe for details.

Subscribe to The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg 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.

There are 49 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Member

    Wow, I only made it halfway through that episode. (Perhaps I can listen to the rest later.)

    That was getting tough to take.

    The president shouldn’t speak up about the crazy lady and obvious Democrat Party operative who can’t remember the location or date and slandered FOUR different people and who basically tried politically to extinguish a conservative appellate court judge? Personally, I wouldn’t say that move was a good thing, a bad thing, or any thing. The audience was essentially two people — Collins and Murkowski. They were going to make up their own minds for their own reasons.

    I mostly like Mitch McConnell. He has been good at getting judges through, but does he have other skills? This idea of keeping the filibuster when trying to REPEAL bad laws is terrible. That means we are locked into spending stupidity forever! The house can pass a 1,000 bills and the senate can ignore ALL of them?

    Mitch McConnell, first elected in 1984, is much more responsible for the national debt than Donald Trump.

    National Debt 1984, ~$1.5 trillion

    National Debt 2018, ~$21.5 trillion

    National Debt 1995, ~$5 trillion when Senator Hatfield torpedoed the Balanced Budget Amendment

    • #1
    • October 11, 2018 at 12:39 am
    • 1 like
  2. Member

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):

    Wow, I only made it halfway through that episode. (Perhaps I can listen to the rest later.)

    That was getting tough to take.

    The president shouldn’t speak up about the crazy lady and obvious Democrat Party operative who can’t remember the location or date and slandered FOUR different people and who basically tried politically to extinguish a conservative appellate court judge? Personally, I wouldn’t say that move was a good thing, a bad thing, or any thing. The audience was essentially two people — Collins and Murkowski. They were going to make up their own minds for their own reasons.

    I mostly like Mitch McConnell. He has been good at getting judges through, but does he have other skills? This idea of keeping the filibuster when trying to REPEAL bad laws is terrible. That means we are locked into spending stupidity forever! The house can pass a 1,000 bills and the senate can ignore ALL of them?

    Mitch McConnell, first elected in 1984 is much more responsible for the national debt than Donald Trump.

    National Debt 1984, ~$1.5 trillion

    National Debt 2018, ~$21.5 trillion

    National Debt 1995, ~$5 trillion when Senator Hatfield torpedoed the Balanced Budget Amendment

     

    Do you think Jonah might be one of those “conservatives” who will “come to realize” he’s actually a Progressive?

    • #2
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:20 am
    • Like
  3. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Do you think Jonah might be one of those “conservatives” who will “come to realize” he’s actually a Progressive?

    No. I think he’s just a northeastern conservative. That group tends to be really smart about some stuff and really … uh, not smart about other stuff.

    • #3
    • October 11, 2018 at 4:25 am
    • 3 likes
  4. Member

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Do you think Jonah might be one of those “conservatives” who will “come to realize” he’s actually a Progressive?

    No. I think he’s just a northeastern conservative. That group tends to be really smart about some stuff and really … uh, not smart about other stuff.

    Okay, so maybe Jonah is actually more like Trump than he wants us to know?

    • #4
    • October 11, 2018 at 5:14 am
    • Like
  5. Lincoln

    Why does Jonah so frequently seem so unhappy with Trump’s successes?

    • #5
    • October 11, 2018 at 8:03 am
    • 2 likes
  6. Coolidge

    It’s nice to hear the takedown of Charlie Sykes’ interview with Max Boot: Jonah is not quite the full-fledged, Kool-Aid drinking Never Trumper.

    On the ther hand, he is still allergic to giving Donald Trump credit for anything. His ego is too involved. Thus, he describes Trump’s sensible, conservative judicial nominations as being “imposed“ on him. (I don’t think he uses that precise word here, but he did in an NR column a few days ago.)

    Even if we except the premise that Trump was “forced“ to accept the list of judges to firm up the conservative base before the election, that doesn’t explain why he followed through after the election. If he had nominated somebody more acceptable to Democrats – like, say, Merritt Garland — he would have been bathed in “strange new respect” by the liberal media, and any talk of impeachment would have dried up and blown away.

