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.
We open with some thoughts on the just concluded Democratic convention, and then segue into our guest, Avik Roy. His interview with Vox has been discussed extensively on Ricochet, and we give him the full court Ricochet Podcast press. Is the GOP on life support as Avik suggests and can be saved? Or, is everything just fine, and the party should stay the course? We delve into all of that with Roy in a very provocative (but civil!) conversation. Also, some thoughts on auto-promotion and the new version of Ricochet. If you’re reading this and you’re not a member — what are you waiting for? Join NOW. We need you!
Music from this week’s podcast:
You Can’t Always Get What You Want by The Rolling Stones
The brand new opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
All signs point to 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.
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.
Your argument doesn’t seem to be that Goldwater was wrong on the merits, but wrong because blacks disagreed. And now we’re repeating the same mistake because we’re offending Hispanics, but you’re not addressing the merits of our position.
I agree that we’re out maneuvered by the Democrats on these issues, but that doesn’t make us wrong on the merits.
We would be shutting the door on Christians and other persecuted religious minorities were we to do that. And the terrorists could still migrate, become Swedish or German citizens, and then come over here. The bad guys will always do what bad guys do – break laws & exploit systemic weaknesses. Daesh is a virus that is infecting people all over the globe, citizens and immigrants alike. Its claim on Islamic hegemony comes from its territorial control and al-Baghdadi, their would-be caliph. They must be stamped out of Syria, Iraq, Libya (thanks, Madame Secretary), and Afghanistan. Even then, the US would need to vigilant, allowing no other “JV team” to fill the gap. The real, long-term solution is American strength and leadership.
Today’s whites, as a group, are less racist than the minorities as a group, that resent and hate us. That’s where today’s naivety lies.
Obviously there are individuals that don’t meet this sweeping stereotype, but that’s what we’re talking about right now, stereotypical behavior.
Here’s an example of this naivety. I have total contempt for any white in that incident that didn’t walk away from Black Lives Matter. But here’s the deal. So do the blacks. Just because they “won” doesn’t mean they walked away with some new found respect for those whites. Quite the opposite.
I believe in treating anyone with the respect they deserve regardless of color or religion. But I don’t believe in racial pandering. And we should do a better job of standing up for ourselves.
They didn’t. The South had already offered votes to Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 and Nixon 1960. In 1964, the South voted for Goldwater. In 1968 they voted for George Wallace. It wasn’t until 1972 began voting solidly for Republicans at the Presidential level (and that’s going to require we ignore Carter in 76 and Clinton in 92 and 98). At the Congressional level it was 1994 before Republicans had a majority of Southern districts. The process of the Solid South breaking down began as early as 1888 and no later than 1952 (with a pretty good case to be made for the inter-War years as definitive) and still hasn’t completed as we speak in July 2016.
Actually, I’m talking about politics. I’m only interested in what Roy was saying.
The tacit alliance between Dixiecrats and conservative Republicans predated Goldwater – Sen. Robert Taft was instrumental in organizing it and using it in his bid for the White House. Goldwater had conflicting opinions, he had desegregated the Arizona National Guard when he was in charge in the ’40’s, and had voted to desegregate his local schools when on the school board [I can’t remember if it was Phoenix or not, I believe so] Still, if he wanted to oppose the 1965 bill he should have offered an alternative. He and Bill Buckley should have supported a Voting Rights bill as an alternative, but they failed that moral test.
Avik Roy has thrown the toys out of his pram. The white ones anyway.
You give this party medicine and it just vomits.
I don’t know what he was referring to, but I strongly suspect that he was referring to Woodrow Wilson who did screen it when it first came out, and was famously sympathetic towards the former Confederacy and how they treated their black populations.
Yes, James was certainly referring to Wilson’s infamous “history writ with lightening screening”. I was just pointing out there is a new film with the same title that might prove to be a favorite with the Black Lives Movement.
Poison…
So I’m finally getting around to listening to the podcast. On the 50 year question: the last 10 years are included in the last 50 years, Avik -and you bloomin’ well know that people weight the recent past far more than the distant past. You know that isn’t the right the way to interpret that outcome.
