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.
Our deepest apologies for the delay in getting this show out the door. A lot of factors conspired in this show being a day late (but not a dollar short). And let’s also say this up front: for reasons that will become apparent to you when you listen to it, this is one of the quirkiest Ricochet Podcasts we’ve ever done (and not just because of the occasionally iffy audio). OK, enough of the caveats, let’s talk about the show.
First off, we’re down a host (although he does make a cameo appearance late in the show). Second, one of the hosts is podcasting while driving (you’d think he would have learned a lesson from the last time he attempted this, but apparently not). Our third host is ensconced in small town hotel room with less than ideal internet service and well, we struggle a bit with that too (we don’t do this very often, but you’ll definitely want to listen to the very end of the show if you like hearing Ricochet Podcast bloopers). All that being said, we did manage to put together a very interesting show featuring two guests from opposite sides of the aisle.
First up: columnist, author, and cultural critic (yes, we ask him about that) Joel Stein. The title of his new book In Defense of Elitism: Why I’m Better Than You and You Are Better than Someone Who Didn’t Buy This Book certainly got our attention and he’s also a listener, so we wanted to have him. It’s an interesting –but civil!– conversation that points up some fundamental differences in the way liberals and conservatives view the issues of the day. Then, we swing 180 degrees the other direction and have a chat with our old friend, David Limbaugh because the title of his new book also got our attention: Guilty By Reason of Insanity: Why The Democrats Must Not Win. We have a typically, shall we say, enthusiastic chat with David and yes, he schools a certain host on his propensity for all things squishy.
Then, Lileks checks in to award the highly coveted, much sought after Lileks Post of The Week to @garyrobbins We keep losing with Trump. Mazel tov, Gary.
Finally, today is the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and luckily, we have a host who knows a thing or two about that event. We talk about that day and why it was one of the most important historical moments of the 20th century.
Music from this week’s episode: Crumblin’ Down by John Mellencamp
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.
For those who get the reference, Joel was to Time what Rick Reilly was to Sports Illustrated.
I’m not sure the comparison is favorable, but it’s apt.
I don’t get it. But, I’ve never spent (wasted) even a single minute looking at Sports Illustrated. And it’s probably been at least 20 years since I looked at Time. Or Newsweek for that matter. Or US News/World Report…
Stein’s defense of elitism is one I hear often, but which is not actually a defense of elitism at all. He defends expertise and calls it elitism. He says, “I am better than you,” when he should be saying, “I am better than you in my particular field.” Neil Degrasse Tyson, for instance, is a better astrophysicist than I will ever be, but that doesn’t make him inherently more “rational” than I am.
And, of course, he completely ignores the fact that the backlash against elitism springs from the sense that people feel more and more that they are no longer in control of their own lives. If you want to avoid populist uprisings, you might want to listen to the people before it gets that far.
Bigger problem is that many of the people who claim to be “experts” are full of … let’s just say codswallop.
True. And that’s where this all comes from. People are sick of politicians and journalists acting like they’re experts at everything.
If I see more more politician/journalist (but I repeat myself) tell me about the superior “education” of people who live in cities/vote Democrat, I’m going to scream.
The dumbing down of “education” over the last few decades is scary. It’s just credentialism now.
#RadioFreeTom
Whenever this issue comes up I think of him and his ignorant “elitism”.
That man is a lunatic. And still a firm believer in the Russia-Collusion hoax and believes the theory that President Trump has been a Russian agent since the 1980s.
I want to pull a Greta and scream “How dare you call yourself a conservative!”
Actually, Neil Degrasse Tyson may be a better astrophysicist than me, but Joel Stein isn’t even a better “journalist” than I would be. Just the way he screws up with the Scott Adams part of this latest book, proves that.
And, as mentioned before about how even people who may be “experts” in their field can still be total crackpots IN THEIR FIELD; someone having “expertise” in a field doesn’t automatically make them correct about everything in their field, let alone things outside it. Which is what Adams says.
Or the elites here who assured us over and over how the direction Venezuela was taking was wise and wonderful.
Update: Scott Adams and Brian Kilmeade will be our guests on this week’s show. See you on Friday (yes, we will get the show out on Friday this week — and Rob won’t be driving).
Until it went completely under. Then it became “Venezuela? Never heard of it.”
Or to use a line from original Star Trek: “Venezuela? Your words say nothing.”
