Pardon Us

Gotta make this brief as we are very, very busy around here: Peter Robinson? Not here this week. Jon Gabriel sits in for him. It’s really cold in NYC today. We break down the dumpster fire Democratic debate. Then, author and New York Times science writer (no that’s not a typo) John Tierny on his book The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It  We’re positive you are going to like it. Then, our pal Christina Hoffs Sommers from the Femsplainers podcast stops by to talk about Harvey Weinstein, Democratic primary candidate wackiness (and woke-i-ness) and why she thinks Bernie Sanders will be the nominee. Finally, pardon us, but we have to discuss the pardons, and Jon Gabriel humblebrags about reading some really old books. Yawn.

Music from this week’s show: Rose Garden by Lynn Anderson

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.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

Lending Club

Quip

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 59 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Nice ending music. Of course with Jon on there, maybe you could have tried something like this:

    • #1
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I’m guessing John Tierny‘s name was supposed to be included in the podcast description.  But you just have too much stuff going on.

    • #2
  3. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I’m guessing John Tierny‘s name was supposed to be included in the podcast description. But you just have too much stuff going on.

    Too subtle a joke, I see. Fixed. 

    • #3
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    It’s disappointing, and a little disgusting, that @roblong seems to wish the Democrats would nominate someone who could actually beat Trump in November.  But the reality is, even if you could get a Sam Nunn nominated now, even the “conservative” Democrats were bad for the country, and the world.

    And Rob mentions Andrew Klavan’s “very compelling” arguments about supporting Trump, but then appears to just dismiss them, probably because, y’know, “Trump is loathsome.”  Which is exactly the claim/argument that Klavan counters.

     

    • #4
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    It seems that Blago having received a longer sentence for “corruption” than others might get for murder, seems like reason enough for a commutation.  (Note: a commutation is not a pardon.)

    If it were possible, I would prefer increasing the sentences of those who have done worse things.  But the president doesn’t have that power.

    • #5
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I’m guessing John Tierny‘s name was supposed to be included in the podcast description. But you just have too much stuff going on.

    Too subtle a joke, I see. Fixed.

    Even a subtle joke requires some clue to its existence.

    • #6
  7. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    kedavis (View Comment):

    It’s disappointing, and a little disgusting, that @roblong seems to wish the Democrats would nominate someone who could actually beat Trump in November. But the reality is, even if you could get a Sam Nunn nominated now, even the “conservative” Democrats were bad for the country, and the world.

    And Rob mentions Andrew Klavan’s “very compelling” arguments about supporting Trump, but then appears to just dismiss them, probably because, y’know, “Trump is loathsome.” Which is exactly the claim/argument that Klavan counters.

     

    Don’t you wish that Democrats could find someone with a clue that actually wants what is good for the country and nominate him/her? I do. I don’t think it is very likely but I would dearly like to see it.  

    I also wish that Republicans would nominate an informed person who wants what is good for the country. Someone who fights without being “loathsome”. Also not very likely.

     

    • #7
  8. Peter Robinson Contributor
    Peter Robinson
    @PeterRobinson

    Wait. You guys had John Tierney on this one? Man, am I ever sorry I missed it.

    • #8
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    It’s disappointing, and a little disgusting, that @roblong seems to wish the Democrats would nominate someone who could actually beat Trump in November. But the reality is, even if you could get a Sam Nunn nominated now, even the “conservative” Democrats were bad for the country, and the world.

    And Rob mentions Andrew Klavan’s “very compelling” arguments about supporting Trump, but then appears to just dismiss them, probably because, y’know, “Trump is loathsome.” Which is exactly the claim/argument that Klavan counters.

     

    Don’t you wish that Democrats could find someone with a clue that actually wants what is good for the country and nominate him/her? I do. I don’t think it is very likely but I would dearly like to see it.

    I also wish that Republicans would nominate an informed person who wants what is good for the country. Someone who fights without being “loathsome”. Also not very likely.

    If anything, it’s far more likely for the Republicans to nominate someone who wouldn’t be a danger to the country – and even the rest of the world – than for the Democrats.  And even if the Dems did nominate a Sam Nunn or even another Bill Clinton or whatever, even a “moderate” Democrat is still bad for the country.  Far worse than Trump.  The economy, court nominations, etc, don’t care if you or I or anyone else think the president is a good person.  Especially considering the lessons of history, a “nice” Republican president is just one that the Left can roll over, mow down, choose your simile.

    • #9
  10. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    Psst…. @rodin. Give this one a listen. 

    • #10
  11. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Especially considering the lessons of history, a “nice” Republican president is just one that the Left can roll over, mow down, choose your simile.

    It’s been a decades-long process: the Republicans accept the premise of the Left, then oppose its full implementation. When it is partially implemented, they rail against it, and promise to roll it back, which turns out to be a 10% cut in the 20% rate of increased funding. Eventually you get to 2042, when a popular Republican president is re-elected and decides to spend some political capital on introducing a private option for health care, alongside M4A. He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good. 

    • #11
  12. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    I still stand by my claim that Bloomberg did second best in the debate. His jests were well struck – plus they were aimed at the only other person on stage who really mattered. Warren had her moment, but, as was discussed, the feminist’s big moment has passed, and it’s forgettable. 

