Ask The Founders

A few times a year, we forgo the guests and open the floor to you, our faithful members to ask us anything. Also, some thoughts on the firing of Kevin Williamson and announcing our live podcast event in Washington DC on May 10th and 11th!

Music from this week’s episode: Bad Blood by Taylor Swift

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast 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 158 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Regarding the discussion on Trump, and his damaging of “the brand”:  The discussion centered around the GOP brand.  One of the things I like is his damaging of the presidency’s brand, because I still think there’s too much deference given to the presidency.  It really started with Bill Clinton, but Trump continues the tradition.

    Regarding RFK:  I agree with Rob Long.  From what I read about RFK, he had ideals, but he was entirely cynical as a politician, and would do anything to advance those ideals.  He was vicious towards his political enemies.  I am reminded of Rahm Emanuel’s statement of never bring a knife to a gun fight, and of course Emanuel was figuratively referring to politics.  RFK was just as cynical.

    Regarding MLK:  If he had never been martyred, and as the culture became cynical as it did, his extra-marital affairs would have come out.  Since he was a Christian minister and based much of his moral authority on that, it would have damaged him.  Today if he was still alive as an old man, he would be a target of the #MeToo movement.

    • #1
  2. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

     

    I agree with two-thirds of this – specifically the second and third paragraphs. And about two-thirds of the first one: Trump is damaging the Presidency. And we do give two much deference to it. But this nothing to celebrate. It is Congress’s fault, primarily, that we give too much deference to the Executive. They ought to grow up, and give us leadership, instead of worrying about being reelected. The country comes first.

    However, what Trump is doing, by acting like the loudmouth at the bar, instead of like a President should act, is harming the nation. The Presidency is at the forefront in leading the world, as a free power, whose main interest should  be in leading the world to as much glory as can be gained here on Earth. Trump is mainly interested in Trump. And this is why I – and many others – think he is unfit, at the end of the day, to hold the office he now holds.

    On another subject: This was a wonderful podcast. The honestly in it was laudable. I am seriously thinking of upgrading my membership. We need Ricochet to grow, because of the valuable things it offers. 

    • #2
  3. Fresch Fisch Coolidge
    Fresch Fisch
    @FreschFisch

    How about James Lileks covering something like this in his own state?

    With all the students demonstrating demanding their freedoms be taken away, this is a breath of fresh air.

    https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/31/with-gun-sponsorships-and-support-a-14-year-old-girls-rise-on-the-active-shooting-circuit/

    http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-shooting-teams-grow-despite-gun-law-protests/478454813/

     

     

    • #3
  4. Hammer, The Inactive
    Hammer, The
    @RyanM

    Oh, Peter…  that was painful (your early segment on abortion).  I think you’re applying “malice” incorrectly, and I’d love to argue with you about it.  You’re wrong on more levels than that.  Yes, it’s murder.

    Perhaps we can discuss this during the Flyover Country segment at the event in DC.  ;)

    • #4
  5. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    Lileks cuts to the heart of the difficult question: Do you suppose the sum total of Conservatism in the hearts and minds of Americans will be greater or lesser after four years of Trump than it would have been after four years of Clinton?    

    Lileks:  “The sum total will be less.”

     

    • #5
  6. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Unfortunately, it appears that Peter did not listen to the episode of Mad Dogs and Englishman in question. Peter asks why Kevin has not come out and explained what his “real” position is. The answer is that Kevin actually thinks, like I and many millions of Americans do, that abortion is murder. (Unless Kevin is going to change is mind, which would be pretty lame.)

    Kevin didn’t get the law wrong. At no point was the discussion ever anything but hypothetical. That’s very clear if you listen to it. 

     

    • #6
  7. Belt Inactive
    Belt
    @Belt

    Once again my question is passed over.  Any chance Peter will have a go at it?

    • #7
  8. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Sorry — I was so shocked by what Peter said that I paused and came here to comment before hearing what Rob and James had to say. They also talked about Kevin “clarifying” his remarks. There’s nothing to clarify (or apologize for). Believing that abortion is murder is totally normal and logical and moral. 

