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.
This week, we cover Liz Warren’s plan to break up the big tech companies, Ilhan Omar’s latent (or maybe not so latent) anti-Semitism from the perspective of an actual member of her district, and chat about the Democrats boycotting of Fox News for one of their upcoming debates. Oh, yeah — we’ve also got the great Andy McCarthy on Manafort, Cohen, and what to expect on seemingly perpetual soon-to-come Mueller report.
Music from this week’s episode: Mayor of Simpleton by XTC
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.
You don’t always know what someone will take in offense. The late science fiction writer Harlan Ellison once praised a comic book author, describing him as “bugf*ck“ (meaning crazily imaginative). To Ellison’s astonishment, the author sued him for libel.
Evidently Julia feels being told to “get over it” is a personal insult; who knew.
@juliablaschke — I think of Trump as an old-style conservative Democrat, much like JFK politically. (Personally of course JFK was a hundred times sleazier!)
Thanks for engaging. I owe you a reply, and meant to a few days ago, but it’s been a busy week. So:
1) “the connection is”: sometime in 2017, I think when I was reading WFB’s forward to “Witness” on a plane, it occurred me that the NeverTrumpers, who venerate Buckley nearly as much as Reagan, completely reject his assertion that he’d “rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard.” We know this because we’re living through it. Trump was the choice of the Republican Party based on the pre-agreed to rules. He now polls somewhere around 90% with Republicans. The proverbial first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory have clearly made their decision. One can either accept it (as I have, and been very pleasantly surprised); or reject it, probably by telling yourself and others that WFB didn’t mean Trump when he was expressing faith in the wisdom of the American people. I’m pointing out that there’s a circle you’re trying to square and playing that clip highlights it. It’s amusing to me.
2) Somali population/antisemitism: that community overwhelmingly votes as a block, just as they do in Europe. This gives them outsized power within a larger party organization to shape its agenda and get greater representation of their views. My point was that this influx has shifted/shaped American domestic politics. You seemed to suggest that was preposterous in the podcast, but seem to agree with me that they’ve successfully shifted the Overton Window in these comments. Did I misunderstand you?
3) misrepresenting your views: per #2, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say now. I understood you were suggesting in the podcast that it is ridiculous to suggest that the influx of Somalis into MN-05 has changed anything, I pointed out that a progressive WASP would not be as rabidly antisemitic and shift the DNC towards a more openly anti-Israeli (potentially antisemitic) position single-handed, and you seem to agree with me in the comments. Per #2 and my original comment about Europe, we’ve see this happen. We’re now seeing it happen here. I challenged what I interpreted as your suggestion that the influx of Somali Muslims was a non-issue. Did I misunderstand you? How precisely am I misinterpreting your comments regarding your ability to drive around town and buy alcohol?
A bit of “Devil’s advocacy” here:
re: 1) that James put that bit in the intro doesn’t necessarily mean he believes the same thing himself. He does/has, after all, included clips from Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and others who he clearly (hopefully) holds in contempt. Although it might be a more fair argument for others – maybe such as Bill Kristol, etc – who would probably say they DO agree with Buckley on that point.
Also, being “ruled by the first 2,000 people in the Boston phone book” may not be quite the same as being “ruled by” whoever those people might VOTE FOR. Which may be an… odd distinction, or something… but remember, “the first 2,000 people in the Berlin phone book” voted for gold old Adolf, and “the first 2,000 people in the Caracas phone book” voted for Maduro.
Actually Hitler lost the last free presidential election (to Hindenburg) and, in the last two free Reichstag elections, the Nazis got 37%, then 33% a few months later. But they were still the largest single party, so failing any alternatives the chancellor asked them to form a government.
Well sure, all 2,000 people didn’t have to vote unanimously the same way. Neither would all 2,000 people in the Boston phone book. But that doesn’t change the argument.
My point is, two-thirds of the German people voted against the Nazis, so it’s not a good example for you. It was the establishment, the “wise men”, that put Hitler in power. Of course, after that, he had a ten-year run, during which everything he did seemed to come up roses, so he became very popular for a time.
Maduro may be a better example: he did briefly attain something in the vicinity of half of the popular vote in one election, though it’s likely that fraud put him over the top.
Your counter also doesn’t say anything about the other candidates that, in total, received more votes than Hitler. And for that matter the “opposition leader” Guido in Venezuela is also socialist.
So then Buckley was being disingenuous/facetious and just mouthing a zinger to own the Libs (which establishment Republicans seem to think is the public discourse equivalent of belching loudly at a dinner party) or… what, precisely? He said it. He’s revered by most NeverTrumpers. What are we to make of it? How do you square this circle?
It’s a strong statement, and while I don’t think he’s endorsing direct democracy or anything like that, he is aparently expressing faith in the wisdom of average Americans over “elites.” The average American Republicans have expressed their “wisdom” and the GOP elites have summarily and vehemently rejected it. So there is substantial disconnect. Was Buckley just giving a wink-and-nod to the rubes in flyover country or are the NeverTrumpers rejecting WFB’s sage political philosophy? Either way, it’s the crux of the Trump Divide in the Right. IMHO, it represents a severing of the social contract that existed on the Right by the conservative “elite”/Conservstive, Inc/whatever. For years, they rhetorically beat up on the Left as disconnected elites who rejected political wisdom and policy proscriptions of average Americans. But they became more and more explicit in their rejection of their own base’s desires, and when the people chose a tribune to rectify this they lost their minds.
Well it’s possible he was comparing “mob rules” or something, the “mob” of Boston in general versus the “mob” of Harvard faculty. As for rule by in effect ONE person that each “mob” would vote for, I’m not sure there would be that much difference. Not in current-day Boston, at least. It was probably different in Buckley’s day, when he said it, and it’s certainly different NOW. Maybe it could be argued that the long slog of “progressivism” has made even Buckley’s statement “inoperative” today.
Have you ever heard or read the whole interview?
I don’t think Buckley was talking about elites in general; but rather that Ivy League faculties had trended very far to the left even then.
Even today, a random selection of townies would be more patriotic and have a more conservative (read: realistic) view of the world.
Regarding the problem of social media giants silencing conservative messages they don’t like,* there is a new short video that does an excellent job of explaining what is illegitimate about this situation.
“In other words, the social media giants want it both ways: They want the protections of a public forum and the editorial control of a publisher.”
Having one status or the other consistently would be legitimate. Trying to straddle the fence as they have been doing is not. Check out the whole video. Less than 6 minutes long.
PragerU v. YouTube
Eric George
Aug 19, 2019
*This recent article was also eye opening.
Two Google Insiders Expose More Bias Against Conservatives
By RACHEL ALEXANDER
Published on August 16, 2019