    • #6
    • October 11, 2018 at 9:01 am
    • 1 like
  7. Listener

    Jonah is one of my favorites and I tend to agree with him on most things. I am a dedicated part of the Remnant.

    • #7
    • October 11, 2018 at 9:02 am
    • 5 likes
  8. Member

    Zoomie93 (View Comment):

    Why does Jonah so frequently seem so unhappy with Trump’s successes?

    Like Gaijin, I got about halfway through during my commute and was finding it tough to take. I began expecting to hear “But Gorsuch and Kavanaugh”. Jonah doesn’t like the spiking the football celebrations, but you’d think he’d be a little bit happier.

    • #8
    • October 11, 2018 at 9:05 am
    • 1 like
  9. Member

    Taras (View Comment):
    Even if we except the premise that Trump was “forced“ to accept the list of judges to firm up the conservative base before the election, that doesn’t explain why he followed through after the election. If he had nominated somebody more acceptable to Democrats – like, say, Merritt Garland — he would have been bathed in “strange new respect” by the liberal media, and any talk of impeachment would have dried up and blown away.

    Well, Merrick Garland passed away so he couldn’t pick him. I don’t know who started that gag and I don’t fully find the humor in it. A number of people I follow on Twitter have used it and Stephen Miller talked on the latest Conservatarians podcast about Merrick looking down from Heaven on the Kavanaugh proceedings.

    • #9
    • October 11, 2018 at 9:12 am
    • Like
  10. Coolidge

     Continuing to listen to the podcast: 

     Jonah is misleading about eugenics, and incorrect about game theory. 

     The eugenicists didn’t believe in killing defectives, just preventing them from reproducing. I think it was in the late Nineties that there was a scandal in progressive Sweden when young women discovered they could not have children because, as late as 1975, girls judged “defective” were still being sterilized. 

     In game theory, the most successful strategy has been shown to be “tit for tat“. In baseball, for example, if you want to discourage brushback pitches against your hitters, you have your pitcher retaliate in kind. 

     This, of course, is what Republicans signally failed to do, both after the savaging of Robert Bork and the smearing of Clarence Thomas. The Democrats learned their lesson: that there is no downside to attacking a Republican Supreme Court nominee. 

     If Anita Hill had been indicted for perjury, for example, that would have been a useful lesson that might have prevented all the agony this time around.

    • #10
    • October 11, 2018 at 11:17 am
    • 4 likes
  11. Coolidge

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    Even if we except the premise that Trump was “forced“ to accept the list of judges to firm up the conservative base before the election, that doesn’t explain why he followed through after the election. If he had nominated somebody more acceptable to Democrats – like, say, Merritt Garland — he would have been bathed in “strange new respect” by the liberal media, and any talk of impeachment would have dried up and blown away.

    Well, Merrick Garland passed away so he couldn’t pick him. I don’t know who started that gag and I don’t fully find the humor in it. A number of people I follow on Twitter have used it and Stephen Miller talked on the latest Conservatarians podcast about Merrick looking down from Heaven on the Kavanaugh proceedings.

     I will cede all matters relating to the afterlife to a clergyman such as yourself.

    P.S.: Merrick? No wonder the Republicans wouldn’t give Garland a hearing, if he lacks Merritt.

    • #11
    • October 11, 2018 at 1:45 pm
    • 1 like
  12. Coolidge

    Jonah Goldberg was dead on in his criticism of the Left bragging about the Blue Wall in the Electoral College one minute and then calling the Electoral College a bastion of white supremacy the minute after Trump won.

    He also did a good job of mentioning that the Democrats can no longer pretend that they are the protectors of Democratic norms.

    Also, Goldberg is correct that it wasn’t Donald Trump’s tactics of blasting Ford in a Mississippi rally that got Kavanaugh confirmed. It was Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush and the Federalist society, all elements of the GOPe.

    And yes, Ramesh Ponnuru is God or at least the nearest thing to the Moses of politics.

    I’m voting GOPe in 3 and one half weeks.