    • #8
  9. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Extra money for Ricochet? 

    “Yes, we are working on something big … a sound-proof room away from Peter’s neighbor who carries a leaf blower.”

    • #9
  10. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Sorry — I was so shocked by what Peter said that I paused and came here to comment before hearing what Rob and James had to say. They also talked about Kevin “clarifying” his remarks. There’s nothing to clarify (or apologize for). Believing that abortion is murder is totally normal and logical and moral.

    I was surprised by that. Kevin has been more than clear. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned, never apologize, ever for a sincerely held belief.

    Your attitude should be: Yeah, I said it.

    • #10
  11. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    The collegial tears being shed on behalf of Kevin Williamson after his termination by The Atlantic amuse me.

    Williamson had no qualms when it came to insulting people on the Right side of the spectrum. Trump supporters, immigration hawks and non-“free traders” all felt the heel of his contempt. But when he stepped on one of the third rails of 21st century progressivism – abortion – he discovered that his new friends, unlike his old friends, would neither tolerate nor pay for his opinions – on that or any other subject.

    Conservative writers are now bemoaning the attempt, as they see it, to marginalize if not dismiss the entire Right spectrum of political thought. Well, in an era when grade-schoolers are instructed that there is something intrinsically flawed with being white, some would say those conservative writers are a little late to the game. Maybe they’d be wiser to stop assaulting their own teammates. And maybe it isn’t such a good idea for them to seek to be impartial umpires calling balls and strikes.

    Funnier still is the blatant memory-hole: Do you think John Derbyshire is smiling about all the National Review articles about l’affaire Williamson that speak of a talented, popular writer who dares to be provocative? “Sure, Kevin takes it to the edge sometimes, but he’s a great guy, a terrific writer and he makes you think.” How exactly was it different when Derbyshire stepped on that other progressive third rail, race, a few years ago and Rich Lowry, with Jonah and Ramesh’s support, told Derb to go write elsewhere?

    Fit that bit of marginalizing history, as well as the hiring of conservative Reihan Salam by the very same Atlantic this past January, into your Williamson narrative and then get back to me.

    • #11
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    What @jameslileks says about how MLK would be treated if he were still alive, sounds exactly like how he’s actually been and is being treated since his death.  In several ways, MLK was Bill Cosby before Bill Cosby was Bill Cosby.  And I expect MLK would be treated exactly the same now: thrown under the bus for the convenience of leftist goals.

    • #12
  13. Bereket Kelile Member
    Bereket Kelile
    @BereketKelile

    Rob,

    Useless trivia, but the DEFCON levels go in reverse, from 5 to 1. In fact, if I remember correctly, we’re already at DEFCON 5. 

    Sorry, it’s just one of those things I can never let pass without comment.

     

    • #13
  14. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Freesmith (View Comment):
    Williamson had no qualms when it came to insulting people on the Right side of the spectrum. Trump supporters, immigration hawks and non-“free traders” all felt the heel of his contempt. But when he stepped on one of the third rails of 21st century progressivism – abortion – he discovered that his new friends, unlike his old friends, would neither tolerate nor pay for his opinions – on that or any other subject.

    I doubt he considered them his friends. He probably considered them his employers. I doubt he was auto-preening over the Strange New Respect he was getting from people on the left, unless  one buys the Ace of Spades line of thought that we’re all TruSuperCon card-carrying soft sister sissies waiting to squee at Jake Tapper. 

    Conservative writers are now bemoaning the attempt, as they see it, to marginalize if not dismiss the entire Right spectrum of political thought. Well, in an era when grade-schoolers are instructed that there is something intrinsically flawed with being white, some would say those conservative writers are a little late to the game.

    Not the attempt, but an another example in the the ongoing process.No one’s ever written about culture wars before this happened? Or campus speech debates, or dedicated entire books to things like, oh, liberal fascism?

