We recorded this one on Friday evening, which is the reason most of you are receiving it on Saturday. We’re sorry about that, but to make up for it, we cast around for the perfect ensemble and we think we nailed it: Steve Hayward, John Yoo, and Erick Erickson. The latter joins to give us the lowdown on all of the politics in Georgia, which he knows better than anyone. After that, it’s a bit of an open mic night, we veer from the threat of a China/Taiwan conflict to the scene on college campuses, and some thoughts on the U.K. on the passing of Prince Phillip. Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy one.

Music from this week’s episode: Royals by Lorde

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!

ExpressVPN

Fast Growing Trees

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

There are 44 comments.

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

    Icarus213 (View Comment):

    John’s takes this week were especially bad. Those Taiwan takes… oof. No comparison to Hong Kong, John, as Lileks mentioned. And I’m not sure how Taiwan “falls into China’s lap.”

    In particular the derisory suggestion that Taiwan needs a nuclear deterrent.  

    Decades of fierce and brainless pressure by the United States eventually forced the Taiwanese government to give up its nearly completed program.

    • #31
  2. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Taras (View Comment):

    Icarus213 (View Comment):

    John’s takes this week were especially bad. Those Taiwan takes… oof. No comparison to Hong Kong, John, as Lileks mentioned. And I’m not sure how Taiwan “falls into China’s lap.”

    In particular the derisory suggestion that Taiwan needs a nuclear deterrent.

    Decades of fierce and brainless pressure by the United States eventually forced the Taiwanese government to give up its nearly completed program.

    I thought Japan and Taiwan, maybe some others, were under the US nuclear umbrella so they wouldn’t have to develop and field their own programs.

    • #32
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Icarus213 (View Comment):

    John’s takes this week were especially bad. Those Taiwan takes… oof. No comparison to Hong Kong, John, as Lileks mentioned. And I’m not sure how Taiwan “falls into China’s lap.”

    In particular the derisory suggestion that Taiwan needs a nuclear deterrent.

    Decades of fierce and brainless pressure by the United States eventually forced the Taiwanese government to give up its nearly completed program.

    I thought Japan and Taiwan, maybe some others, were under the US nuclear umbrella so they wouldn’t have to develop and field their own programs.

    Would you trust the Biden/Harris nuclear umbrella?

    • #33
  4. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Icarus213 (View Comment):

    John’s takes this week were especially bad. Those Taiwan takes… oof. No comparison to Hong Kong, John, as Lileks mentioned. And I’m not sure how Taiwan “falls into China’s lap.”

    In particular the derisory suggestion that Taiwan needs a nuclear deterrent.

    Decades of fierce and brainless pressure by the United States eventually forced the Taiwanese government to give up its nearly completed program.

    I thought Japan and Taiwan, maybe some others, were under the US nuclear umbrella so they wouldn’t have to develop and field their own programs.

    Would you trust the Biden/Harris nuclear umbrella?

    The Big Guy with his 10% cut from the CCP? Why would he have other priorities than protecting our allies?

    • #34
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Icarus213 (View Comment):

    John’s takes this week were especially bad. Those Taiwan takes… oof. No comparison to Hong Kong, John, as Lileks mentioned. And I’m not sure how Taiwan “falls into China’s lap.”

    In particular the derisory suggestion that Taiwan needs a nuclear deterrent.

    Decades of fierce and brainless pressure by the United States eventually forced the Taiwanese government to give up its nearly completed program.

    I thought Japan and Taiwan, maybe some others, were under the US nuclear umbrella so they wouldn’t have to develop and field their own programs.

    Would you trust the Biden/Harris nuclear umbrella?

    The Big Guy with his 10% cut from the CCP? Why would he have other priorities than protecting our allies?

    They’re still protecting their allies, they just aren’t the same allies as before.

    • #35
  6. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Best line: 

    “What the hell, John, how much is McDonald’s paying you for this??”

    Steve Hayward in response to John’s rhapsodizing about McRibs and Shamrock Shakes.

    • #36
  7. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Arnold Falk (View Comment):
    We can make the PRC behave if we have the will. That is a big IF, but the non-military price they could be made to pay could be very high if we just have the resolve.

