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.
The hard thing about producing a weekly podcast is coming up with relevant topics to talk about. Nothing ever happens in this boring administration we’ve elected. Yawn. This week, we’ve got Pat Buchanan (you must buy his new book Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever) who weighs in on those endless Nixon/Trump comparisons, and gives us his take on how the President is doing so far. Then, our old pal Dennis Prager made some waves this week with a column titled Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump. We delve into that and his new project with Adam Corrolla (he’ll be on in a few weeks too), No Safe Spaces, a film on the decay of free speech/thought on college campuses and what this means for our country. Also, join us on July 23rd for a special taping of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson at the Reagan Library, hosted by Pat Sajak. Details here.
Music from this week’s podcast: Fixing A Hole by The Beatles
The all new opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps! And leave a review too! And for Peter’s sake: JOIN RICOCHET TODAY.
Cool, @EJHill.
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.
David’s been better than other NeverTrumpers at applauding Trump for doing things David agrees with. I believe I mentioned this when I was on the Ricochet podcast two weeks ago. If I didn’t, I had meant to. Rob and Lileks have so far demonstrated they are not willing to follow David’s example.
They were in no way enthusiastic.
There are some conservatives who will be enthusiastic about certain actions that Donald Trump takes (for example, the Gorsuch nomination) but will never be enthusiastic about Donald Trump.
Why?
Trump is an ignoramus. He might be our ignoramus, but he’s still an ignoramus.
Prager wants to pretend that Trump isn’t an ignoramus. Other conservatives aren’t willing to play that game of “let’s pretend.” Instead, these other conservatives are simply telling their readers the truth as they see it. Prager has decided to be a propagandist and that’s fine. But he isn’t going to be able to force others to engage in that behavior.
So the [redacted] what?
They admitted when he did something good, and that’s still not enough for you.
I’m sorry Rob and James are not soullessly partisan enough for you.
I disagree. Nothing he’s ever done would suggest that he is an ignoramus. To be sure, like all of us, there are areas in which he is ignorant. That is normal. Peter Robinson told a great story several years ago about Reagan at Reykjavik. One of his advisors wanted him to know about how missiles work. Reagan responded “oh, Jim, Gorbechev doesn’t know any of that either.”
Here’s what Scott Adams had to say about it recently:
This is definitely an issue that divides many Trump supporters and most of the Trump skeptics.
Here’s an analogy:
Some people never liked Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as a basketball player, not because they doubted his athletic ability, but because of the negative comments he made about the United States of America.
I think it’s similar attitude that many conservatives have with Trump. They will cheer a Gorsuch nomination. They will cheer the exit from the Paris Climate Agreement. But they will never respect Donald Trump has a human being.
And for good reason.
I could still dislike a Barack Obama if he had bailed from a Paris Accords that a prior president had signed onto. That I would agree with and endorse some things he does, wouldn’t erase everything else I dislike and don’t support.
Not sure if the analogy works here, but it’s similar. If Barry had cut corporate and personal income taxes in 2009, would Prager have told all of us to vote for him in the next election?
Obama is on the Left. He advanced Leftist goals.
Trump is on on the Right. He has already advanced conservative goals, and I hope he will continue to do so.
Wow, pretty poor showing all around, with the exception of Lileks, with whom I agree; this stupid Trump/NeverTrump tribal argument is unbearably tedious at this point. Prager is absolutely, embarassingly wrong here. He doesn’t think about the down-the-line costs when short term political victories are at stake? In what universe is that conservative? All that matters is defeating the left? Maybe, but at what cost? Or are we only allowed to ask those questions of the left? Good lord.
And again with Gorsuch, Gorsuch, Gorsuch! I have all the sympathy in the world for people who don’t actually vote for the president, but the Supreme Court, but that’s only justifiable if the operative assumption is that the Republican party won’t come through with a conservative agenda in the other two branches. So, for starters, responding to every criticism of any Republican with “b-b-b-but SCOTUS!!!!” is only encouraging the party to give up on the normal political process, and aggrandize the role of the court. More than that, this idea that “we have a better chance with a conservative supreme court” is profoundly misguided, and is going to lead to disastrous consequences at some point in the future.