Misrepresenting someone is wrong whether we agree or disagree with them, whether they are wacko or not wacko. Bearing false witness against someone is simply wrong.
If one desires to know the truth and is convinced that their convictions are in line with the truth and will hold up under truthful scrutiny, there is no legitimate need for misrepresentation, which only serves ultimately to discredit the person who practices misrepresentation. Why should anyone trust anything else they say, if they are known to practice misrepresentation?
Trust the truth. Align with the truth. Proclaim the truth. And let the chips fall as they may.
Or make him competent with regard to philosophy, or even able to recognize (let alone assess) his own philosophical presuppositions that are independent of science.
It seems that the high regard accorded to science for its contributions has made society vulnerable to assuming scientists are knowledgable and trustworthy beyond the narrow confines of their field.
Phixed?
I used to really enjoy Rick Reilly, at least until his sanctimony got the better of him.
Brilliant.
Yeah I thought about that, but I didn’t want him to think I was picking on him.
Once again, Scott Adams reveals the truth:
Let’s all hope James is able to participate.
He will be there!
Joel Stein – Trump is evil for pulling out of Syria – a country that is not tolerant of homosexuality.
Also Joel Stein: Trump is evil for supporting our ally Poland – a country he thinks is not tolerant of homosexuality.
I look forward eagerly to his commentary on interest rates under Obama….
All cultures are run by elites and its usually fine until the elites stop trying to help the nation and become absorbed trying to sack the country and enforce bizarre morals outside of the norm. Our political and media elites have become a garbage class of people obsessed with sexuality while the average American struggles with the human fallout of their policies on marriage, education, etc.
Also – I don’t know what else Republicans can do to make Rob happy who hints Trump is supported by far right elements (the mysterious alt-right consisting of 500 people on the internet). Trump is basically a 1990s Democrat. How far left does the Republican party need to go to make him happy? The only issue Trump is “on the right” is immigration which used to be a national issue that both parties agreed on until the left realized it could reshape America.
A very interesting way to succinctly describe Trump! I actually find myself hard pressed to think what is not true about that idea.
Reagan famously said that he didn’t leave the Democrat party. The party left him. If we went back to an earlier time, Trump could certainly fit as a Democrat of that time.
Even regarding immigration, the Democrat party passed through a massive reversal just a decade or two ago (especially in years after around 2006). For valuable eye-opening historical perspective, here’s a recommended 5 minute video.
Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power
@kevin — “Trump is basically a 1990s Democrat. … The only issue Trump is ‘on the right’ is immigration which used to be a national issue that both parties agreed on until the left realized it could reshape America.”
Trump is actually better described as a conservative, JFK Democrat.
He’s “on the right” on cutting taxes, and cutting regulations, and appointing judges who respect the Constitution, and strengthening our national defense. His attitude toward intervention overseas is reminiscent of the Old Right.
I wanted to add my appreciation to speech writer @peterrobinson for the historic contribution and add a couple remembrance and celebration links.
Remembering the day the wall fell
NOVEMBER 13, 2019
JENNY LIND SCHMITT
Transcript or streamed audio (~7 minutes) (Listen for the classic line within the short German excerpt)
And this fun item of historic celebration.
Tearing down Berlin’s chocolate wall
NOVEMBER 14, 2019
MEGAN BASHAM
Transcript of streamed audio (1 minute)
Sorry for the late comment, but I just listened to this episode. Regarding the Buckley quote, the man himself expanded on it in his book Rumbles Left and Right: A Book about Troublesome People and Ideas: “I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise.” This squares very well with some of the member discussions earlier in the thread.
Based on some of his other writings, I’ve always interpreted the quote to be less a shot against elitism and more a plug for ideological diversity. Up From Liberalism has a whole chapter on the liberal academic elite as indoctrinator (which quotes with horror some figures on the political diversity of faculties that are hilariously balanced compared to today). His publisher’s statement in the first issue of NR speaks straight to this crushing conformity: “One must recently have lived on or close to a college campus to have a vivid intimation of what has happened. It is there that we see how a number of energetic social innovators, plugging their grand designs, succeeded over the years in capturing the liberal intellectual imagination. And since ideas rule the world, the ideologues, having won over the intellectual class, simply walked in and started to run things. Run just about everything. There never was an age of conformity quite like this one, or a camaraderie quite like the Liberals’.”
Hopefully this wasn’t covered in detail in this week’s episode, but I guess I’ll find out when I listen to it next week :)
Back to lurking.