    • #12
    • October 11, 2018 at 1:54 pm
    • 3 likes
  13. Member

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Do you think Jonah might be one of those “conservatives” who will “come to realize” he’s actually a Progressive?

    I do not. Jonah is a principled conservative who has probably studied Progressivism in all its flavors more than most. He doesn’t like nationalism, as such. He understands liberty. He sees that we are dancing on the precipice of Reichenbach Falls, and his inclination is to try to find away to save both sides from falling over.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Okay, so maybe Jonah is actually more like Trump than he wants us to know?

    Again, no. Take Jonah for what he is. He doesn’t have to agree with everything Trump does to be “on our side.” He doesn’t have to agree with every idea we have, either.

    • #13
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:19 pm
    • 6 likes
  14. Member

    Taras (View Comment):
    If he had nominated somebody more acceptable to Democrats – like, say, Merritt Garland — he would have been bathed in “strange new respect” by the liberal media, and any talk of impeachment would have dried up and blown away.

    Now, you’re being naive. The Democrats have no reverse gear in their transmission. They only go forward. The only time they praise a Republican is when they are using the Republican as a wedge to split our coalition. They also do it when that Republican is powerless. That’s why the praise guys like McCain and Romney when Trump is running, or GHW Bush when he’s old or Reagan when he’s dead. “These Republicans of today aren’t like these fine examples of the past. We could work with them.” But at the time, they were sticking stilettos in the backs of Reagan and Bush. They were accusing them of multiple crimes. So long as Trump is President, it doesn’t matter what he does, the impeachment train inches forward out of Crazy Town.

    • #14
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:25 pm
    • 1 like
  15. Coolidge

    Arahant (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Do you think Jonah might be one of those “conservatives” who will “come to realize” he’s actually a Progressive?

    I do not. Jonah is a principled conservative who has probably studied Progressivism in all its flavors more than most. He doesn’t like nationalism, as such. He understands liberty. He sees that we are dancing on the precipice of Reichenbach Falls, and his inclination is to try to find away to save both sides from falling over.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Okay, so maybe Jonah is actually more like Trump than he wants us to know?

    Again, no. Take Jonah for what he is. He doesn’t have to agree with everything Trump does to be “on our side.” He doesn’t have to agree with every idea we have, either.

    Jonah Goldberg represents conservatives who are hold to conservative political values and also believe that being articulate and persuasive is better than being childish and boorish when it comes to advancing the conservative cause.

    I’m in the Jonah Goldberg camp. I support Trump on many issues, including the Supreme Court. But I will never be a full bore Trump supporter. It’s like what David French said in the first few months of the Trump presidency: “I agree with almost anything he has done; I disagree with almost everything he has said.”

     

    • #15
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:27 pm
    • 4 likes
  16. Member

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    Well, Merrick Garland passed away so he couldn’t pick him.

    Wait, what?

    • #16
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:28 pm
    • Like
  17. Member

    Trump is not fully a conservative. He does have some nationalist tendencies. If you don’t mind the tendencies, he’s great.

    • #17
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:32 pm
    • Like
  18. Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    Well, Merrick Garland passed away so he couldn’t pick him.

    Wait, what?

    As I said, it’s a gag that I first saw on Twitter. Don’t know the origin and don’t fully get it.

    • #18
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:36 pm
    • Like
  19. Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Do you think Jonah might be one of those “conservatives” who will “come to realize” he’s actually a Progressive?

    I do not. Jonah is a principled conservative who has probably studied Progressivism in all its flavors more than most. He doesn’t like nationalism, as such. He understands liberty. He sees that we are dancing on the precipice of Reichenbach Falls, and his inclination is to try to find away to save both sides from falling over.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Okay, so maybe Jonah is actually more like Trump than he wants us to know?

    Again, no. Take Jonah for what he is. He doesn’t have to agree with everything Trump does to be “on our side.” He doesn’t have to agree with every idea we have, either.

    Maybe. But for all his talk about how important it is to not “talk down” Western Civ etc because it could end up being destroyed, he doesn’t seem to take his own exhortations to heart nearly enough, especially when it comes to Trump.