    Maybe they’d be wiser to stop assaulting their own teammates. And maybe it isn’t such a good idea for them to seek to be an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes.

    Is there a list of acceptable opinions and the amount of dissent permitted?

    • #14
  15. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    “Maybe they’d be wiser to stop assaulting their own teammates. And maybe it isn’t such a good idea for them to seek to be an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes.”

    My gosh.  There it is.  Baldly stated.  Someone making the case for NOT being impartial.  Someone making the case for putting party affiliation ahead of ethics and principles.
    There.  It.  Is.

    I swear I can read the sentence “Maybe it isn’t such a good idea for them to seek to be an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes” a thousand times and not get tired of it, because it’s as fascinating as staring at a cobra.  
    It’s a chilling sentiment.  I know that many people on the Left feel this way.  And one instructive aftermath of Trump’s ascendancy has been the knowledge that many people on the Right feel this way too.  But how many, exactly?  Do more than half the Conservatives in the country feel this way? If so, just how outnumbered are we??
     

    • #15
  16. filmklassik Inactive
    filmklassik
    @filmklassik

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Sorry — I was so shocked by what Peter said that I paused and came here to comment before hearing what Rob and James had to say. They also talked about Kevin “clarifying” his remarks. There’s nothing to clarify (or apologize for). Believing that abortion is murder is totally normal and logical and moral.

    Uh huh.  So according to you, a woman who has had two abortions occupies the same moral footing as OJ Simpson.  

    Do you honestly believe that?  

    Note:  I half-expect evasion or equivocation from you (“I said what I meant.  I shouldn’t have to explain myself.”) rather than a straightforward answer.  And I guess it’s hard to blame you.  But I do have my fingers crossed.  

    • #16
  17. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Politics is a bloodless sport compared to the fights over who invented major technologies such as GPS (James answered my question).  See my response to a letter from the first head of the GPS Joint Program Office.    http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2086 The amount of misinformation about the origins of GPS has been astounding.  My book clarified things but is, alas, not very well known.

    http://www.gpsdeclassified.com

    The major problem I have with people who think that it would have been better for HRC to be elected is that four more years of open borders would have converted more of the US into California.  Mass immigration of people who like big government and socialism is a greater threat to conservatism than DJT.  I’m afraid that my conservative friends who strongly dislike Trump don’t understand this.

    • #17
  18. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    So according to you, a woman who has had two abortions occupies the same moral footing as OJ Simpson.

    Moral footing? No. Moral plane? Well, that’s where all sorts of intangibles float into the matter. If one behaves in a careless manner knowing that you have a socially-sanctioned backstop to deal with inconvenient consequences, do you bear responsibility for the ending of a life?  Does the blithe acceptance of abortion as a possible remedy for the result of some hot sweaty whoo-hoo mean subconscious pre-meditation?

    I don’t know. But I know that once upon a time a (D) could say that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare – and nowadays “rare” raises hackles.  You have idiots like Lena Dunham publicly wishing she’d had an abortion, so she could “reduce the stigma” – and the same cohort obsesses over the babies they don’t abort because the timing was more appropriate, the conception more arduous. We had to destroy the village in order to enjoy our stay in the other village down the road, which had potholes.

    The Left wants absolutism in the face of opposition; internally, they may argue, but when it comes to the Right, they will accept no disagreements. Abortion is health. Oppose it, and you should swing. 

    Metaphorically, of course. 

    • #18
  19. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    That said, the podcast was about more than KW and abortion, right? I mean, there was talk of baldness and Facebook replacements and Ronald Reagan.

    • #19
  20. Hammer, The Inactive
    Hammer, The
    @RyanM

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    That said, the podcast was about more than KW and abortion, right? I mean, there was talk of baldness and Facebook replacements and Ronald Reagan.

    Yes.  Indeed.  And I did really enjoy your comments about baldness.

