« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Commentary Podcast: Old Culture Wars Are New Again

2018-03-29 | 🔗
John Podhoretz is out today. In his absence, Noah Rothman, Abe Greenwald, and Sohrab Ahmari discuss the White House’s ongoing personnel churn with the ouster of Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin. They also dig into what the Mueller Probe’s revelation about Rick Gates’ Russian military intelligence contacts means or does not mean with regard to the elusive charge of “collusion.” The gun control debate makes an appearance, and, finally, the gang discusses the socio-politico-cultural implications of the revival of ABC’s “Roseanne.”
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the Commentary magazine podcast today is March. Twenty nine twenty eighteen, I am no Rossman. John put words is out today with us. As always, is commentary magazine senior editor, a green, warm. I know a commentary magazine senior writer, Sarah memory, I know, so within the last twenty four hours we We were having a lot of pieces that were being authored by journalists,
commentators talking about how, though, that this is a quite weak in the Trump administration was allotted news, there wasn't a law to churn out of the White House. It was very on trumped, all that quietness went out the window yesterday, because late in the afternoon. He got word apparently not by tweet, but these secretary of veterans, affairs, David Shokhin, was removed from Suppose this is not something that anybody was taken by surprise by. We had seen a lot of reports in the news about how children was on the outside with Donald Trump, So will it wasn't a shock day the nomination to replace him, the president's physician, who very famous, gave him a Us rising Lee Clean Bill of Health, a bill so clean that people thought it might have been doctored even though that was kind of a wild conspiracy theory, the guy had been Brok Obama's, physician, Cetera Soforth has been nominated to replace him, so the biggest conch first. The out of this thing was that one
years ago, that the guy who was scheduled to replace the Secretary Veterans Ferris, the secretary designate, just really didn't, have a lot of experience in his role. So maybe he was in a great choice for that job, but the controversy has has expanded dramatically in the last twenty four hours excuse me because we, it seems like maybe Shokhin, isn't gonna go out quietly. He wrote in a bed for the New York Times in which he talked about how He is basically a martyr for the cause of privatisation. He here there is efforts of brutal. For its within the administration to sideline him, because he was standing in defence of veterans against the people who want to privatized of the aid system in Washington. Is a horrible ugly nasty place where you can't get any work done and he was being railroaded so
he is my leaving on bad terms, and he wants you to know that he's the victim in all this guy, the detail? Is that how you think this went deserve any problem with a narrative. Well look. I am I'm an ignore on. Secondly, on the aid privatisation debate, I'm willing to see the merits in the idea of it. Nor veterans would come to rely on government run facilities which do have certain advantage is in some areas and some disadvantages. Certainly if everyone remembers the Walter Reed Hospital, scandal of the care there, but on the, on the other hand, you know you ve, had lots of veterans again who are used to their facilities, and I could see how it could be destabilizing and that there are different kind of patient and therefore the idea that they should have to rely on vouchers that they can redeem at private care may I'll, be such a good idea or
Maybe I don't I again, as I say it, the we should set aside the policy debate. This appeared just struck me as a piece of Washington grandstanding, regardless of where you come down on the issue of of private care for veterans it just you, and I have done great things. We ve made tremendous progress, but in the end they became the victim of unnamed forces within the administration, who are determined to put their own capitalist cronies ahead of head of, what's best for our veterans, and I couldn't take it. It just sounded like something someone who is new is under ethical pressure, who can't whose job and manages to transform his face, the air and of the fact that he's out the door into as we know a sad, a kind of martyrdom, a kind of my that happens by the way, to play well to it to a near Times audience martyrdom
and a martyr stand against the forces of privatisation and and NEO liberalism are. What have you and sides don't buy it? I mean that the opt out itself as a piece of up at writing didn't do what he wanted to you and not sure if it was a good idea to begin with an able the edge. It's not gonna, because nothing is worse at a listening. Sympathy than self proclaimed statements of victimhood. You know when someone claims victim status. The last thing you want to do is give them the benefit of the doubt. If you the round to the idea that they did. They ve been dealt with unfairly It's an opening, and especially sang in soothsaying finding himself essay. I wanted to do this great thing by Others who starts is so deserving of it and in the process. I was five found myself through the the target of of a of a campaign of abuse, and it says it's a doesn't work.