    Color me stupid, but I tend to think that an invasion of Taiwan would add some rebars to the Western Spine. It is convenient for all to address the Western-facing mask the CCP wears. If they remove the mask, the equation changes.

    Related:

    The Philippines welcomes an American commitment to back it should Beijing become aggressive in the South China Sea, Manila’s defense department said Thursday, after Washington warned that an armed attack on the Southeast Asian nation would force the U.S. to aid its ally under a decades-old treaty.

    For weeks, the Philippine government has engaged in a verbal tussle with Beijing and lodged diplomatic protests over the presence of dozens of Chinese ships in contested waters of the sea, but China has denied the allegations and said these are fishing vessels.

    Uh huh.

    Yes but with our Navy in its current state I really wonder what we will be able to do. By the way, the Chinese Navy has 2 captains on board each ship: a ‘regular’ captain and a CCP political captain. I hope that handicaps their ability but probably means there’s twice as much chance of someone making a very bad move.

    • #37
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    colleenb (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Arnold Falk (View Comment):
    We can make the PRC behave if we have the will. That is a big IF, but the non-military price they could be made to pay could be very high if we just have the resolve.

    Color me stupid, but I tend to think that an invasion of Taiwan would add some rebars to the Western Spine. It is convenient for all to address the Western-facing mask the CCP wears. If they remove the mask, the equation changes.

    Related:

    The Philippines welcomes an American commitment to back it should Beijing become aggressive in the South China Sea, Manila’s defense department said Thursday, after Washington warned that an armed attack on the Southeast Asian nation would force the U.S. to aid its ally under a decades-old treaty.

    For weeks, the Philippine government has engaged in a verbal tussle with Beijing and lodged diplomatic protests over the presence of dozens of Chinese ships in contested waters of the sea, but China has denied the allegations and said these are fishing vessels.

    Uh huh.

    Yes but with our Navy in its current state I really wonder what we will be able to do. By the way, the Chinese Navy has 2 captains on board each ship: a ‘regular’ captain and a CCP political captain. I hope that handicaps their ability but probably means there’s twice as much chance of someone making a very bad move.

     

    • #38
  9. RichardChonak Listener
    RichardChonak
    @RichardChonak

    This week Professor Yoo contended that colonists in America rebelled against Britain to put an end to monarchy, and said he just doesn’t understand American sentiment toward the British royal family.

    But did Americans fight for independence to get away from George III?  Would that have made sense, given that royal prerogatives had been already abolished well before 1776?  The 1689 Bill of Rights ended the power of the king to suspend legislation and the 1700 Act of Settlement ended his ability to remove judges.  It seems plausible that Americans were fighting against an unjust Parliament rather than against King George. 

    Maybe Americans’ dislike of big government is more central to our national identity than is anti-royalist sentiment.

     

    • #39
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RichardChonak (View Comment):

    This week Professor Yoo contended that colonists in America rebelled against Britain to put an end to monarchy, and said he just doesn’t understand American sentiment toward the British royal family.

    But did Americans fight for independence to get away from George III? Would that have made sense, given that royal prerogatives had been already abolished well before 1776? The 1689 Bill of Rights ended the power of the king to suspend legislation and the 1700 Act of Settlement ended his ability to remove judges. It seems plausible that Americans were fighting against an unjust Parliament rather than against King George.

    Maybe Americans’ dislike of big government is more central to our national identity than is anti-royalist sentiment.

    Interesting argument.  But if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to have “stuck.”  Then again, last I heard, something like 1/3rd or less of the American people at that time, actually supported the revolution.

    • #40
  11. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RichardChonak (View Comment):

    This week Professor Yoo contended that colonists in America rebelled against Britain to put an end to monarchy, and said he just doesn’t understand American sentiment toward the British royal family.

    But did Americans fight for independence to get away from George III? Would that have made sense, given that royal prerogatives had been already abolished well before 1776? The 1689 Bill of Rights ended the power of the king to suspend legislation and the 1700 Act of Settlement ended his ability to remove judges. It seems plausible that Americans were fighting against an unjust Parliament rather than against King George.

