The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Bringing the Wood to Wood

Episode length: 55m

Another week of last minute schedule changes, flight delays, lost iPads, misplaced laptops, and other mishaps delayed the recording of this week's episode, but finally on Saturday night we were able to sit down for an especially fast-paced episode to close out the week that comes with competing Star Trek metaphors, reflectioning and debating briefly about which was the weirdest news story of the week—the latest Epstein file revelations, MTG departing the House, the Mamdani-Trump Oval Office Summit—the greatest clash since Yalta, or the most bizarre meeting of Capitalist and Communist since Franklin Roosevelt dined alone—before we finally settle down to out main topic of the week: the launch of what will be a regular feature here on the 3WHH between now and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence next July 4.

For this first installment, we ponder the strange case of historian Gordon Wood, considered the pre-eminent historian of the American Founding, who was in the news last week for a speech he delivered in Washington DC for the American Enterprise Institute. Steve was present to hear the speech; John took in the published version, and Lucretia let out a mighty harumph. Wood's main thesis at the beginning of his illustrious career was that the American Founding should be understood as part of the "civic republican" tradition, rather than a Lockean-Jeffersonian natural rights revolution. It made him the left's favorite historian for a time, a point Steve made in a critical article about Wood 20 years ago, "The Liberal Republicanism of Gordon Wood."

Naturally—do I really need to say "naturally"? you know what's coming next—John stepped up to defend Wood's civic republican thesis. Lucretia thought she could sit this one out, but ChatGPT provided us with a debate between Lucretia and Wood, with "Wood" getting off some good zingers like "Lucretia, the Founding wasn’t a live-action performance of Natural Right: The Musical," and "Of course they were serious—serious about the collapse of deference, the emergence of democratic culture, and all the other things that give Straussians spontaneous nosebleeds." Lucretia responded in kind: "You make it sound like Samuel Adams was out there organizing consciousness-raising workshops. “Hi, I’m Sam, and I’m here to talk about my feelings on monarchy…”

The episode is slightly shorter than normal as Steve had to rush off to the final performance of Steve Hackett's North American tour in Portland, Oregon, and the final performance of keyboardist Roger King, and because the philistine and cretinous Lucretia and John attempted to mock the gods of prog rock, the exit music this week is an excerpt from Hackett's most famous guitar lick. IYKYK.

Hosts:: John Yoo'Lucretia'Steve Hayward

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

WilliamWarford@WilliamWarford46w

ReplyingtoBrickhouse Hank

Brickhouse Hank (View Comment):
Couple points.
First, with respect to illegal orders, I revolt at John’s suggestion that perhaps that should be up to officers. Your basic enlisted man ought to know for example that it’s illegal to just shoot prisoners without necessarily being familiar with all the Supreme Court precedent. The law should not be something so complicated that only lawyers can understand it. For places where it gets that complicated I’m willing to blame it on JAGs and officers and let the enlisted man off with ‘just following orders’ but only for things like that.
Second, with respect to Epstein, there’s a level of thinking here that doesn’t require any kind of PizzaGate QAnon stuff. Epstein was convicted for being the pimp to the rich and famous. As far as we, the public, knows not one of his clients has ever been prosecuted for whoring with underaged girls. Why not? I don’t need a fancy conspiracy to explain that, just guys with a lot of pull influencing a corruptible justice department. If the government had been steadily grabbing these guys and putting them on trial then I’d be more willing to accept their request for secrecy about their files. I’m not willing to accept secrecy hypotheticals as a reason that no justice ever gets done.
Thirdly, with respect to Trump releasing the Epstein files. Does anyone else remember Trump’s 2012 campaign? It wasn’t a long one. He pestered Obama for the birth certificate, which got Obama to finally release his long form birth certificate. And… that was the end of that campaign. Why had Obama kept that a secret for the preceding four years? Best guess I have is that it made people look crazy when they demanded to see it. And the growing demand made it all the more embarrassing for them when it turned out that nothing was there. I don’t credit Trump with 3D chess. I do credit him with the basic cunning to recognize a clever trick when it’s been pulled at him, and the circumstances which will allow him to play the same trick on his enemies.
Fourthly, MORE CLEAN AIR ACT CONTENT!!