    But the stuff about abortion… I was disappointed with Peter’s squishyness… and I have full confidence that if ever given the opportunity to sit at a bar for 2 hours with Rob, we would see eye to eye by the end of it … and at the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I think that you are exactly that person who embodies everything that is reasonable about both of them.  But that’s the problem with podcasts like these.  It makes us all feel like old friends; and with my real friends, I’d have walked up to both Peter and Rob and, maybe after buying a round or two, talked some damned sense into them.

    • #20
  21. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Sorry — I was so shocked by what Peter said that I paused and came here to comment before hearing what Rob and James had to say. They also talked about Kevin “clarifying” his remarks. There’s nothing to clarify (or apologize for). Believing that abortion is murder is totally normal and logical and moral.

    Uh huh. So according to you, a woman who has had two abortions occupies the same moral footing as OJ Simpson.

    Do you honestly believe that?

    Note: I half-expect evasion or equivocation from you (“I said what I meant. I shouldn’t have to explain myself.”) rather than a straightforward answer. And I guess it’s hard to blame you. But I do have my fingers crossed.

    Yeah, some people believe that having two abortions is the same as killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. 

    It is impossible to calculate the cost of murder. In the case of  a baby, it’s not just the baby; it’s their babies, and their babies …

    Schlindler save 1,200, but that was in fact thousands and thousands and thousands he saved when you include their offspring.

    Which is not to say I believe the answer is to execute the mother.  I don’t know what the answer is; in fact I’m fairly sure there’s not just one answer.

    My dream is to live in a society where abortion is morally repugnant. I know someone who has shared that she gets more outrage from lighting up a cigarette than she does from admitting to an abortion.

    • #21
  22. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    I am still reeling from the statements of Peter, a fellow Catholic, that abortion doesn’t approach the legal definition of murder because of the lack of “malice” and “premeditation”. Peter, what are you thinking? As to the latter, James pointed out that one has to make an appointment to have an abortion. That’s pretty clear premeditation, no? As for “malice”, is there not real malice in the decision to snuff out a human life rather than  choosing to having that human life live and grow ? Peter, I don’t understand your position. I’m not being a mindless contrarian, I am wondering how in the world you can ignore the science that says that the “product of conception” is human (let’s be real – no one ever loses sleep worrying that their pregnancy will result in a frog being born) and that it is alive. Let’s be honest – if it isn’t a distinct human being alive and growing, the woman isn’t pregnant. A woman is pregnant when a human child is conceived. That this is some weird, unpredictable, unforeseen result of sex is a modern and  irrational position.  Can we accept that the unborn is human? It’s not going to develop into a dog or frog, and it is alive. That’s the point of most abortions – to kill that living human being before it inconveniences the mother. And Peter doesn’t see that killing as malice? It’s hardly the case that the alternative – adoption – isn’t available and widely known to be such. One can hardly use a public bathroom without seeing notices from Catholic organizations offering  adoption services. There are so many families willing and waiting. It seems obvious to me that given the availability of other options, the choice to kill one’s unborn child does indeed involve malice – the desire to kill an inconvenient human life

    Can we just be honest? We, as a society, have decided to accept the killing of millions of innocent human beings in the womb because we are like the idea of sex without consequences (meaning, procreation, which is inherent in the act).

    • #22
  23. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    All the GOP legal threats do on abortion is grow Planned Parenthood’s fixed overhead and it empowers the Democrat party.  Just make the moral case. 

    • #23
  24. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Sorry — I was so shocked by what Peter said that I paused and came here to comment before hearing what Rob and James had to say. They also talked about Kevin “clarifying” his remarks. There’s nothing to clarify (or apologize for). Believing that abortion is murder is totally normal and logical and moral.

    Uh huh. So according to you, a woman who has had two abortions occupies the same moral footing as OJ Simpson.

     

    Not taking a position on abortion here, but it seems to me it would matter who was actually holding/using the “weapon,” the pregnant woman or the abortionist. Perhaps there might be a law against conspiracy to perform abortion which would apply to the mother who submits herself to an abortion, the father who pays for it, etc.

