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, Hillsdale President Dr. Larry Arnn stops by to make the intellectual and academic argument for Donald Trump (h/t to Ricochet member @rushbabe49 for her post This Might Change some Minds on the Election). Can the good doctor sway @roblong, the resident #NeverTrump representative on this podcast, into voting for the Republican nominee? The answer lies within.
Public service announcement: if you’re not a member of Ricochet and enjoy this podcast, be one of the 1500 and JOIN TODAY.
Music from this week’s podcast:
Bad Case of Loving You by Robert Palmer
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! And leave a comment too!
If this podcast lasts for more than 4 hours, see a doctor, 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.
Choosing not to vote for Trump is not choosing self before country. An act of conscience is choosing God before self and country. And Larry’s “fearlessness” is just another lame way of saying “he fights”.
His ability to find things to admire in Trump is fairly miraculous, though. #TeamLong
(Added edit)
I agree with Rob and Larry that Trump is unlikely to take us to war. Putin and China know this as well and would take great advantage of it.
Tsk tsk Rob you violated Milton Friedman’s rule in always assuming that your opponent is arguing in good faith by mischaracterizing what Dr Arnn position, I think emotion took over.
Afternoon Rob,
Following up on Mate De’s comment. Do you believe that the affect with which you question people you disagree with will attract more people to join Ricochet? I hear an affect of world weary wisdom, Olympian, you are dismissive of the research Dr. Arnn presents concerning Trump’s view on the rule of law. You want to tell Dr. Arnn and more directly all of us listeners what Dr. Arnn really feels about Trump and how enthusiastic Dr. Arnn is. Repeatedly when a guest comes on that you disagree with, your appear to have no curiosity about their thoughts, it is much more important that you inform them about their mistakes, and to present them with your deep observations. Maybe you are so wise that others bore you, but this does not make for entertaining or enjoyable listening. Some of us geezers were regular listeners of “Firing Line”, Mr. Buckley’s interviews were dominated with questions, some which led to differences debated, some questions were based on curiosity about his guest, the guest’s life, how he came to his beliefs. He also let his guests answer the questions without acting as if it were a strain to keep from interrupting them. Buckley did not leave the viewer with the feeling that his guest was beneath him or his quest’s beliefs were to be dismissed out of hand, even when he totally disagreed with them.
I found Dr. Arnn’s arguments about Trump’s consistent legal positions completely unconvincing especially given some of Trump’s many legal entanglements – he could always publish his vast findings on Trump’s stellar record and prove everyone wrong or might find that he gets tremendous pushback.
What I found ridiculous was the notion that because Trump has enthusiastic supporters at his rallies of 15,000+ people that somehow that needs to be factored into the man’s suitability for the office. If that is some measure of suitability then Trump is in the same league as some admirable people and at the same time many despots and tyrants throughout history.
Finally, I’m not so convinced that Trump won’t embroil America into a war. He may even do it through his own ignorance and stupidity. And at the moment, if I were Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, or Polish, I’d be very concerned about Trump’s recent statements about Russia, Putin, the annexation of Crimea and NATO. So, he may or may be lucky enough not to get America in a war but Eastern Europe may find itself in flames at some point after Trump is elected.
If anyone still has any reservation about voting for Trump consider this fact. No doubt the Obama years have taught the Clintons something. The must believe that their first stint in the White House was a wasted opportunity. They were way too timid in exercising power. Obama has shown them that they can be much more brazen.
The press, the GOP, and the voting public will turn a blind eye.
Thank you so much for this podcast. I love listening to Dr. Arnn’s Hillsdale Dialogues and have tremendous respect for his intellect. As one who has fought the good fight in many posts on Ricochet in defense of Trump’s candidacy, it’s truly encouraging to see that the editors are recognizing those of us who are on that side of the argument. Most impressive of all is that you chose this kind and brilliant man to make our argument. Thank you. Thank you.
I stopped listening to this podcast because the narrative had become so predictable. Constantly diminishing the only person who can defeat Clinton is, by my thinking, counterproductive… unless one actually wishes Clinton to become our next President. That, to me, is abhorrent. Sounds as if I should try listening to this episode.
I don’t blame Republicans that have a personal objection to voting for Trump. Fine, leave that part of the ballot blank and vote for the rest of the offices. Or just stay home. But I DO blame the Republicans that are actively campaigning to defeat him in the general election. The Liz Mairs and Mike Murphys and Erick Ericksons that are knowingly, actively helping Hillary Clinton achieve victory. Because there’s no other result possible. Gary Johnson isn’t going to win. The Green Party isn’t going to win. And Fake CIA guy isn’t going to win. It’s Trump and Clinton. No other real possibility at this point. They both disgust you and you’d rather just sit home? Fine. That’s a legitimate stance, and I respect it. But if you’re going on TV or Twitter and going THE MONSTER TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED, at this point, you’re an agent of Hillary Clinton.