Additionally -the things that are unique to Texas will not -by virtue of their being unique to Texas -generalize to the rest of the country. There does not exist a world where Hispanics do not already consider themselves part of the US will suddenly start considering themselves part of the USA randomly because Republicans wrap themselves in the flag. It’s not like as Douglas has pointed out -we haven’t been doing it for decades. If the US becomes Texas, we won’t have problems that required running into the arms of the white nationalists -if that is indeed what has happened.
I didn’t say Goldwater was wrong at all. But there was a clear, lasting consequence to his objection of the Civil Rights Act. Was it worth it?
And I believe there could be a lasting consequence with Hispanic voters resulting from the Trump nomination.
I believe there is a way to maintain conservative principles without alienating minority voters. The Republicans had a few candidates that could have done just that. But instead, we’re stuck with Trump, who lacks principles and alienates minority voters. The worst possible combination.
Roy is trying to expand the GOP, because it’s predominantly white voters. Whites will be minorities in the near future which means if it doesn’t change and adapt, it will die. So, he goes to a Leftist media outlet to genuflect to minorities to try to win their vote and would like us to do the same. Know what? He’s not wrong. I have a Leftist acquaintance who often says “what are Conservatives trying to conserve?” He intends it as an indictment, I think the question useful in another way. If we currently are striving to preserve conservative principles, than frankly we suck at it. If our beliefs are correct why are we so lousy at persuading others to our side? Blame society, schools, the media, the culture, etc., but at the end of the day we have to go forward and ask ourselves “what are we going to do about it now?” For some, Trump is the answer. Not the answer, but an answer. Sometimes to advance a cause means displaying a little humility and admitting that we need to attract more minorities. In other words, we need to stop behaving like we’ve been married to American voters for 20 years – taking them for granted or displaying contempt and frustration because they aren’t doing things the way we want, and start behaving like we want to date them. How do we get voters to fall in love with Conservatism?
Outstanding point, Peter! “We’ll never know the truth about the hair.”
I laughed, and laughed, and laughed.
Al Sparks
The PC party refers to the Progressive Conservative party, which is no longer a force in Canada’s federal elections.
–Because it merged with another political party to form the Conservative party. I was there.
And one thing I observed about the photo in your link is that I had to look pretty hard to find a white face in it. In the back. What’s that supposed to mean?
–Its supposed to mean that our faction of the party won by going out and getting the ethnic vote, Asians, Tamils, Muslims, Chinese etc. You know the point of Avik Rows comments. Its proof positive that a conservative can make outreach into dissaffected communities and bring them into the coalition. You know it does that weird thing we like to call Winning the election.
Admittedly I didn’t read the article because I’m not interested in a washed up political party, at least outside of the Province of Ontario.
–And no doubt that such attitudes are why your province is probably controlled by the NDP or Liberal Party.
Chris O
Thats how elections work. And thats how political parties win. The problem of what you describe is its not sexy for candidates to do that and its not profitable for those who are in politics to try and sell it. Knocking on every door or making direct phone calls has paid major dividends for every candidate I have seen doing it. Sadly you need the candidate to make that appeal. Its something connecting the voter to the individual that doesnt necessarily pay off when you try to have a representative drop leaflets at the door.
Regarding the Progressive Party of Ontario, I kind of figured they had merged with the national Conservative Party of Canada. Yet, they couldn’t bring themselves to get rid of the “Progressive” moniker. That speaks volumes. They essentially are apologizing for being Conservatives (and they probably aren’t conservatives).
And what I was implying about that picture, but will now spell out, is that it’s exclusionary not inclusive. They are hiding the white person. Are they ashamed that there are white people in the PC of Ontario?
I have already mentioned this and something like that is too raw for Canadians, because they are so nice. But that niceness only obscures the meanness behind it. I’m sure everyone in that picture was so polite. But they still told the white guy, in a nice way, to get in the back.
As for NDP in my “province”, I live in Alaska. No NDP here.
This should go into a list of frequently-answered questions.
Particularly when the leaflets are on issues voters don’t care about,or at least the voters in that district. That, perhaps, is a mistake both parties make. D’s think the issues that are hot in Manhattan are of the same importance everywhere. Meanwhile, R’s think the concerns in the suburbs are the same in the heart of the city. It’s not exactly being tone deaf, it’s just not looking beyond your nose. Thanks.