    • #12
  13. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Especially considering the lessons of history, a “nice” Republican president is just one that the Left can roll over, mow down, choose your simile.

    It’s been a decades-long process: the Republicans accept the premise of the Left, then oppose its full implementation. When it is partially implemented, they rail against it, and promise to roll it back, which turns out to be a 10% cut in the 20% rate of increased funding. Eventually you get to 2042, when a popular Republican president is re-elected and decides to spend some political capital on introducing a private option for health care, alongside M4A. He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good.

    Womp womp! Sounds like being in my 50s won’t be as much fun as I always thought it would.

    • #13
  14. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):
    Don’t you wish that Democrats could find someone with a clue that actually wants what is good for the country and nominate him/her? I do. I don’t think it is very likely but I would dearly like to see it.

    Given the structure of the government and the electorate what would that look like? We are decades, if not a whole century,  past anything like this being possible. 

    • #14
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good.

    Explained here.

    Given that the distribution of the income in modern commercial societies tends to be such that there’s a few rich and wealth tend to be a small segment of the population, and the middle class and lower classes tend to be the majority, the best way to get elected is to offer mostly the middle class all sorts of public goods in terms of social programs and so forth, and then have those financed by the well-to-do who would function as the taxpaying class. That way you get your majority and get elected.

    All politicians, whether the left or the right, both sides of the political spectrum do this. Perhaps the left does this with a bit more conviction guiding their efforts, but on both sides of the political spectrum this happens. So politicians engage in this bidding war every time election time comes, trying to offer the majority all these goodies with the idea that they don’t have to pay for it, someone else will. What ends up happening, I argue in the books, is that after a while of this bidding war where politicians offer more and more public goods, someone has to finance this. Eventually you run out of taxpayers or you run into taxpayer resistance. At that point politicians then resort to the bond market and the bond market has proven historically quite eager to lend funds to the government. Government bonds are very attractive investments for a lot of folks because of the safety. This is money that’s backed up by the power of the state, unlike corporate bonds which are not. Corporate bonds are only paid ultimately if the corporation is successful at attracting people to voluntarily buy their goods and services.

    I argue in the book that we now have a kind of financial market-government complex, or a bond market-government complex. The bond market has emerged as a kind of handmaiden to the welfare state, this growth of government. At a certain point, even the bond market will say ‘we can’t lend more’ and at that point politicians will appeal to the money press and they will enlist the central bank to print money, essentially, though it’s more complex how liquidity is injected into the economy, but that’s basically what happens. So essentially democracy leads to fiscal profligacy, too much spent relative to the revenues politicians are willing to collect from people. They then have to go to the bond market; public debt rises.

    • #15
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):
    Don’t you wish that Democrats could find someone with a clue that actually wants what is good for the country and nominate him/her?

    Three minutes.

     

     

     

    • #16
  17. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Samuel Block (View Comment):

    I still stand by my claim that Bloomberg did second best in the debate. His jests were well struck – plus they were aimed at the only other person on stage who really mattered. Warren had her moment, but, as was discussed, the feminist’s big moment has passed, and it’s forgettable.

    Warren the Billionaire Killer — realizing the Presidential nomination is out of reach, maybe she’s actually running to be Sanders’ Veep.

    He’ll provide the socialist poetry; she, the socialist programs.

    • #17
  18. Rightfromthestart Coolidge
    Rightfromthestart
    @Rightfromthestart

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Especially considering the lessons of history, a “nice” Republican president is just one that the Left can roll over, mow down, choose your simile.

    It’s been a decades-long process: the Republicans accept the premise of the Left, then oppose its full implementation. When it is partially implemented, they rail against it, and promise to roll it back, which turns out to be a 10% cut in the 20% rate of increased funding. Eventually you get to 2042, when a popular Republican president is re-elected and decides to spend some political capital on introducing a private option for health care, alongside M4A. He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good.

    It then obtains the sacred ‘third rail ‘ status. Of course, it’s only leftist programs that achieve that, for the left nothing is sacred, they’re actually attacking the first and second amendments and no one is saying ‘third rail’ . We’ve gone way beyond whether illegals should be here at all to quibbling over how many benefits they’re entitled to, I’m in NY , I woke up this morning to a discussion of drivers licenses for illegals. 

    • #18
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    bla-GOY-ya-vitch.

    • #19
  20. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    kedavis (View Comment):
    If anything, it’s far more likely for the Republicans to nominate someone who wouldn’t be a danger to the country – and even the rest of the world – than for the Democrats. And even if the Dems did nominate a Sam Nunn or even another Bill Clinton or whatever, even a “moderate” Democrat is still bad for the country. Far worse than Trump. The economy, court nominations, etc, don’t care if you or I or anyone else think the president is a good person. Especially considering the lessons of history, a “nice” Republican president is just one that the Left can roll over, mow down, choose your simile.

    I don’t give two hoots for “nice”. I’d like one that can go 2 days without stepping all over his male appendage! I’d like strong and adult. No more orange buffoons or old communists. Seems that is asking too much.

