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.
In this week’s Commentary Magazine podcast, John Podhoretz, Noah Rothman, and Abe Greenwald discuss the hysterical response to the British vote to leave the EU, how Hillary and Obama laid a trap for themselves by responding so oddly to the massacre in Benghazi, and how you really can’t win an election if you’re, you know, losing.
Don’t forget to subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.
Subscribe to The Commentary Magazine 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.
Published in: Podcasts
The notion raised toward the end of the podcast that American MSM is projecting its fear of the dark Trumpenprolatariat masses on the Brexit vote is apt.
I recall a similar collective MSM shriek when the Willie Horton ads ran against then polling leader Mike Dukakis. The silly facade of the non-ideological technocrat was torn away and the racist hordes raised an accusatory finger at the criminal-hugging lefty standing naked before them while the WaPo and NYT wailed helplessly.
That 1988 ad, Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign all fly in the face of the soporific, disingenuous politics the left feels entitled to impose. It is not enough to win. They must also get to decide what will be said and how it will be said because any unfiltered content might cause the latent evil that is American flyover country to rise and seek its Fuhrer.
I must disagree with John P’s comments about Cameron. The PM effectively received a vote of No Confidence and did exactly what he should have done.
How amusing to listen to the talk of “toxic” nationalisms from the editor and writers of a magazine devoted to the preservation of the Jewish state.
Listening to John Podhoretz’s explanation of why he would have voted Remain on Brexit were he British, can there be any doubt that he is going to vote for Hillary in November?
I find your comment disturbing on its face. Would you like to clarify what you mean?
I am sure Freesmith can speak for himself but I think the point is that Israel is a Jewish state. To remain a Jewish state means that it has to remain overwhelmingly ethnically Jewish. In order to remain that way, by necessity, it has to limit the immigration of non-Jews, which is why it is opposed to the right of return of Palestinians,for instance. Commentary defends Israel as a Jewish state, therefore it is defending it as an ethno-nationalist state. If that is fine for Israel, why is it not fine for US?
Are not all countries, by definition, nationalist states? Israel is opposed to the “right of return” of the palestinians because the palestinians want to destroy Israel. By the way, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt are also opposed to the palestinians. The only reason there is a palestinian “refugee” problem is that the Arab states who created the problem have refused to absorb the palestinian population. Israel has probably made more palestinians citizens than any of those countries have. I believe about 30% of Israel’s population is actually Arab. So, yes, Israel is a Jewish state. And Muslim citizens of Israel enjoy far more freedoms, and a much higher quality of life, than Muslims in surrounding countries.
Freesmith’s allegation appears to be that Israel’s existence is itself “toxic.” I find that to be a disturbing sentiment, but I hope that Freesmith will clarify.
So in order that we are clear,theoretically, if all the Palestinians who want to return to Israel had no problem with the Jewish state, and let’s say there are many millions who will want to return and demographically overwhelm Israel to point where Jews become a minority, that Netanyahu would have no problem with this? Color me skeptical.
I am sorry but I do not read Freesmith’s comment as implying that at all. Hopefully he will clarify.
Israel has the right, like all other countries, including our own, to self-determination. The Palestinians do not have the right to destroy Israel, whether through terrorism or demographics. There is only one reason, and has only ever been one reason, to hold Israel to a different standard.
I am not criticizing the Israeli’s for not wanting to have their country demographically destroyed through mass immigration. Why should we be different? I think that was Freesmith’s point, which I agree with. I think you are putting words in his mouth.
Well, I’ve asked him to clarify in order not to put words in his mouth. In the mean time, all I have to go on are the words he did use, which were equating Israel with “toxic” nationalism.
I’m back from travel and glad to respond.
Israel has an inviolable right to exist. Its nationalism is rational, legitimate and not subject to John Kerry’s “global test.”
The men of Commentary described others’ nationalism as “toxic.” They posited an undefined difference between Israel’s nationalism, which they unabashedly defend, and some other, which they do not. They didn’t say on what grounds.
Because I don’t find nationalism toxic – not Israel’s, not Hungary’s, not Marine Le Pen’s and certainly not my own – I find Podhoretz and Rothman’s characterization amusing. I find all double standards amusing, as I hope Max Ledoux does.
Instead of pointing and sputtering in knee-jerk offense, a calm observer would have read my comment as a criticism not of Israel, which is constantly and illegitimately criticized by the world as a “toxic entity,” but of some of Israel’s defenders who fall into the same error.
Oh, and I notice that no one wanted to dispute my assertion, based on John Podhoretz’s statement about how he would have voted on Brexit, that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
So much concern about my first comment and so little about my second, which is that the editor of a leading conservative publication is going to vote to make Hillary Clinton President and to empower her agenda for America.
If the Democrats nominated Al Sharpton and the Republicans nominated Mitch Daniels, what leading liberal media figures – Klein at Vox, Remnick at The New Yorker, Krugman at the Times, you name them – would support Daniels? The answer is none. They are serious about their agenda.
But conservatives don’t even mention it when their media undermines the candidate that they’ve selected.
I find that “amusing” too.
I’m not a neutral observer–I’m partisan in Israel’s favor. :-)