“I’d be less concerned if I thought that you were more concerned.”
Back at you, Rob. Back at you.
I admire transparency. But given the membership figure and goal cited on the podcast, it may be time to switch from an annual to a month-to-month subscription.
Exactly. And sadly, they don’t even seem to care. Thank heavens fine men like Dr. Larry Arnn are willing to come here in the thick of the National Review crowd to make a solid case for Trump.
I didn’t find the good doctor’s arguments very convincing, but I do appreciate that he wasn’t merely anti-anti-Trump.
I’m going to go right to Godwin’s law here. It might make an interesting college paper to de-identify every position ever taken by Adolph and cherry pick all those that a reasonable person might agree to. Could you then argue that Hitler was a good leader? My point, in agreement with Rob, is that it’s dangerous to cling to that rule of law raft to justify supporting Trump. The whole is larger than the sum of its parts.
Here is a link the the article Dr Arnn mentioned about Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/23/magazine/saint-hillary.html
That wasn’t my take away at all. I don’t believe the good doctor spoke of the enthusiastic supporters as evidence of suitability for office; I believe it was in the context of “major league game” versus “triple A”. Triple A being what a Republican event is usually comparable to.
And Dr Arnn was saying that that enthusiasm of those “regular folks” was something that shouldn’t be discounted in that there are a lot more regular folks out there than “fancy pants”; and that it’s the regular folks that will eventually have to fix this mess.
(paraphrasing from memory, but I think I got the gist of it. I will be listening again later)
In fairness, I’ll listen to the clip again…but honestly this is emotional pleading by Arnn and an incredibly simplistic way to characterize the electorate as either “fancy pants” or “everyone else”. Not impressed. Again, not to go all Godwin…but prospective populist despots don’t really care about getting the support of the “fancy pants” intellectual set…because they know those are the folks who will challenge their crackpot ideas, their film-flammery or in some cases their baser tactics. I understand that elites are the easy scapegoats and targets this season but for someone of Arnn’s intellect not to recognize or be concerned about that and instead be impressed by rally attendance is unfortunate.
But honestly…Trump has enthusiastic supporters and they cheer and laugh at his lame jokes and are enthralled about how great he is…golly…uh…yippee. Quite the A-game. How’s he doing otherwise? Trump’s unfocused and misfiring effort on taking on a battered, bruised, criminal opponent who can barely walk up the stairs to her home at the end of the day is reflected in numerous polls that have been reporting for weeks about his dismal effort and showing in several states.
Not going to argue Trump with you, Brian. Just trying to clarify Dr Arnn’s statement.
I disagreed with Dr. Arnn’s claim, made at least twice, that Trump was “courageous” in speech. I don’t see that — I notice that when attacking someone, Trump likes to pin what he’s saying onto someone else — as in, “people are saying this”, or “I don’t care if the judge is Mexican or not,” right after making it clear that he did care. He doesn’t stand behind his own words.
Was Dr. Arnn altered? Intellectual and academic don’t go with the name Trump. One of these is not like the others. Mr. T just told us Obama founded ISIS. I pity the foo.
@roblong, you really need to work on the member pitch, it has become painful to hear. You’ve spent too much time on public radio, your member pitch sounds like a PBS pledge drive, pleading with people to join out of sheer guilt. Well, you give the podcasts away free, plus they’re filled with ads, why should anyone feel guilty about listening w/o joining?
Here’s the thing: Ricochet is my favorite web site. It’s the site I visit most often. It’s way more fun than Facebook. It’s like joining a club with brilliant members from all walks of life, from all over the country and all over the world, with experts in any topic you can imagine. Plus, they’re hilarious!
You’ve got an amazing product to sell here, yet you’ve reduced the sales pitch to: please help us, we need your cash to stay afloat!
I don’t know how Rob manages to keep saying it’s the “fastest growing” site every week with a straight face.
As a Hillsdale College student, Dr. Arnn’s support of Trump has disturbed and disappointed me and many others among the student body. Many of his statements regarding Trump have been extremely controversial at Hillsdale, and there were repeated incidents this last spring of the college paper supposedly refusing to print letters to the editor that criticized Trump for these positions. I wish that Arnn would stand solely on principle and would not endorse specific political candidates. To me, that does not seem to be the correct role of a college president. I fear that this year, when Arnn is making his rounds sitting with students in the cafeteria (something he does very frequently), he will wind up spending more time justifying himself to frustrated students than he will teaching them about what is good, true, and beautiful. This seems to me a great loss, and it becomes harder to respect him as much as I used to. I only hope that his support for Trump does not damage the college that I love so much.