You want it's a super cynical, but is extremely savvy on the part of David Shokhin. He manage to get everybody to forget about the fact that his Both his staff had these had staffer who resigned last month because they lied to us ex investigators who were in creating a flight on which this wife, Shoguns wife, took two to Europe, where she was basically having a trip to Europe on the taxpayer. Dime they falsified information didn't live a falsified information in order to mislead ethics investigators, Shokhin homes. I've had lost the confidence of the president to the point where he could not do his job. The president's people who are close to him were shut out of meetings. It got so bad that was an arm guard posted in front of children's office. He was on a very hostile relationship with the president, so forget about all that forget about the visa forget about the treatment of veterans forget about how he can't do his job anymore. Forget about the ethical.
Says. Just remember that I am a martyr for privatisation and I had never seen the alacrity with which pray progressives in in my twitter timeline, turned on their heels and became defenders of the right of David shocking to occupy this office, and isn't this noble effort to prevent the privatisation of this system which, by the way a study I was reading on the train, this morning demonstrates there is basically no illegible outcomes when it comes to be a non visa system serves their better at some things in the visa system. They have better outcomes. When it comes to heart disease, they have worse outcomes when it comes to ammonia, it's sort of negligible, there's, there's something to give and take in every you know for a fur, everybody there's something there, but we're talk about very minimal percentages, and I don't really think that This is something you can hang your hat on unless you're you're, a polemicist
If you really looking at the evidence, it's it's a little greater than than the black and white in a partisan in fighting would have you believe. But sugar doesn't want us to talk about any that. He wants to talk about how he is the victim here and Donald Trump ASEAN, dresser and in the age of the resistance. All you have to do but to be a hero to the resistances B, little passiveaggressive towards the president, does it matter high performing your job as long as you are aware, prickly towards the president and look like you ve saved him in the back, You are a valuable asset well in it, so this also recalls the treatment accorded to wreck still arson who came in according to the court uncle resistance as a Russian Agent- here's this Excellency O, whose chummy with Putin and surely will use the state Department to appease the
you know a centrally his former business partner of Lattimer Putin, obviously through indirect and indirect business partner, but nevertheless blah blah blah and then on his way. How people say he was, he was let out the door because he was standing up to so the way has- and I don't know I don't know- do people notice this- the dishonesty of these kind of claims where there are separated by distance of eleven months, I don't know, maybe maybe they do. Maybe they work in a very cynical way, or maybe the people who put these ideas forward typically on twitter and the later entered into in the liberal blogosphere, really believe they forgotten the fact that a few months earlier they were calling tellers- and you know the the face of puritanism in though, and when the current warehouse and on his way up door. The man who stood up to Putin it's just astonishing guide enough. Anybody really notices these little the day to day
it means that we have but they'd probably hard, not to notice. At this point, the churn- the churn in this White House is excessive, as its. Even too much for for the Senate? According to the reporting that we have, the lead given in the Senate. Republican leadership is really saying no kind of knock it off with these, with removing all these conformable posts, because we have a full. I wonder what's an election year, the likelihood that you're gonna get all these guys through its gonna be difficult. People want, and you only have fifty one senators now, fifty one Republicans and the like that somebody's not gonna, wanna grandstand, though one of these things is, is low, and then you have a replacement in the nominee in the form of somebody like the president's physician. It doesn't have any experience, and some people are saying on background that it's it's unlikely that that's gonna, be a confirmation. That's gonna be an easy one if it be even possible which would be an embarrassment to this administration. So it's not it's not smart does not good politics. It's not good administration is no, it's not
abusive of of how the executive branch is supposed to handle. We're gonna have an executive branch populated with acting directors, which is pretty much back where one I remember, that was the condition that we lived through for a lot of the first couple of months of this White House he's. Well, I think you are one of the arguments that that has been made early on in defence of the fact that there seem to be so much. Chaos in the Trump White House was that well, look look at Clinton's first during his first term, it was a chaotic white house, but I still I think at this point now. The Trump administration has has exceeded the Clinton record or standard for for staff chaos and and turn over Asia. Envied it cannot be good in terms of a government that has to give an impression ups of stability, of order for there to be one story a week about at least about someone leaving someone leaving after six days,
is someone having had a fight with president, calling him a moron and then leaving it Bob. Let it just is all adding up to this impression of of exactly what you expect had put someone in the way. How so, fundamentally, it is not a good manager. Despite is sort of tv reputation as a bee plays a business on television is not really a real business ban in the way that say, Romney was, and the result is this kind of then drama constant turn over there. I am I'm certain I mean. I know we can do a study, but I am certain we ve now passed. The Clinton baseline for has to and it's also looking much more like ineptness, then like should have machinations and the evil purges. You know that it's at this point is