    And we also shouldn’t overlook that if Jonah’s “principles” were more generally followed, we’d have President Hillary.

    • #19
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:42 pm
    • 2 likes
  20. Member

    There was another mention this time about how women are said to be “not REAL women” if they’re not leftist, etc. It would be interesting to hear something about how now Taylor Swift is more “authentically black” than Kanye West is, because she’s a lefty while West supports Trump.

    • #20
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:44 pm
    • 2 likes
  21. Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    It’s nice to hear the takedown of Charlie Sykes’ interview with Max Boot: Jonah is not quite the full-fledged, Kool-Aid drinking Never Trumper.

    On the ther hand, he is still allergic to giving Donald Trump credit for anything. His ego is too involved. Thus, he describes Trump’s sensible, conservative judicial nominations as being “imposed“ on him. (I don’t think he uses that precise word here, but he did in an NR column a few days ago.)

    Even if we except the premise that Trump was “forced“ to accept the list of judges to firm up the conservative base before the election, that doesn’t explain why he followed through after the election. If he had nominated somebody more acceptable to Democrats – like, say, Merritt Garland — he would have been bathed in “strange new respect” by the liberal media, and any talk of impeachment would have dried up and blown away.

    Indeed. As Jonah likes to say (about anything but the primaries, it seems) “The election was over.” Trump could have nominated whoever he wanted to, including his sister.

    • #21
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:51 pm
    • Like
  22. Coolidge

    The thing about Trump is that he donated money to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. So, if there are conservatives who are skeptical of Trump, they have good reason to be.

    Donating money to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid isn’t a conservative thing to do.

    Trump supported Barack Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan. And Trump in 2015 endorsed socialized medicine.

    It’s good to be a Trump skeptic. 

    • #22
    • October 11, 2018 at 2:58 pm
    • 5 likes
  23. Member

    And if Jonah is so understanding and accepting that “Good things have a down side,” why is he so down on Trump all the time?

    • #23
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:11 pm
    • Like
  24. Member

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The thing about Trump is that he donated money to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. So, if there are conservatives who are skeptical of Trump, they have good reason to be.

    Donating money to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid isn’t a conservative thing to do.

    Trump supported Barack Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan. And Trump in 2015 endorsed socialized medicine.

    It’s good to be a Trump skeptic.

    Donating to both sides, and saying good things about both sides, is what you do if you’re in business and want to stay in business.

    Just ask some of those who didn’t, and wound up in the sights of unwelcome regulation, etc. Once they learned, they followed suit.

    • #24
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:14 pm
    • 1 like
  25. Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The thing about Trump is that he donated money to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. So, if there are conservatives who are skeptical of Trump, they have good reason to be.

    Donating money to Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid isn’t a conservative thing to do.

    Trump supported Barack Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus plan. And Trump in 2015 endorsed socialized medicine.

    It’s good to be a Trump skeptic.

    Donating to both sides, and saying good things about both sides, is what you do if you’re in business and want to stay in business.

    Just ask some of those who didn’t, and wound up in the sights of unwelcome regulation, etc. Once they learned, they followed suit.

    You are making excuses for Trump’s financial support of the Left.

    You can do that if you want.

    Others, like me, will remain Trump skeptics, praising him for the good he does while criticizing the bad he does.

    Just like any other politicians. Praise the good; criticize the bad. No exemption for Trump.

    • #25
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:20 pm
    • 3 likes
  26. Member

    There is certainly room for criticism of anyone/anything. Although it seems… naïve?… to expect someone who wasn’t trying to be a politician all along, to have been carefully one-sided in their donations etc. It would be foolish to expect someone who wants to be successful in business, to heavily criticize the local government where they do business, because they’re on the “the wrong side.” That’s a good way to get your building permits delayed or denied, etc.

    The larger issue though, is that if you – e.g., Jonah – continually label Trump as “loathsome” etc, how can you expect that to NOT rub off on what they DO, such as passing tax cuts and nominating Supreme Court justices? Don’t be surprised if they end up being seen as “loathsome” tax cuts and “loathsome” Supreme Court justices. Which is, after all, exactly what has happened.