Toward the end of the podcast, James and Rob had a great discussion about whether it’s better that we tell one another fully what we think (including of one another), or hold back to some extent so as not to drive one another apart.
I think there’s a way to do what James favors while also being civil and objective. I side with him.
Rob Long – I’ve heard you say many times that conservatism would have been better off had Nelson Rockefeller been the Republican nominee in 1964. What specific policy outcomes would have been more conservative with a President Rockefeller?
I don’t know if I referred to Rockefeller specifically, but it’s hard to imagine anyone more liberal — in terms of social programs, Great Society nonsense, and Big Government — than Johnson. What I mean is, the years from 1964 to 1968 began a huge and (at least up to now) irreversible leftward push in federal government programs and the general feeling among American voters that the federal government is supposed to solve every problem. Rockefeller was a very liberal Republican, but I’d argue that he’d have been a more conservative president than Johnson, which doesn’t seem like a stretch. He wouldn’t have been a conservative, of course, but in 1964 that wasn’t a realistic choice.
I think similar conditions apply now. Of course, we have no way of knowing how it will all turn out in November, but if I’m right — if — Trump is going down hard and taking lots of R’s with him. And I think that failure may lead to another 4-8 years of very activist liberal government.
Our side always forgets that the country is large and mostly against us. We keep deluding ourselves into thinking that the country is “basically” conservative. It isn’t. It’s basically Big Government. We have to take our small wins when we can, and push along the edges. It’s not fun or pretty and doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker or hat, but that doesn’t make it not true.
Rob scarcely needs me to rise in his defense, of course, but it’s worth pointing out that no less a figure than James Burnham shared Rob’s position. A founder of National Review and one of the most influential conservatives of the last century, Burnham supported Rocky in 1964. Whereas Goldwater would certainly lose the election, Burnham argued, Rocky might just win–and would do a lot less damage to the country than LBJ.
Rob Long, the James Burnham of our time.
This was an interesting and challenging episode. Interesting in that he identified the result but challenging because he misdiagonised the problem . I see it the same as Rob , people are into big govt and if you don’t agree than you’re outside the square and get characterised as basically anything the other side want, racist, fascist, anti women, etc, and it sticks because in people’s minds you want to change things that have become bedrock expressions of what it is to be American. You want to change social security, Medicare, education, fairness because you’re ….
So you look for ways to move the ball your way, while seeming to move the other. Take a couple of things Obama had in a SOU, which must play well to his coalition, the minimum wage and universal preschool. You take their ideas and twist them as trump did with the minimum wage, you say “raise it but we gotta lower the cost of business- gets you to lower taxes and less regulation. With preschool ” great idea, here we’ll give you a voucher for you to choose any school you want-gets you to school choice and the idea of choice which can be used in other areas. Which hopefully also gets you to say, because the dems won’t go along, you’re against x,y and z because you’re ……
On Medicare/social security, Trump could easily say ” I love Medicare and social security, I’m keeping it, but you know, how come bill and Hillary and me are old enough to get it, you know where rich, we don’t need it – gets you to means testing
The other thing of note was the issue of Trump’s dad, which should be easy to twist. “yeah dad, what can I say, you know he was a democrat. Those democrats they always keep you down, cos they know you’re always gonna vote for them. So they give you bad schools, cos they get more money from the teacher unions. They give you bad homes cos they get more money from the banks who screw you over. They let in illegal immigrants who take your jobs and your health care, and they don’t care cos they know your always gonna vote democrat. Me I don’t want you at the back of the bus, I don’t want you driving the bus I want you owning the bus. Yeah black lives matter, all lives matter but what really matters is what you do with your life. You know that lovely lady rosa parks, that great lady, a very great lady, you know I keep her picture just to remind me of true courage, yeah she gives me the courage to change a corrupt and rigged system and on and on
Not to re-litigate the past, but with Rockefeller on the table, it seems fair to point out that many said that the McCain the worn-out glue horse and the milquetoast Romney were doomed to fail — both too collegial to take wood to Alinsky. They both proposed fine policies, literlly of no consequence. Same for Jeb.
But oh, the g-l-o-r-i-o-u-s money they were able to spend.
I was so pleased to hear @jameslileks re-elevating himself to the role of contributor rather than mere segue artist I decided to buy a razor blade subscription.