    • #20
  21. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    It’s been a decades-long process: the Republicans accept the premise of the Left, then oppose its full implementation. When it is partially implemented, they rail against it, and promise to roll it back, which turns out to be a 10% cut in the 20% rate of increased funding. Eventually you get to 2042, when a popular Republican president is re-elected and decides to spend some political capital on introducing a private option for health care, alongside M4A. He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good. 

    Not so sure, James. I think Medicare for all or some facsimile thereof, is coming. Hopefully I will get my other hip replaced before it happens!

    • #21
  22. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    It’s been a decades-long process: the Republicans accept the premise of the Left, then oppose its full implementation. When it is partially implemented, they rail against it, and promise to roll it back, which turns out to be a 10% cut in the 20% rate of increased funding. Eventually you get to 2042, when a popular Republican president is re-elected and decides to spend some political capital on introducing a private option for health care, alongside M4A. He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good. 

    Maybe if Bernie gets the nomination and loses bigly. But sadly, I agree, the Democrats seem determined to become socialists and go further and further left.

    • #22
  23. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):
    Seems that is asking too much.

    Yep.

    • #23
  24. Leslie Watkins Member
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    @roblong: if you like, I’ll bet you a good bottle of wine that Bernie Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee. (I’m probably wrong, but I hope not. The Democratic Party needs a schism, and nominating someone other than Bernie, will be the spark it needs. I think it’s possible that Klobuchar might suddenly break out of the pack and get the nod.)

    • #24
  25. Al Sparks Thatcher
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    The discussion on Rod Blagojevich was mercifully short.  But the short argument was based on a “pardon” that didn’t happen.

    Blagojevich’s sentence was commuted, but the conviction remains.  For Rob Long to say that tax cheats shouldn’t get pardoned did not apply here.  Legally, he is still a felon (that is Rod, not Rob).

    • #25
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Yes, as I mentioned in #5, a commutation is not a pardon.  But he did receive a longer sentence for “corruption” than others might get for murder/manslaughter, so a commutation doesn’t seem out of line.  At least until people get longer sentences for actual killing.

    • #26
  27. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    I think it was Hemingway who explained how someone goes bankrupt – very, very slowly; then very, very quickly. It really looks like Biden is this year’s Jeb!, Bernie this year’s Trump and Warren this year’s Chris Christie doing a kamikazi run at Bloomberg to make sure nothing gets better in this country. Who dreamed up the plan to put Super Tuesday three days after the South Carolina primary? Maybe a divine being is punishing this country for our sins.

    • #27
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Divine intervention is not required.  Just not stepping in to save us from ourselves.  Or from some of ourselves, anyway.

    • #28
  29. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    It’s been a decades-long process: the Republicans accept the premise of the Left, then oppose its full implementation. When it is partially implemented, they rail against it, and promise to roll it back, which turns out to be a 10% cut in the 20% rate of increased funding. Eventually you get to 2042, when a popular Republican president is re-elected and decides to spend some political capital on introducing a private option for health care, alongside M4A. He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good.

    Not so sure, James. I think Medicare for all or some facsimile thereof, is coming. Hopefully I will get my other hip replaced before it happens!

    Having children in their twenties gives you a much different perspective on issues. I’d recommend Trump supporters or real conservatives that oppose medicare for all look at Reddit or Imgur – 95% is non-political but the items that do get upvoted are almost all concerning some outrage about denied medical care or asinine billing by medical providers. Some fundamental reform of our medical/industrial complex is inevitable, and in the very near future. The longer conservatives deny that reality the longer we will be in the wilderness. 

    • #29
  30. Leslie Watkins Member
    Leslie Watkins
    @LeslieWatkins

    Petty Boozswha (View Comment):

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    It’s been a decades-long process: the Republicans accept the premise of the Left, then oppose its full implementation. When it is partially implemented, they rail against it, and promise to roll it back, which turns out to be a 10% cut in the 20% rate of increased funding. Eventually you get to 2042, when a popular Republican president is re-elected and decides to spend some political capital on introducing a private option for health care, alongside M4A. He is savaged for wanting to destroy the current system, the effort dies in Congress, and the idea perishes for good.

    Not so sure, James. I think Medicare for all or some facsimile thereof, is coming. Hopefully I will get my other hip replaced before it happens!

    Having children in their twenties gives you a much different perspective on issues. I’d recommend Trump supporters or real conservatives that oppose medicare for all look at Reddit or Imgur – 95% is non-political but the items that do get upvoted are almost all concerning some outrage about denied medical care or asinine billing by medical providers. Some fundamental reform of our medical/industrial complex is inevitable, and in the very near future. The longer conservatives deny that reality the longer we will be in the wilderness.

    Most folks I read say Republicans lost the House in 2018 because of Trump. But that’s not what I heard and saw in NC. It was the fact that Republicans had voted against Obamacare in such a way that their Democratic challengers were able to claim—without any rebuttal—that Republicans are against covering preexisting conditions. That vote is what killed them, not the president’s first two years. Even folks who don’t like the idea of Medicare for all are still interested in trying to find a dynamic way to address the issue of preexisting conditions.

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