    • #26
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:30 pm
    • 1 like
  27. Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    There is certainly room for criticism of anyone/anything. Although it seems… naïve?… to expect someone who wasn’t trying to be a politician all along, to have been carefully one-sided in their donations etc. It would be foolish to expect someone who wants to be successful in business, to heavily criticize the local government where they do business, because they’re on the “the wrong side.” That’s a good way to get your building permits delayed or denied, etc.

    This is still excuse making.

    Why did Trump endorse socialized medicine in 2015? Why did Trump endorse, on the Fox Business channel in 2009, President Obama’s economic stimulus plan?

    Why did Trump criticize Mitt Romney’s immigration policy for being too tough on illegal immigrants in 2012?

    These comments have nothing to do with running a business.

    If you want to view everything that Trump has done through a filter like this, you can. But don’t be surprised if other conservatives judge Trump’s past actions based on the same standard they would apply to other politicians.

    Trump didn’t need to endorse the Clinton assault weapons ban to run his business well.

    Trump didn’t need to endorse a wealth tax in 2000 to run his business well.

    That’s what being a Trump skeptic implies, a willingness to judge Trump based on conservative principles. Donating money to Chuck Schumer isn’t conservative just because Trump did it.

     

     

     

    • #27
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:41 pm
    • 2 likes
  28. Member

    Taras (View Comment):

    Continuing to listen to the podcast:

    Jonah is misleading about eugenics, and incorrect about game theory.

    The eugenicists didn’t believe in killing defectives, just preventing them from reproducing. I think it was in the late Nineties that there was a scandal in progressive Sweden when young women discovered they could not have children because, as late as 1975, girls judged “defective” were still being sterilized.

    In game theory, the most successful strategy has been shown to be “tit for tat“. In baseball, for example, if you want to discourage brushback pitches against your hitters, you have your pitcher retaliate in kind.

    This, of course, is what Republicans signally failed to do, both after the savaging of Robert Bork and the smearing of Clarence Thomas. The Democrats learned their lesson: that there is no downside to attacking a Republican Supreme Court nominee.

    If Anita Hill had been indicted for perjury, for example, that would have been a useful lesson that might have prevented all the agony this time around.

    What Jonah always seems to leave out, maybe because it seems juvenile (or worse) but is still quite valid, is “They started it.”

    It also applies in other situations such as the middle east. To quote Benjamin Netanyahu, “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more ‎violence. If the Jews put ‎down their weapons ‎today, there would be no ‎more Israel.”

    • #28
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:42 pm
    • 3 likes
  29. Member

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

     

    This is still excuse making.

    Why did Trump endorse socialized medicine in 2015? Why did Trump endorse, on the Fox Business channel in 2009, President Obama’s economic stimulus plan?

    Why did Trump criticize Mitt Romney’s immigration policy for being too tough on illegal immigrants in 2012?

    These comments have nothing to do with running a business.

    Really? That seems pretty naïve too.

     

    If you want to view everything that Trump has done through a filter like this, you can. But don’t be surprised if other conservatives judge Trump’s past actions based on the same standard they would apply to other politicians.

    That was exactly my point. What evidence is there that Trump was always planning to be a politician?

     

    Trump didn’t need to endorse the Clinton assault weapons ban to run his business well.

    He would have been unwise to CRITICIZE it, but again, if he wasn’t planning to be a politician all along, praising the actions of the people in power can be seen as “it couldn’t hurt and might help.”

    Trump didn’t need to endorse a wealth tax in 2000 to run his business well.

    Ditto.

     

     

    continues in next post due to word limit.

     

     

     

     

    • #29
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:49 pm
    • Like
  30. Member

    That’s what being a Trump skeptic implies, a willingness to judge Trump based on conservative principles. Donating money to Chuck Schumer isn’t conservative just because Trump did it.

    I never said it was. But can you show that donating money to Schumer was done as part of a calculation because Trump expected to run for the presidency in 2016 and WIN? Because otherwise, it just goes in the bucket with doing business.

    • #30
    • October 11, 2018 at 3:50 pm
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2