To Joseph’s point, some rough ad copy offered up for your consideration:
I have to admit that I’ve stopped contributing to Hillsdale since Arnn announced his support for Trump. I wonder if I’m not alone in this.
Missed opportunity: “If you join Ricochet, you can converse directly with members such as RushBabe49 and Cato Rand who were mentioned in the podcast.”
I can think of two occasions when I’ve dropped my Ricochet membership in a sick kind of protest to specific positions voiced by the founders of this site. I understand we’re in the midst of a membership drive, but some of the wish-thinking-driven fawning over Trump – especially on the part of Peter, from whom we must unfortunately now expect such disgusting displays, but from some guests as well – has me so very, very close. It’s heartbreaking to hear Trump supporters willfully ignore the historical evidence of the man’s progressivism, cronyism, inconsistency, outright dishonesty and indeed his sheer lunacy in search of some, ANY, sliver of evidence that he MIGHT, POSSIBLY, COULD SAY he agrees with ME on SOMETHING, ANYTHING, and then to proclaim that this thing about him is the greatest in a candidate since REAGAN (R E A G A N ! ! !). And it’s similarly heartbreaking to hear these people try at every opportunity to make the case that anyone who doesn’t disagree with them vehemently HAS BEEN BROUGHT ALONG! The whole “Thank you so much Dr. Arnn for coming on the show and for allowing me to fawn over your preachments so that I might misconstrue Rob’s positions and claim a false victory” thing literally made me stop listening (a first for me and the Ricochet Podcast). Well played. Keep it up and I’ll see you back on National Review when this well-intended project finally melts down.
Re comment above, #26 (can’t quote. too long)
I have a brother 9 years younger than me. I am often amazed to the point of confusion how he and I can hear the EXACT same thing and at the same time be hearing two totally different things.
I thought of him when I read your comment, Forrest.
With a lot of patience on both of our parts, my brother and I can have a productive conversation about things we disagree on.
And one of the rules is a rule I learned at Ricochet (although I guess it started with Uncle Milton): always assume the best intentions of your opponent. And always ascribe a modicum of intelligence and good faith. (He can’t respond to a statement of mine with “that’s stupid”, and I don’t get to roll my eyes when he talks)
This election is personal for all of us. We all have to make a decision we can live with.
Please assume that everyone is taking it as serious as you are.
There is a tremendous difference between taking something seriously and wishing something were true, and the two are not mutually exclusive.
AND I LOVE IT when people resort to the “assume the best intentions” thing (thank you for making my point so wonderfully). After all, I’m sure Vlad only wants to drape the Iron Curtain over the Baltic states because it’s too darned bright this time of year (HAVE YOU SEEN THE BALTIC SEA THESE DAYS?! BLINDING!). And also that al-Bagdhadi dude and his buddies only really care about preventing melanoma (it kills, you know!) – hence with the burqas. And taking it back a minute, I’m sure those Saudi fellows flew those planes into those towers in NYC by accident (really, who builds 100+ story towers on an Island? By the water?! ???!!!). And even further, I mean, look, if you lived right next to France in 1940, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE? I mean, those poor Parisians, they needed real guidance! And you know that one time the Chinese tried helping out the North Vietnamese? Did you know that all they really wanted was to show off their newfound farming prowess?! How nice of them! . . .
Can’t quote. But in regards to comment #28:
So what you’re basically saying is that those who disagree with you are the enemy? I base this on the examples you gave.
Not just someone who disagrees; THE ENEMY. My brother and I disagree on much. But we both love our country and want what is best for it.
Can you say the same for the examples you listed?
Can you say the same for you and me based upon the fact we have chosen different candidates for President?
Since I’m sure you love America, as we disagree on who should be president, does that mean I hate America?
And you’re welcome. I tried to make every point as “wonderfully” as I can.
More to the point, you only get to where I’m at if you assume the above as your default position. I think many Trump supporters are extremely intelligent, and I think many of their arguments are made in good faith. I also happen to think the same of many who support President Obama, and of many who support the current Democrat nominee.
What bothers me is the self-deception, and the lack of realization that you only get to this point when you’ve already lost, and not in a small way. The flesh is already necrotic. Something has to go.
This political cycle, the entirety of the political system seemed to be asking itself what that “something” was. The political right chose Trump as its surgeon. Instead of some kind of careful amputation or excision, it opted for the Frankensteinization behind door C.
If you think trying to support a guy like John McCain was painful after the wreckage left by his predecessor, imagine what it will be like trying to persuade the “other side” or the “middle” (whatever these terms even mean after you’ve nominated a man like this one) after 1 year of Trump, much less 4. Because nothing about the man – nothing – suggests he’ll make a good President of the United States.