it's it's clearly angling yeah like there's a governing ethos, China, I wouldn't call it an evil. Purges necessarily, but I think the governing by chaos in my turn is sort of is, is a design. I don't think it's a above. This is, I think, it's a feature I think you should in the world is a mix of both right, yeah Mary Ethic Ethic use. I think that the present really is fine with it in that you know that you think such a deal, but our out another? He buddy thinks there is an actual benefit to what may be a big deal, speaking of ineptness and care ass. We got some news out of the Miller Investigation, which is rare. They don't they don't normally give you a lot of news with outside of the form of an indictment, but we have whenever the added the investigation that rickets, who was offered and accepted, a plea deal to plead guilty to a lesser charge,
apparently in car communications, with a russian intelligence asset in twenty. Sixteen of us a former Georgi Ass, yet and towards the end of twenty six June. At a time when gates was the trunk campaigns liaison to the orange see What's that direct AIDS manner for aid bright, a few things an interesting to me about this one? Is that so in the efficiently. In the document that that mother released the the former these possibly forward, your you agent is referred to as person a, but then they have a problem. Eating account or someone says that they they identify. This person is Constantine Villain kick or something, but undoubtedly mispronouncing who was described as a man of fortune right hand, man in the UK in Ukraine. If that's the case
It would seem to me and in a weird way, that just the conversations phone phone conversations toward the end of of twenty sixteen with gates and and this man seems, less explosive by comparison with, if, if, if person aid is already aimed at known player in in the man, affords Gate story, and that's an meanwhile that's not what's come to that. That's not what's come to light up in terms of their, charges and, and please, Why is this now so explosive, I mean it's whatever he's, not a new he's, not a new figure got it. But I do feel like
there is an impulse on the part of people who are saying, and others collusion thing has done. Nobody knows anything let the collusion thing would have been charged if it was chargeable it there's nothing there. Obviously, we should move on from them. Then the collusion thing seems like in those new evidence that comes out every other day, there's like well, the collusion thing really is an over. This is one of those indications. We have another one a couple months and weeks. It ended he's a girl. I'm sorry days ago, when we got information out of reporting by the daily bees confirming what we knew about hadn't really then, on the record, yet the intelligence community has been very clear that a The editing known as Lucifer to point o is a front for Russia, military intelligence, the g are you We know for a fact that Roger Stone, whose an informal advisor to the term campaign in the in the in the inner circle on the outside the inner circle sort of
never really bad any definitive distance between from an and Roger stunning. There were supposedly some deniable resistant distance there. He wasn't medications with this Lucifer to point no individual who is a front for the g are you which was providing information to Wikileaks they had received as result of a stemming intelligence operation, intervening in the twenty sixteen election and accessing information on democratic servers and Hillary Clinton campaign servers and, according to James call me Republican National committee servers with whatever was receive. We have not seen yet so the G are, you think keeps popping up. The russian military intelligence angle keeps popping up. It. Just strikes me as imprudent to be out there You know this collusion thing is done just because we haven't seen the Lee Special
This was office charge anybody on it. In fact, they ve conspicuously manage to charge. Everybody has taken a plea deal with just about the least offensive charge that could possibly throw at them in order to generate some cooperation. I know that there are their people, like I enter Mccarthy over National Review, who say that this is is not standard practice in its gives its? The cards are on the table here and it's pretty obvious to those of us who know what we're talking about in yet information like this comes out almost on a weekly semi weekly basis. That leads me to believe that we can put a period on this thing just yet right, In other words, just my own clarify Mccarthy's argument. There is that, if their there would be more soon Your charge is already being discussed if, if, if they had the goods right that it's not standard practice to to to use them. Well. In that case, why really use this information about the right about the Trump campaigning haven't come
contact with somebody who has active content with russian military intelligence. There's no such thing as a former russian military intolerance. As I wrote, you know that it's good. Yeah what what? But we are, what why? Indeed, what why why in breed syrup. I don't know I've I've trouble figure out. What any of these stories is is is new and what's what's of media pylon or or someone in the Miller Office trying to keep keep the story alive. I guess, I guess I do come down on the and the Andrew Mccarthy side of this debate and have for a number of months, because
in a lot of these cases in a contact per se with some sketchy russian businessman who may be dear you linked to, or what have you is distasteful. I always hated the fact that man afford was the campaign manager and, at the various other kind of Putin, linked Kremlin link people in the in the early trump campaign. But again I'm just I'm Joe. I'm still left wondering what is the collusion? What is the crime in the fact that these business contacts may have been withheld from investigators after the fact? Yes as criminal and
