Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

The One About Socialism

Subscribe to The Ricochet PodcastSubscribe

Well, this is a first for this fully operational podcast: we tackle Socialism, the newly hip, but always old school form of government. To cover both sides of the argument, we call on Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig and longtime Ricochet member (and Professor of Political Science at Skidmore) Flagg Taylor. Also, Manfort, Cohen, and all that jazz, and finally, what's the most accurate gauge of a robust economy? Easy, it's the state of Lileks Oil in Fargo, North Dakota. Spoiler alert: business is great.

Music from this week's episode: Talkin' bout A Revolution by Tracy Chapman

Hosts:
James LileksPeter RobinsonRob Long
Guests:
EBElizabeth BruenigFTFlagg Taylor

Discussion (100)

  • kedavis@kedavis

    The first problem I noticed with Elizabeth Bruenig's rhetoric came pretty early. She says that the political campaigns that don't get supported by big donors, fade away so the choices to vote from are already made in advance.

    But, if the campaigns that don't get big donor support, fade away, doesn't that mean if there were no big donors, there would be NO CANDIDATES AT ALL?

  • Kephalithos@Kephalithos

    kedavis (View Comment):

    The first problem I noticed with Elizabeth Bruenig’s rhetoric came pretty early. She says that the political campaigns that don’t get supported by big donors, fade away so the choices to vote from are already made in advance.

    But, if the campaigns that don’t get big donor support, fade away, doesn’t that mean if there were no big donors, there would be NO CANDIDATES AT ALL?

    Ha! I suppose.

    Like it or not, candidates -- particularly candidates running for national offices -- will necessarily be powerful, wealthy, or famous. In politics, name recognition is key. Discouraging massive campaign donations won't change this fact.

    Unless Elizabeth wants voters to select from book-length lists of candidates, or unless she favors resurrecting Athens's lottery system, there is no good way of limiting the candidate pool without also ceding it to powerful people.

  • Otterton@Otterton

    Very nice conversation with someone I agree with on pretty much nothing. She was a really good sport though for being on a podcast outnumbered 3 to 1. I’m always amused that the folks that believe in a more direct democracy are also arguing how gullible and stupid citizens are they can’t elect a candidate that hasn’t been hand picked by a billionaire. If this is actually a problem how is “compressing” the wealth gap going to solve this? Unless you’re arguing for an insane level of authoritarian wealth redistribution. Say goodbye to Bezo’s backed Washington Post if that’s the case. Great response bringing up Jeb Bush who had the backing, personal wealth, power and still failed horribly. Not to mention plenty of other candidates. Then she’s in favor of bigger public sector unions because somehow all that money in politics isn’t a problem.

Scroll for later comments
+95 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 100 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.