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 mix it up across a wide variety of views with guests from all over the right side of the ideological map. First up, AEI’s Christina Hoff Sommers, author of The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men. She wrote a Tweet this past week that set social media on fire. So we talk about that. Then, the main event: Charlie Sykes is a longtime time talk radio host in Wisconsin and is the newly minted host the The Daily Standard podcast right here on Ricochet. Charlie and our own Peter Robinson get into on the current occupant of the Oval Office, and well, let’s just say they don’t see eye-to-eye. But they do give a master class in how to disagree civilly. Take notes, people.
Music from this week’s podcast: Why Can’t We Be Friends by War
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.
Great! Hope you’ll have him back again soon, then, Peter. Or book him as a guest on Uncommon Knowledge. Or join him on his podcast. Why? Because disagreement is always more interesting — and invariably more edifying — than voices in an echo chamber.
Democrats are going to have to apologize for decades for FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and many many senators and representatives for their disgusting womanizing ways before I feel the need to apologize for Donald Trump. He’s a brute, just like many before him. That doesn’t mean I can’t support the good things in his agenda. The idea that the GOP must commit suicide because our president doesn’t represent all we hold dear is ridiculous. Support the good, criticize the bad and beat the democrats like they deserve.
Exactly. We are 1,000,000 miles past all this stuff in multiple ways. 60% of all babies (FUTURE TAX PAYERS?) are born under Medicaid.
It is my view that our best shot would be for Trump to resign after one term and let a decent person take over.
I couldn’t disagree more with these sentiments. Peter interceded only to challenge Mr. Sykes use of false tropes. He did it directly. He played the ball and not the man. In the course of doing so, the normally smooth and professional-sounding Charlie Sykes let the mask slip and unleashed his embarrassing “orange god-king”remark. Peter was the professional, and he won his arguments on merit.
If one seeks comfort in listening to Mr. Sykes express his views unchecked, then his new WS podcast will probably serve that purpose. But hearing Peter so skillfully debunk this whole “Trump has ruined Conservatism” nonsense was the most inspiring debate I’ve witnessed on the Ricochet Podcast in a very long time—possibly ever.
Ultimately, for people like Mr. Sykes, the problem comes down to the voters. They have more problems with Trump supporters than with the President himself. Sykes’ disdain for evangelicals literally drips from the microphone.
They used to be able to use issues to corral voters. They enjoyed the predictablity and the ease of manipulation. Now, it’s volatile. The voters have rejected the promises and the high-and-mighty moralizing in favor of results-oriented politics. And they hate it. Who wants to beholden to actual results?
You mean “not seek reelection.” I agree. The next problem is, Pence has been recorded saying very unkind things about “homos”. Talkshow hosts have no business going above House of Representatives.
I couldn’t agree more with Charlie Sykes’ statement. It is verifiably true. I see two major practical reasons for this phenomena.
In addition to running against a clueless, corrupt and criminal Hillary Clinton, Trump won by talking directly to the average American and merging what is popular from the Democrat agenda (big entitlement and infrastructure spending) and what is popular from the conservative agenda (lower taxes, bigger military, border security, law and order).
I think there may be one more reason: In states that allow you to choose a Democrat or Republic ballot in the primaries, maybe there were Democrats who took a Republican ballot and voted for Trump, thinking it would make the campaign easier for Hillary.
Note to Trump critics: When you say things like “the Orange God King,” you lose most of those who you are trying to reach. Cut it out!
You know I’ve always assumed Blue Yeti was male, but we’ve actually never seen a photo of the Blue Yeti:
Can’t we have a moral person and results? You don’t have to be high-and-mighty to object to Trump’s morals.
It helps.
Is it not possible to think someone has been snookered without actual disdain for the person?
From the comments I was expecting an argument with a bit more sturm und drang. I’ve seen people get angrier than that over whether water is wet.
Who isn’t snookered by government and politics except for people that think Mises.org is right about everything? Seriously.
If you want to defend Graham, Corker, and Flake, go ahead.
https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard/
Senator Lindsey Graham, SC: F 33% Liberty score
Senator Bob Corker, TN: F 49% Liberty score
Senator Jeff Flake, AZ: F 56% Liberty score
At least Trump critics and senators Ben Sasse and Rand Paul are rated “A” 92% which place them higher than all senators not named Mike Lee who is from the very conservative state of Utah.