    Maybe Americans’ dislike of big government is more central to our national identity than is anti-royalist sentiment.

    Interesting argument. But if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to have “stuck.” Then again, last I heard, something like 1/3rd or less of the American people at that time, actually supported the revolution.

    That seems to be a canard.  Indeed, if Patriots and Loyalists and undecided were each one-third, as the saying goes, the Revolution could never have succeeded.  Nor is it likely (or even possible?) that all thirteen colonies would have agreed to seek independence.

    More plausible numbers for the beginning of the war would be Patriots 40-45%, Loyalists 15-20%, neutral 40%.  See https://historyincharts.com/patriot-and-loyalist-support-for-the-american-revolution/

    P.S.:  It is said that Englishman who supported the Revolution liked to wisecrack that these were English gentleman asserting their rights against a German king.

     

     

     

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RichardChonak (View Comment):

    This week Professor Yoo contended that colonists in America rebelled against Britain to put an end to monarchy, and said he just doesn’t understand American sentiment toward the British royal family.

    But did Americans fight for independence to get away from George III? Would that have made sense, given that royal prerogatives had been already abolished well before 1776? The 1689 Bill of Rights ended the power of the king to suspend legislation and the 1700 Act of Settlement ended his ability to remove judges. It seems plausible that Americans were fighting against an unjust Parliament rather than against King George.

    Maybe Americans’ dislike of big government is more central to our national identity than is anti-royalist sentiment.

    Interesting argument. But if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to have “stuck.” Then again, last I heard, something like 1/3rd or less of the American people at that time, actually supported the revolution.

    That seems to be a canard. Indeed, if Patriots and Loyalists and undecided were each one-third, as the saying goes, the Revolution could never have succeeded. Nor is it likely (or even possible?) that all thirteen colonies would have agreed to seek independence.

    More plausible numbers for the beginning of the war would be Patriots 40-45%, Loyalists 15-20%, neutral 40%. See https://historyincharts.com/patriot-and-loyalist-support-for-the-american-revolution/

    P.S.: It is said that Englishman who supported the Revolution liked to wisecrack that these were English gentleman asserting their rights against a German king.

    My point being, though, that it wasn’t a majority.

    • #42
  13. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RichardChonak (View Comment):

    This week Professor Yoo contended that colonists in America rebelled against Britain to put an end to monarchy, and said he just doesn’t understand American sentiment toward the British royal family.

    But did Americans fight for independence to get away from George III? Would that have made sense, given that royal prerogatives had been already abolished well before 1776? The 1689 Bill of Rights ended the power of the king to suspend legislation and the 1700 Act of Settlement ended his ability to remove judges. It seems plausible that Americans were fighting against an unjust Parliament rather than against King George.

    Maybe Americans’ dislike of big government is more central to our national identity than is anti-royalist sentiment.

    Interesting argument. But if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to have “stuck.” Then again, last I heard, something like 1/3rd or less of the American people at that time, actually supported the revolution.

    That seems to be a canard. Indeed, if Patriots and Loyalists and undecided were each one-third, as the saying goes, the Revolution could never have succeeded. Nor is it likely (or even possible?) that all thirteen colonies would have agreed to seek independence.

    More plausible numbers for the beginning of the war would be Patriots 40-45%, Loyalists 15-20%, neutral 40%. See https://historyincharts.com/patriot-and-loyalist-support-for-the-american-revolution/

    P.S.: It is said that Englishman who supported the Revolution liked to wisecrack that these were English gentleman asserting their rights against a German king.

    My point being, though, that it wasn’t a majority.

    Not In the beginning.

    If Loyalist sentiment had been very common, however, not all thirteen colonies would have gone for independence. We would have ended up with a Northern Ireland kind of situation.

    • #43
  14. MISTER BITCOIN Inactive
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    Erick Erickson. The latter joins to give us the lowdown on all of the politics in Georgia, which he knows better than anyone

     

    This is a lie.  Matt Towery know GA politics better than anyone and Erickson will agree with me. 

     

    • #44
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.