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 turn our attentions across the pond and call on the endlessly entertaining and insightful James Delingpole to walk us through the intricacies of today’s elections in Great Britain as only he can. But that’s not all, we also cover the Texas shootings, the latest Presidential aspirants, Brady’s Ball-Ghazi (yes, a rare Ricochet Podcast sports topic), and if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, Rob Long wants YOU! Do your duty, people.
Music from this week’s episode:
Hateful by The Clash
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
EJHill drives on the left.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!
This podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
Get premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door! Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly to the consumer. Get $50 off your first purchase! Go to Casper.com/Ricochet and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
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.
“EJHill drives on the left.”
Yes, Prime Minister.
Texas v. Johnson (which by the way is over 25 years old — you gentlemen are dating yourselves) is quite possibly the moment I became a conservative.
Just curious if there was a moment when the BBC went overtly leftist. I used to listen to World Service and Radio 4 in the early 90’s and don’t remember it being like that. Did I change or did the Beeb, mostly?
Well, the point is that PM Cameron can win. He might not be anything Mr. Delingpole could love, like or respect, but politics does not seem to require any of that.
Sorry Rob, I think James Lileks correctly predicted the 2016 Republican ticket: Perry-Fiorina. Rick has just been laying in the weeds waiting for the right time to announce. And he will play the military card. Listen to his comments on Operation Jade Helm (about 30 seconds in). And I agree with Peter–anyone who adds Avik Roy as an advisor is no dummy.
As usual, Delingpole looks like a maniac. I enjoy consistency.
Woot! Glad to see there are some sensible people still in the Empire.
I think you need to get him to utter that phrase, I enjoy consistency, in his vaguely maniacal tones—dulcet tones, Mr. Long?, why not add lilting grace!–& use it as your phone’s alarm for everything.
Or maybe Mr. Delingpole needs an acting career–imagine him meeting people, shaking their hands & declaring, wide-eyed, I enjoy consistency.
Somewhere around here lies comic gold-
Perry-Fiorina. I’m in. What with the welcome and graceful volte-face on Ex-Im Bank reauthorization in the WSJ this week, I’m printing the bumper sticker now. Thank you, Mr. Lileks.
The only problem with it, possibly idiosyncratic:
a) the ticket sounds sort of like In Cold Blood meets Le Nozze di Figaro (Perry Smith/ Cherubino). To someone who believes strongly in the right of free association, of course.
b)The key question in choosing a president is who would I rather take a cross-country road trip with. That trip might include Kansas.
This can only mean fever-dreams in 2016 of German Romantic proportions (E.T.A Hoffmann-Clemens Brentano strength) with Lilekean segue overtones. I can’t but believe it’ll be worth it. Stocking up on Laudanum.
What a terrific analysis of the British political scene. Congrats Ricochet on being international.
I really enjoyed Rob trying to tame the wild Delingpole. Well done and thoroughly enjoyed.
Wait, did I hear that being gay would be a disqualifier for a Republican nominee, according to that poll?
But he was in the Air Force, not the military. I kid. I just separated from the Air Force after almost 13 years and am trying to join the Reserves.
Good joke on twitter.
Yea, but nothin’ to see here. Move along.
I am very disappointed that they just casually glossed over that. That’s a pretty big deal, to me at least, and it needs to be addressed.
Explain, please–how & why is it a big deal–& what would you have liked them to say?
Is this a rhetorical question? Because I know you know the answer. You just don’t agree with it.
I think I know your answer But I am not sure I understand how you think about the political implications & what is desirable or acceptable in presidential politics on the right. But there was another person who mentioned this, a stranger to me. But of course–not to you–you might pick up the matter in his place.
As for my disagreement–I am not automatically displeased with this situation–unlike, I expect, almost everyone here. I can think of advantages & disadvantages to the position; I have doubts about the poll meaning what it seems to mean; I can think also of the moral respectability of disapproving of homosexuality. These are all qualified, as it seems to me, but I have not thought about the matter as presidential politics…
That’s Vol. 6 Number 10.
Titus: The short answer is that, in addition to personally thinking it reprehensible, I think it scares the horses.
There may be something to that–I do not see any politician declaring that publicly, so that by itself suggests it is not an attractive opinion. I do not see how the social conservatives can be abandoned in 2016 successfully. I think just now, marriage is a big deal. The country is such that people suspect each other & are sometimes ruining love, friendship, & family over political disagreements. Each party seems to think worse & worse of the other. On the left, as it happens, a new constitution & society have been created overnight, almost, & I think that’s what really is scaring people…
Because if that poll is accurate, then most Republicans really are anti-gay. We spend so much time debating the marriage issue, but when push comes to shove it looks like a lot of Republicans wouldn’t want a gay candidate at all. That’s a big deal, and it’s very different than just not wanting gay couples to marry exactly the same way that men and women do.