    • #24
  25. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Freesmith (View Comment):
    Williamson had no qualms when it came to insulting people on the Right side of the spectrum. Trump supporters, immigration hawks and non-“free traders” all felt the heel of his contempt. But when he stepped on one of the third rails of 21st century progressivism – abortion – he discovered that his new friends, unlike his old friends, would neither tolerate nor pay for his opinions – on that or any other subject.

    This is completely  missing the point, which is that a talented writer should be able to write what he pleases, without some intolerant people going to the ones who hired him to demand that he be fired.

    This complete inability to put up with people who disagree seems to have affected some on the right also. This comment, along with the 3 “likes” on it, prove this. If you don’t like a piece, don’t read it. Nobody is forcing you to. It is the same thing when some people aver that Mona Charen should not have a platform on Ricochet, because she doesn’t like Trump. And when someone writes a piece on Ricochet, acknowledging that he doesn’t like Trump, there will inevitably follow someone asking why that person is here.

    The way things are going, the only people who will be able to write for any platforms are the ones the majority agree with. What kind of way is that to learn and to grow?

    • #25
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Just for the record, I find Kevin Williamson’s anti-Trump views far more cogent then Mona’s et. al.  To me, that is the central problem that few are talking about. I have no doubt that if Kevin’s or Jonah Goldberg’s policy views were adopted it would make for a comprehensively better world. 

    The other thing is what do you do about cultural Marxism, critical theory, the Frankfurt school and all of that stuff? I hate even thinking about it, but it seems like it’s a real problem. 

    • #26
  27. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    That said, the podcast was about more than KW and abortion, right? I mean, there was talk of baldness and Facebook replacements and Ronald Reagan.

    I really enjoyed the ‘MLK Comes Back’ fantasy (“To think that I took a bullet for that!“) and the Kennedy Family slams (“A family on the make.”).

    That sent me wondering whether Ambassador Caroline Kennedy actually accomplished anything during her years in Japan. I found her four minute video farewell message in which she recalled meeting the Japanese woman “whose husband captained the Japanese destroyer which collided with my father’s boat.” So, apparently that little boating accident has been all smoothed over.

    • #27
  28. B. Hugh Mann Inactive
    B. Hugh Mann
    @BHughMann

    Abortion is homicide.  I can’t see how that is debatable.  

     

     

    • #28
  29. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Sorry — I was so shocked by what Peter said that I paused and came here to comment before hearing what Rob and James had to say. They also talked about Kevin “clarifying” his remarks. There’s nothing to clarify (or apologize for). Believing that abortion is murder is totally normal and logical and moral.

    Uh huh. So according to you, a woman who has had two abortions occupies the same moral footing as OJ Simpson.

    Do you honestly believe that?

    Note: I half-expect evasion or equivocation from you (“I said what I meant. I shouldn’t have to explain myself.”) rather than a straightforward answer. And I guess it’s hard to blame you. But I do have my fingers crossed.

    Maybe you should just wait for me to respond, instead of filling in the blank. You don’t know me, I don’t know you. Your comment reads as pretty condescending. Perhaps that was not your intent. I don’t know. I’ll resist inventing a response from you.

    I honestly believe that abortion is murder.

    Morally speaking there’s not much difference in this hypothetical scenario of OJ and the woman who’s had two abortions. (Let’s assume for discussion that OJ is guilty.) They have both killed to people. The woman has murdered her own offspring, though. Is that actually “worse” than an abusive ex-husband murdering his former wife and her boyfriend? I don’t know — Euripides was asking this question almost 2,500 years ago.

    Legally speaking, there are different degrees of murder. There are different penalties. This was the subject of discussion in the Mad Dogs episode. 

    • #29
  30. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    and I have full confidence that if ever given the opportunity to sit at a bar for 2 hours with Rob, we would see eye to eye by the end of it

    Because you’d both be lying on the floor semi-conscious? 🤣🍻🥃

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.