On #3, I think you're right. Bill Clinton was a master of that strategy.

Discussion (3)

CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Brickhouse Hank@HankRhody46w
Couple points.
First, with respect to illegal orders, I revolt at John's suggestion that perhaps that should be up to officers. Your basic enlisted man ought to know for example that it's illegal to just shoot prisoners without necessarily being familiar with all the Supreme Court precedent. The law should not be something so complicated that only lawyers can understand it. For places where it gets that complicated I'm willing to blame it on JAGs and officers and let the enlisted man off with 'just following orders' but only for things like that.
Second, with respect to Epstein, there's a level of thinking here that doesn't require any kind of PizzaGate QAnon stuff. Epstein was convicted for being the pimp to the rich and famous. As far as we, the public, knows not one of his clients has ever been prosecuted for whoring with underaged girls. Why not? I don't need a fancy conspiracy to explain that, just guys with a lot of pull influencing a corruptible justice department. If the government had been steadily grabbing these guys and putting them on trial then I'd be more willing to accept their request for secrecy about their files. I'm not willing to accept secrecy hypotheticals as a reason that no justice ever gets done.
Thirdly, with respect to Trump releasing the Epstein files. Does anyone else remember Trump's 2012 campaign? It wasn't a long one. He pestered Obama for the birth certificate, which got Obama to finally release his long form birth certificate. And... that was the end of that campaign. Why had Obama kept that a secret for the preceding four years? Best guess I have is that it made people look crazy when they demanded to see it. And the growing demand made it all the more embarrassing for them when it turned out that nothing was there. I don't credit Trump with 3D chess. I do credit him with the basic cunning to recognize a clever trick when it's been pulled at him, and the circumstances which will allow him to play the same trick on his enemies.
Fourthly, MORE CLEAN AIR ACT CONTENT!!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
WilliamWarford@WilliamWarford46w
ReplyingtoBrickhouse Hank
Brickhouse Hank (View Comment):
Couple points.
First, with respect to illegal orders, I revolt at John’s suggestion that perhaps that should be up to officers. Your basic enlisted man ought to know for example that it’s illegal to just shoot prisoners without necessarily being familiar with all the Supreme Court precedent. The law should not be something so complicated that only lawyers can understand it. For places where it gets that complicated I’m willing to blame it on JAGs and officers and let the enlisted man off with ‘just following orders’ but only for things like that.
Second, with respect to Epstein, there’s a level of thinking here that doesn’t require any kind of PizzaGate QAnon stuff. Epstein was convicted for being the pimp to the rich and famous. As far as we, the public, knows not one of his clients has ever been prosecuted for whoring with underaged girls. Why not? I don’t need a fancy conspiracy to explain that, just guys with a lot of pull influencing a corruptible justice department. If the government had been steadily grabbing these guys and putting them on trial then I’d be more willing to accept their request for secrecy about their files. I’m not willing to accept secrecy hypotheticals as a reason that no justice ever gets done.
Thirdly, with respect to Trump releasing the Epstein files. Does anyone else remember Trump’s 2012 campaign? It wasn’t a long one. He pestered Obama for the birth certificate, which got Obama to finally release his long form birth certificate. And… that was the end of that campaign. Why had Obama kept that a secret for the preceding four years? Best guess I have is that it made people look crazy when they demanded to see it. And the growing demand made it all the more embarrassing for them when it turned out that nothing was there. I don’t credit Trump with 3D chess. I do credit him with the basic cunning to recognize a clever trick when it’s been pulled at him, and the circumstances which will allow him to play the same trick on his enemies.
Fourthly, MORE CLEAN AIR ACT CONTENT!!
On #3, I think you're right. Bill Clinton was a master of that strategy.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
WilliamWarford@WilliamWarford46w
Steve, I think you should lock the cretinous John in a room and make him listen to Air Supply for 24 hours, then we'll see how he likes the brilliant Fifth of Firth. Talk about enhanced interrogation techniques!