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.
To mark this historical day, we’ve assembled a panel that we think reflects all sides of the new Trump administration — a mashup of the Ricochet Podcast and Need To Know with Charen and Nordlinger with a dash of Victor Davis Hanson thrown in for flavoring. It’s a bracing conversation that really gets into the weeds on the election and what may lie ahead.
Public service announcement: if you’re not a member of Ricochet and enjoy this podcast, be one of the 1,500 and join today.
Music from this week’s podcast: Orange Crush by R.E.M.
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!
@EJHill took an oath.
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.
Harry's Shave
Use Code: ricochet
Harry’s produces high-quality razors for 1/2 the price of drugstore brands. Get $5 off your first purchase by using coupon code “RICOCHET” at checkout.
Surprisingly, Peggy Noonan gets it. From her WSJ column:
Anyway, it was a remarkable speech, like none before it, and it marked, I think, yet another break point in the two-party reality that has dominated our politics for many decades.
And so, now, it begins. And it simply has to be repeated: We have never had a political moment like this in our lives. We have never had a president like this, such a norm-breaker, in all the ways we know.
She also said:
He looked out at the crowd and said he was allied with them.
Noonan may not agree with Trump, but she recognizes what happened as historic.
Seawriter
Beautifully stated.
Thanks for this. Mona’s reply had a lot to it, of course–the rich have gotten richer in cities across the country–but Washington still stands apart. The big industry in that town is government. All its power and all its wealth arises directly from coercion: Pay your taxes, obey the laws, and follow our endless regulations or else. That Washington has grown rich while middle class incomes have stagnated represents a very particular affront to democracy and our entire way of life.
Careful, there. I never called Trump’s speech “Reaganesque,” which would have implied that I found it as graceful, well-reasoned and big-hearted as the Gipper’s oratory: which I certainly did not. I merely said that in a couple of places Trump made the same argument that Reagan had made: which he did.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!
@peterrobinson On the wealth of washington.
I remember reading David Cay Johnsons book Free Lunch in which he gave a nice anecdote.
He was in an airport on his way to DC when one of the other passengers shouted out. “I am on my way to DC to get rich!”
Like a man going to the California gold rush.
He had another piece on the book on how much Washington DC spends at the time. 250k a second. If a person could put there finger under the tap for a few seconds, and have the spigot pour out on them, they could be wealthy beyond the dreams of most Americans.
Thats the swamp that Trump went to drain.
Mona Charen – @Evan_McMullin Thank you for your patriotism. So glad I can vote for you here in Virginia.
Evan McMullin – Thank you, Mona. I’m honored to have your support.
Evan McMullin – @ShaunKing. Shared values and principles are the foundation. The rest can be built. I appreciate your voice.
I don’t think I would mind any of that if they had to pay their taxes, obey their laws, and follow their endless regulations along with the rest of us. They do not, though. If a DC bureaucrat evades taxes, disobeys the law or ignore regulations there is typically no consequence . . . except occasionally promotions and bonuses. It is a reversion to the medieval droit du seigneur. It is unamerican.
Seawriter
This was the podcast I was wanting. Seeing Team NTK along with Team Hoover debating Trump and the inaugural address was great, the kind of stuff I joined Ricochet for. I had actually wanted Jay and Mona to have Conrad Black or VDH on their podcast to debate Trump, because they are fellow NR writers and intellectuals.
I’m a longtime reader and fan of VDH, and credit him with a lot of my interest in classical antiquity. Always listen to his point of view and consider it for a while regarding Trump no matter how much it may originally clash with mine.
However there’s one thing that has really bothered me about his last two appearances on the podcast and with some Trump supporters I respect in general: why does he seem to take so many criticisms of the man (Trump) so personally? So what if people have called him horrible names, called him “Hitler” or compared his tactics to the brownshirts? The man himself is infamous for the insane tirades and horrible things he says about people (often times in his own party!) why it so unthinkable or strange that some people would respond in kind?
I mean he almost conflates the hate mail he gets with some of the rhetoric from the conservative side specifically against Trump. They’re not insulting you VDH, who by your own admission was a somewhat reluctant supporter of Trump, so why does he make it seem like they are?
In fairness to Jay, that is the way they usually do NTK. Mona conducts the interview, and then they discuss it afterwards with each other.
Folks, thanks for all the comments and of course, thanks for listening. We put this show together because on Inauguration Day, we wanted to have a full on conversation with all sides of the Trump debate and demonstrate how it could be done in a smart and civilized manner. Because, you know, that’s the brand around here.