go ahead and charge whatever if it stakes by the hijab, still not seeing what the where's the beef, yet it was. It was all the brake insurers and my group, nor that it we shouldn't be saying that that the collusion thing is is is not there, I mean. Do you it's one thing to say that it will. There hasn't been definitive proof we don't know, but in but in the people shouldn't overstate the case for inclusion, but but the truth? Is that even in all these revelations were, did the story or is always several levels were moved from a sort of substantive, aha you know, I mean a real and the real nugget of any quid pro quo or policy, specifics actual favour specifics. You know not it's it's it's always
it's always so open to interpretation or or lacking in details or specific set it it's it's it's hearted to to saving closely which which feeds of court, Both both sides, the end and both levels of can spend both competing conspiracy theories about how certainly that so much is theirs. There's so much collusion of but here because, because they have to fill in the blanks and civic and create the story and and bad How did the campaign is is being completely when they were? All I know. Is I've been hearing since at least August of twenty seventeen that the Miller investigation was done, at least every other week. We have new information that the mother probe, including five very damning indictment of Drum campaign officials of russian entities of an alleged. Criminality involving the
so far in funds in american elections? That's campaign financed run. So I am not willing to put a period on this yet, and I do feel like that. They should impose some caution on people who feel like the Mahler protest. And generate nothing will likely generating stuff. That's run around them manifold and diamond was for its Anderson tax violations going back to twenty thirteen or earlier and the internet have an obvious net. You know camp Trump campaign Nexus. Just as I remember that that way they weren't all indictments related necessarily to two collusion type Joanna them are related to collusion, tight charges, which is which both sides of this, debate have determined as evidence in favour of their conclusion that a there's nothing there or be their save and all the good stuff for the very end anyway, so demonstrated our.
Facility with the information rounding, the the mullah probe. We ve got our hands around that one. Very very educational and enlightening podcast for you today we are going to move on to the fun and exciting world of gun control. Hopefully this is the last topic. Last gun control show that we will do because we ve been doing the gun, Control episode. I think, probably once a week for the last four weeks now this last. It we did them the marched in the last couple of days and then the fall out from the March has been has devolved from power. Policy making to something that just resembles mud fighting in the streets with actually saw some real movement and the Congress. In the form of push gun control measures through this omnibus bell. There was the stop act, which move
Some funding around from the OJ over the schools and provides for some infrastructure like protectors, and what have you been training programmes to intervene and when troubled kids laws before something like this happens Some some more legislation too. Obviously they see the study gun violence, even though they could study that before bullets were a complicated, just clarifies, nor did the dickie, rule and also some further. The must have action now crowd and the president has demonstrated that he is willing, circumvent the o j and risk. Intervention of the court's by saying just get a ban bump stocks doesn't matter that the UK has said for ten years that I can't do this. I have no statutory authority to do this and is going to do it, and hopefully things ok, MRS saying you know: well, whatever pooch we're just gonna, let you your things. We don't really want to pass any legislation, so everybody could be thrilled about all this right? No, no one is very
happy at all, because the terms of the debate are not really about incremental legislative, and change in the scale that we want to see, it is about demonization and attacking opponents and making sure that one side seems reasonable on the other side, seems overly aggressive and it has devolved into what we normally see the gun debate devolving into so all these things that were shaken loose over the course of the last couple of weeks have returned to some to a really frustrating mean, which is you know, gun control activists rational and unreasonable and programme activists are heartless and cruel, and that seems to be where the stasis is going to be. The way we are now in a political age where the worst thing that can happen to you. If your opponent does the right thing had his life, that just ruined your day that destroys you're, you're, very reason for being, which is to destroy this at this at this this evil opponents who cannot look good
or less than then my stress in any light under any circumstances, or if I guess we're talk, print, primarily about Margaret. My Rubio has now been the guy too, to take this hit over and over again, whose do done. Who has come out for things in terms of background checks and restrictions? and that that he is he's actual championing with firm Florida Senator Bill now. Cynthia is something that conservatives, including David French, over national review, have been really active about, which is these gun, control or gun vice whence related restraining orders. If somebody of the courts have intervened on you and you are a threat than you have these, these sort of fast tracked temporary restraining, orders, protective orders that will these firearms from you at something that the red Republicans and conservatives have been had been too.