People fail to acknowledge that congress has the power, explicit in the constitution, to but any bill it wants to outside of judicial review. It’s been done; not often, but it’s happened. Given that we’ve got a century’s worth of history of kicking one tether after another away from the tent pole of checks and balances, it’s only a matter of time before future congresses start resorting to this with any bill they think is “essential” to American prosperity. Don’t think it’ll happen? The filibuster is gone for SCOTUS justices, almost certainly never to return. That means that, henceforth, all appointments to that court are going to be purely political appointments. How long can we really expect congress to leave their precious legislative accomplishments at the mercy of blatantly partisan justices? Rhetorical; we know exactly what will happen in that scenario.
Also, let’s stop acting like the Supreme Court has done any real, durable good for liberty and conservatism. For instance, they’re poised to issue some execrable ruling that essentially makes the “Blaine amendments” in several state constitutions unconstitutional, presumably on the grounds that declining to offer state funds to religious institutions is an “undue burden” on the “fundamental” right of religious expression. States rights? What’s that? Negative liberty? What’s that?
It isn’t always clear what constitutes “the Right.” Many on “the Right” support lowering import tariffs for the same reason that they might want to reduce any other federal tax on businesses and consumers.
Trump’s trade representative is supportive of protecting American steel producers from cheaper imported steel. But there are more American jobs in American businesses that purchase steel than there are in American businesses that produce steel.
I can applaud the Trump administration’s views on immigration while opposing its views on trade.
So, it is inevitable that people on “the Right” will be disagreeing with Trump and each other.
Should this decision happen (and it’s looking that way), it will be lauded as a landmark conservative judicial victory, and conservatives will simply ignore the fact that, in order to get it, the court will have had to buy into nearly every liberal precept in the book. Positive rights, judicial fiat, substantive due process, the whole nine: every precept that the left uses to justify striking down restrictions on abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, you name it. Even the beloved Heller decision could easily be used to justify judicial supremacy and erode state sovereignty in the future.
Don’t kid yourselves; the SCOTUS isn’t long for this world as a “safety net” for liberty, if it even was in the first place which, looking back at the history, is a pretty dubious claim. I couldn’t be happier with an Gorsuch than any other candidate available to Donald Trump, but the importance of him, and the court in general, are wildly exaggerated in their importance. No, if there had been a “true” conservative judge on the court instead of Kennedy, Obergefell wouldn’t have happened, but that would have been a rear guard action against gay marriage, which was going to happen in all fifty states within a generation whether anyone likes it or not. The fact of the matter is legislative and cultural accomplishments are much, much more integral to the good working order of the country, and the Right has been striking out on those.
@spiral9399 You’ll get no quarrel from me on any of your specific points, but to the extent there is such a thing as American conservatism, it revolves around basic axioms, such as respect for process, constitutional structure, and various cultural precepts (honesty, moral probity, etc.). Your point about trade simply ballasts mine. Beyond the property rights issues as stake with tariffs, it’s short-sighted and narrow to politically advantage the short-term employment of a small constituency at the expense of the greater, more diffuse prosperity of the country as a whole.
According to Prager, and I’ve heard him say this several times, defeating the left is the Number One priority, and everything else is subordinate to that. If, by “the left”, we simply mean the Democratic party, left-wing voters, and campus idiots, that’s easy. Let’s just start supporting politicians who will adopt all of their basic assumptions, outbid them on pandering to a bigger voting bloc, tack on some ad hoc sops to the “cultural” conservatives, and call it a day. It’s a strategy that can win elections, so who cares if the philosophical underlay is defective and indistinguishable from the left?
Nothing but some simple praise here, what a great episode. Loved hearing from Pat Buchanan and his insight into Trump; along with his historical perspectives on Nixon and Reagan. Also, your $ 2.50 podcast membership is working. I was one of those non-members who decided $ 2.50 was affordable each month. By the time on I was on the site, I decided only $ 2.50 more for full membership was worth it. Thanks again, I look forward with painful anticipation each week for The Ricochet Podcast.