And yes, as you heard, emotions ran a bit hot on the show. That’s to be expected. It’s a highly charged topic. And I see that the comments here reflect that.
Many of you disagree with some of the opinions expressed on this show. That’s not only fine, it’s the entire point of this site. But to personally attack anyone (and that includes name calling and mis-quoting) is not acceptable. Nor is castigating anyone over who they may or may not have supported or even voted for.
I hear all the time from members about how they wish there was more contrib participation in the comments. Let’s remember that there are a few dozen of them and thousands of you. In other words, if a point has been made, no need to drive a wedge into it multiple times.
To that end, some of what I’ve read here is not conducive or exemplary of smart and civil conversation. Let’s not forget that basically, we’re all on the same side here. Can we please strive more to act like it?
The Trump phenomenon has shown that there are more than two sides to our current political situation. This is evidenced by people who ran and voted for third party Mc Mullin, other Republicans (whatever that term means) voting for Clinton and others staying home in protest of both candidates. As well, just because Trump ran on the Republican ticket doesn’t mean he’s a ‘Republican’ to some. “Republican” means different thing to different people, not forgetting the label had already lost any identifying definition before Trump came on the scene. This is actually the problem that has vexed the party for quite some time now.
If Trump is a ‘populist’ or a ‘nationalist’ first and foremost, then those non-leftists here opposing him are ‘elitist’ and ‘globalist’, and so are at odds on those important differences. Democrats also have within their party these two camps.
We have some things we agree on. That’s it. But important issues like immigration and trade, which are apparently deal-breakers for those who otherwise would vote for a Republican nominee, revealed the divide. These things apparently supersede all the other things we agree upon, otherwise there would have been no strong rift. On the “same side” is highly questionable. Admonishing people to “act like it” isn’t going to help.
@peterrobinson I keep hearing that Trump’s GOP is fundamentally opposed to the vision of Ronald Reagan. Yet I remember when Reagan described recession as “when your neighbor lost his job and depression is when you lose yours” and American jobs were paramount in our thinking.
Under Reagan we were told Americans wanted work, not welfare.
Now, when challenged on jobs our answer is “cheap trinkets at Wal-Mart!”
It was not an admonishment. It was a request.
Okay, you are right. I’m going to write a post about the misuse of verbs and I just did it myself. You asked, or requested.
Still, asking people to act like it probably is like asking the Bloods and the Crips to remember they are both minorities and the real enemy is”da man”.
I can’t wait to listen to this podcast. Some have said it’s the best one yet. There are 76 comments so far when usually the comment count remains in the teens. Are y’all sure you don’t want more rough and tumble here?
Just trying to help…
Perhaps the vision of Ronald Reagan involved more government intervention than many of his supporters would care to admit.
I am happy, eager even to present content with opposing views. But they have to remain civil both on the podcasts and on the comments. I think the podcast accomplished that (not to say there weren’t heated moments — there was). The comments here, not so much.
Keeping the site civil in the Trump era has challenged us in ways that were unimaginable when we started this endeavor. And in fact, we can’t do it on our own. We have to have the membership’s cooperation or it just won’t work. In the words of Sean Spicer, period.
https://youtu.be/LPlagGOFGeY?t=2m31s
Kudos for fast-forwarding to the lie in that clip.
I liked this podcast very much. Well done all.
I think all the people who commented on this list have been respectful to the contributors as they were respectful to the democratically elected President of the United States.
For example comparing two of the contributors to say the former PM of the United Kingdom would be pretty respectful.
And your point is?