Non-conservatives Flake and Corker should have been nicer with their criticisms of Trump. Otherwise, they have nothing to complain about.
@thecloakedgaijin Very interesting.
It is possible, but it is rarely the line of attack of reflexive Trump critics. Trump supporters are always charged with losing their minds, sacrificing principle, and forming a personality cult.
Prominent Never Trump critics and their supporters seem to need the disdain. We all have some level of disdain for some others. Better to feel somewhat guilty about it than to revel in it.
If these conservatives didn’t avidly seek spots with and stickers on their foreheads from lefty outlets (in Sykes’s case MSNBC and WNYC) it would be easier to take. One might start to think that the politicians aren’t the only ones who have been snookering us.
Are you, or have you ever been, a muter?
What wasn’t “nice” about their criticisms? The Liberty score is an index created by the Conservative Review based on their definition of what is truly “conservative”. My original comment was about the senator’s support of the Trump agenda, not the CR index. What is the Liberty score for the Trump agenda?
I’m not convinced Sykes actually believes that about every Trump voter. He seemed more frustrated with Republican institutions than Trump voters en generale. His hyperbole wasn’t helping matters though.
Everyone is a statist. 80% of the GOP is statist. Trump fights cultural Marxism and appoints good judges. Be grateful. This is as good as it gets until the bond market collapses.
@karenhumiston Give it another listen and let us know what you think. I did, and I thought it was pretty good. Charlie Sykes had plenty of time to make his points without interruption, and Peter was able to make his points as well. Peter was aggressive, but only after Charlie and James use some very hot language.
Everything is very civil until after James leads the discussion to anti-trumpism. Fireworks start when Charlie asserts that Trump’s character will have lasting effects to the extent that conservatives are going “to go to the mat to defend this [bad character]”. Naturally, Peter wants to know to what extent this is happening, and Charlie offers only Hannity as an example. But then it turns out that “playing what-aboutism or ignoring it” is the same as accepting it. Peter disagrees, but offers to resume the discussion another time.
Then James turns the discussion to the corruption of Evangelicals and everyone who is associated with Trump, and Charlie agrees. Therefore people like Peter (and me) who support Trump policy and don’t continually condemn the man are corrupt. That’s an idea that needs vigorous debate, and Peter responds. After that, Charlie let’s us know that we are “…making a Faustian bargain…”, “…bending our knees the the orange god-king…”, and “…tugging our forelocks…”. That’s not civil, and it is not an argument.
I hope that Charlie will be back soon to continue this debate with more facts and cooler rhetoric.
Not to switch subjects too hard, but the band War (“Why Can’t We Be Friends?”… The Ricochet Podcast song of week) seems to be a seldom played(on radio doing older rock), unappreciated, underrated 1970’s band.
The band had a number a very good hit singles: All Day Music, Slippin into Darkness, The World is a Ghetto, The Cisco Kid, Low Rider, Summer, and their cover of Groovin to give you a sense on just how many of their songs got significant radio play.
I always liked the song All Day Music:
I’m surprised at how others heard this episode, like a political Myers-Briggs test.
Rorschach.
The Podcast title, the song of the week, and some of the comments led me to believe I would hear shouting, face slaps, and bottles breaking over heads … I have to say I was a little disappointed.
As one of the people who said in the 90’s that the long-term effects of the Clinton Presidency would be to invite politicians to behave in a worse fashion – there were many such people – we can only stare at Donald Trump and know that we were correct, seemingly.
Of course, Breitbart’s statement that politics is downstream of culture weighs upon my mind when I say that, but it does seem to me that there is at some two-way communication between politicians and the electorate in this fashion.
Let’s face it: the Clinton Presidency set the predicate that a President could pay off an adult actress to shut up about their tryst. Worth noting as well is that Charlie’s statement is entirely accurate with regard to evangelicals: the next time some manner of charismatic yet morally challenged politician comes along, that person will only have to say “Trump rule” to objections people might have to that immoral behavior.
In that way alone, he has moved the goal posts in American Politics, and that diminution of Evangelical influence in the future is the cost they will have paid for protecting Trump.
For the record, my comment about puffs of smoke was directed eastward; if I said westward, indicating Peter, that wasn’t my intention.