Let’s assume, for the point of discussion, that the poll does reflect attitudes people are willing to publicly declare. I do not think your interpretation is serious. I’m thinking, what if people on the right had found out any of their heroes are homosexuals. Would that have changed things? No, of course not. But that’s a fantasy, not something actual. Then again, this poll is not an actual event–it’s talking about one.
I think there may be disapproval of all sorts of things to do with homosexuals on the right. Maybe Ricochet should have posts on that. I certainly am not of the opinion that disapproval of homosexuality is inherently reprehensible. But what it means in politics is not the same as what it means in someone’s private life or in his neighborhood, community or favorite bar.
I think, a man who says, I am a homosexual–do not be a bigot, I have a right to marriage, you have a past of oppressing homosexuals–that guy would be rejected by the right.
Then I guess we disagree there. I think disapproving of homosexuality in and of itself is reprehensible.
But that’s not what the poll said. It said just being gay would disqualify a candidate in many people’s eyes, irrespective of their views. I’m having a hard time coming up with any other word for that other than bigotry.
The poll did not say why people thought this or what exactly did they mean… I think they have in mind that human nature is tied up with reproduction & the naturally different sexes. Maybe I’m wrong–that’s how I think about the problem with homosexuality, so it might just be me.
I wish you would try, for the sake of comity. Comity is necessary–although there may be reason to exclude me from that: I am not myself adverse to being called a bigot & have no trouble or reluctance when it comes to saying that homosexuality is somewhat reprehensible. I regret only being vague–the somewhat qualifier. I do not think a homosexual president is unthinkable or too bad a thing. I cannot find any reason, however, to be excited–or, how do people put it?, positive–about a homosexual president. I also do not think sex is the really big deal about people, so it’s not very high on my list of priorities…
Some people, yes. Absolutely. Others are scared by a party that would reject a candidate because they were gay. Care to wager which group contains more swing voters?
I am not calling you a bigot, but I do think the position that homosexuality is reprehensible is a bigoted position. There is a big difference.
I actually really appreciate your willingness to come out (pardon the pun) and just say it. Usually people claim that they have no problem with homosexuality, they just don’t like the idea of redefining marriage. When you ask about civil unions, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me, they also don’t seem to support that. Others say that they don’t think homosexuality is a sin, they just think homosexual sex is a sin. I believe that both categories of people really, like you, just don’t approve of homosexuality in and of itself. I’d just rather be clear about it. We can agree to disagree, and I certainly don’t claim to have the ultimate answers to these things.
I appreciate your candor if not your views. Ricochet is full of people who think this but are reluctant to admit it.
I think you are likely right about this, but I am not sure that the swing voters matter or matter more than the base. First, get people on the right enthusiastic about the election & the candidate. But I do agree that just for the sake of decency & civilized behavior, aside from swing voters, whenever this business with homosexual marriage comes up–& the religious freedom disputes–conservatives should be careful to state their position calmly & reasonably & then to add reassurance whenever they’re facing the kind of unpleasantness one sees in the press on a daily basis.
I am inclined to believe that America is moving to a position where homosexuality is just another fact among so many. It even seems to have a kind of chic as a cliche or stereotype or what have you. Perhaps this is the next step of democracy. Conservatives need to be clear about whether they’re standing against this or not, & how. I just wish the talking about this be done with some respect for human beings. It’s hard as it is to treat people as people…
Sure thing, any time. I’m not sure this is so. Or at any rate, I suspect I am in the minority.
I think people simply do not care for nature enough; I think people don not take the teaching of the Old Testament or of Romans so seriously as to lead them to a position at least similar to mine.
I think people are moving away from tolerance–which implies homosexuality is wrong…
I regret it if I suggested you had or would. I merely meant, I would not really hold it against anyone who did; my opinion may be too unpopular. I do not expect endorsements…
The pun annoys me–in futurity it may be held against someone to hold my opinion. But then is not now & it is somewhat foolish to resent the authoritative opinions. For now, we may talk about these things. Not that my opinion is any achievement…
I usually take them at their word, unless there is further reason not to do so.
I’d ask them, sure, but are you with me in opposing no fault divorce, too?
That also seems a reasonable compromise to me–well, I think it might have prevented the current partisanship…
That sounds Christian…
But I think it’s a defect with a view to one important, but not definitive part of human nature. I am unsure what ‘homosexuality itself’ means. Sexual attraction as opposed to matters of law or faith?