Pat Buchanan nailed it. Trump avoided entitlement reform to save The Republic in other ways. The excess, poorly run government and Federal Reserve has killed the economy and has made Leftism and populism the only viable options.
Having said that, they should have been way more strategic in overhauling the ACA. They should have done a year of education on what a mess we have created since WW2, first. I am very, very nervous about this.
Medicare Part D is a $9 trillion unfunded liability that will be the first thing to go when the bond market collapses. Karl Rove thought of it to make sure Bush could do the Iraq surge. Mises.org is right about everything.
Everyone needs to see the Reason Magazine interview of George Will. He is a very cranky, negative, libertarian now because it is the only sensible way to be.
I love this.
Progressives get permanent power via Critical Theory and Alinsky tactics. This crap works. Look at the ACA. This is why I’m very glad Trump won.
The Republic will collapse if the Left gets any more permanent power which is effectively all they want 24/7. There is no more debt, GDP, and taxation runway for big government. We are Ruled by venal, stupid, criminals.
ANALYSIS: True
Also, I really hate the idea of Sasse’s book right now. Rag-ing on young people to grow up so they can be FICA slaves for the broke Medicare system when we have never ending ***2%***GDP is not helpful to the cause of freedom.
Everybody hopes he’ll be a good president.
Some are just more skeptical than others, and for some reason the non-skeptics can’t abide that.
Dude, you say that like the reasons aren’t blazingly obvious. First, they like all the things about Trump that the Nevers don’t. They like that he’s a rude, crybullying, identity politics class warrior who’s only real agenda is to destroy his enemies. They have this bizarre notion that Trump hates their enemies for any reason other than their enemies have personally slighted him, and are happy to parrot his attacks on them, which are all based on how mean they are too Trump.
Second, they don’t want the fact that their guy is a dope who knows nothing, who talks, writes, and reasons at the level of a 12 year-old, and not a particularly bright one, to be pointed out. As they all keep saying, he gets plenty of that from the left, which is where they want it to stay so they can rationalize it as just a bunch of fake news.
This is obvious from everything they say, they’re never going to accept that criticism, and there’s no convincing them that there’s no grand Acela corridor conspiracy to take political power away from them and give it to The Left. They want a conservative media that’s a booster club for their guy, and they’re going to be satisfied with nothing less. Thanks the way it is. Let’s just deal with it and move on.
Thanks, GJP!
Skepticism instead of antagonism would be great.
Here on Ricochet? Amongst the guests on the podcast? Please be so kind as to point out who that might be. You’re referring to Peter? That’s both insulting and delusional.
Instead, if you are anything like the AlwaysLileksers here, you’ll simply point to someone who is bored with parroting left-wing denunciations of Trump and wants to get on with advancing sane policies while the Democrats are out of power. Trump is who we got, so get on with it. But James is bored with being called a bore.
And he’s a bore, as is Rob. They couldn’t even ask non-obsequious questions to Prager. They’d rather dis’ him after he’s off the line.
Sheesh.
… during which the hosts refused to engage the NeverTrump argument and instead left it until the guests left to disparage them. That’s the old NeverTrump courage.
Actually, the comparison is relevant, but not as to the substance. Rob isn’t really disparaging Trump for his policy incoherence or lack of principle. That would be refreshing. Moreso a little heat on the sit-on-the-ball Congress. Instead, it’s all about Trump the political naif and incontinent boor. Maybe Rob is angling for a job at The Daily Show.
Or maybe he’s got an insurance policy out on Ricochet and he’s trying to burn it to the ground. (I made the mistake of renewing yearly in July — have been since 2010 — so they’ve got me for a few more months.)
Rob and James, are you listening?
And I would add: your “tough love” does nothing for anybody but your own ego. Stop with your narcissistic whining. @roblong. There, now I’m certain you’ll read this.
Just wanted to pass along a little “tough love.” This is more likely to get to you than yours to Trump. Although I do admit that everything in “the resistance” probably does add up.