Long time listener, first time poster. Listening to the podcast which I love, reminds me of why I closed my Facebook page. People who’s opinions I respect and love, not because I agree with them always, but for the very reason that it might be different, and life and experience they bring to the table gives me something to think about. Ruth Graham said something to the effect, that if Billy and her agreed on everything, one of them wouldn’t be necessary. Christian author and speaker Greg Koukl tempers his talks when giving his defense of the Christian faith with the statement, “but I could be wrong”. He “knows” he does not know everything. So what’s my point. Why do people ignore facts, take statements and even actions out of context. Take this example: Donald Trump made fun of a disabled person. This was stated on the podcast by Mona Charen. Is it true? I guess if you can read DJT’s mind and he was lying, you would be right. But DJT said he did not know the guy had a disability, but was criticizing what he had said. Now let me say, there are plenty of things that he actually “said” that I do not like and find extremely distasteful, and even in regard to the “cheering Muslim’s” incident, it is hard to tell from what I could find that the whole argument was on how many Muslims, Donald exaggerated of course, and the reporter was saying did not happen that way, so it goes from an argument about facts, to “making fun of disabled”. Let us have some context, please and stop repeating what are some form of ad hominem that the SJW left use as their almost exclusive rebuttal. I did not vote for Trump, because I work as a civilian in Afghanistan for the military, but would have if only to stop Clinton, which is a completely valid reason, even though there are some on the Right that sneer at this because it was Trump, but even on this podcast, which I love, have worried about electability of Republicans, including the candidates, only to lose. Looking back at the campaign of 2016, the candidates of my choosing, Walker or Cruz, I believe would of lost to “Her”. There was a movie called “Always” where the hero a fire fighter pilot dies saving the life of another pilot and returns as a guiding spirit to “inspire” a clumsy rookie pilot with his skills, and in a scene where the spirit pilot’s friend that he had saved is about to “wash out” the rookie from flight school, the spirit screams at him “GIVE HIM A CHANCE, AL!!!!!”. I am willing to give Trump a chance.
“We have to have the membership’s cooperation or it just won’t work. In the words of Sean Spicer, period.”
In the spirit of Mona Charen, there goes the Trump Administration insulting women again…
I understand your call to keep things civil. Comments can be blunt and sharp even when not prompted by the incendiary.
However, Jay’s behavior is beyond the pale. It would be one thing for Jay to thus attack Trump while being charitable to his supporters as misguided. But he is equally vicious to Trump’s supporters, even very reluctant supporters. He even lashed out at James, who is to a great extent on the same side (James is evidently insufficiently uncivil).
If a member persistently behaved insultingly as Jay has, he would have been banned long ago. Jay certainly does not think we are on the same side here. He has said so explicitly, persistently, over an extended period. If you are serious, then a quiet conversation with Jay is in order.
The differences in perspective are extreme which tells me more about our lack of understanding of Trump, or better yet our cluelessness about what he really means. Peter gets it right in my view. Yes Trump sounded like a progressive, populist and hence with tones of fascism, as Jay laments, but his appointments are conservatives, the exact opposite. Mona response to Peter was that stagnation and worsening income distribution, the creation of a super wealthy elite are not products of Washington control, her only evidence being that the entire industrial world suffers the same problems. The entire industrial world follows the same policies and has throughout the post war world. When new countries enter, or when old countries embrace freedom, that changes until a new elite gets control of the instruments of power. This is the story of civilization which the founders addressed. My concern with Trump is that he seldom mentions limited power, decentralization, and free markets. These are the directions we must resume if we are to become dynamic again, absorb workers from industries that are shrinking. The sludge is so deep, the symbiotic relations so ubiquitous that the changes must be powerful, disruptive, painful and thorough. I can’t imagine a conservative carrying out such a revolution. Maybe, just maybe we’ve got a great combination. Conservative cabinet and congress and a raging bull to point the direction and sustain their determination and courage. Is that why Kelly Anne was dressed as a revolutionary soldier?
I could not disagree with you more with regard to Jay. I suggest that your perspective is warped by a natural deference to a contributor. But in truth, if you tolerate a contributor persistently insulting the audience (and surely you are aware of his manner of argument on NTK), you give license to incivility. We expect some latitude to be given to contributors on podcasts that would not be tolerated by members in comments, given that they speak rather than write, but there is a line.
I does bother me that it appears you don’t feel that line has even been approached.
@blueyeti : Shaun King appears to be a leader or big supporter of Black Lives Matter. Evan McMullin in an exchange with him professed to share his values. Mona admired McMullin and voted for him while excoriating Trump and his supporters.
@BD1 looks to be calling into question Mona’s judgment and lack of standing to criticize others as insufficiently conservative. It looks like a succinct “get the log out of your own eye” comment.
I disagree with your contention that Jay’s behavior “is beyond the pale.” He has criticized Trump. He has made general observations about some Trump supporters. That’s it. Listening to Jay on a podcast is optional. Many of you in this thread have said you stopped listening to his show months ago. Your choice.
More importantly, Jay Nordlinger is not a Ricochet member. He’s not interacting with other members, he’s not breaking any of the rules here. You don’t like him? Don’t listen to him or read him. Easy.
I don’t know who you backed in the election, but if it was Donald Trump, I really don’t think you want to go down this road as it directly leads to all of the folks of highly questionable character who supported him.