About us as a means by which to preserve your right to self defence, the second amendment rights, but also to reduce gun violence which is gun violence by the way is domestic, a Lotta most gun violence is suicide, but most gun. You know the actual homicidal attacks on people is domestic and that's where it can have a real impact. On the statistics yeah internationally. So he comes out for this end and of course he is now makes him a more inviting target for leftist anti gun activism. Them Only because this were smell will win listen and want to attack, but they have to absolutely squelch any hint of of. A book in who is reasonable, willing to compromise exhibiting signs of a consciences, and so on. I mean it so many unfortunate
Ross doubt that had a really good column on this, making that point that the dead, the left generally, not just I'm going to control debates, but on the whole, but especially on this gun control debate, has come to the conclusion that it behooves to do precisely that that, if some puts out but themselves forward on the right willing to meet the other side half way, that's all a reason to demonize unto back of the head and assist the cynical depressing conclusion that Ross reaches is that it at that actually might work because Europe is your goal is ultimately to read: these severely abridge second amendment rights. What they mean in practice for for Americans then You know your best bet is to have a democratic Senate, so you can
Yet, whatever concession you want bash the guy on the head demonize him in the hope that he'll give you some and then in the long term, will be out of out of the Congress altogether, and you know the Ross suggested that might actually work for the left. This is good, for the countries are good for the stated debate. Absolutely not, but it is where we are and in its precisely, why? I think you see you have seen for the past decade or more, this absolute polar polarization, because if the next time someone else wants to go forward on the on the right and suggest the compromise. Others on the right will say you want to be. You want Ruby owed, don't give him anything and that there would be a certain dark logic to that as well, so you're talking really about the parkland kids, the activists
who are so say where we only want commerce and solutions. We don't advocate for four candidates or causes beyond smart and sensible gun risk restrictions to keep people safe, that we have no interest in politics. We only one solution many in the right have said. That's nonsense is quite obvious that you are advocating for candidates when you go up on stage, and you say the marker Rubio, as has taken a buckle, five for every child's life. In him, the state of Florida, with, some very spurious accused, genes, and some really set kind of terrible math indictment of the public school system from which they derive themselves. I should say that, because my cousins Winter Marjorie stolen Douglas, but it is unless a bad sign. No, you can't say that these groups, what seems far too much, But what if I said? What did I say so yeah
dear you're, saying that the these kids can't can't can't really being engaged on the merits of their idea, because either being a little slippery about their ideas and be because when that happens, people come out and say your attacking their their character. Right, I saw great. Does a new conservative ish humor website accurate this ever to answer to the unequal, the Babylon B and bad? It's kind of a mean that was Yes, I'm here to take your second amendment right, but Woe Dunham attack me Bro, I'm only seventeen years old, so there's an
playing into that and then the larger media atmosphere. If you just search Emma Gonzalez, if you search date for David Haagen, look at news stories other than the few kind of conservative outlets. The overall tone of these. These publications is so so reverence so full of awe and answered of uncritical devotion to these kids, which I understand, have gone through a trauma and it's perfectly okay for them to try to use that trauma to effect positive change as they define it. But that's not how the rest of us should go along because, as I argued in this, this column for four commentary
You know, at the end of the day in a victims deserve a fair hearing. They can o o alert us to injustice. Taken alert us to they can awaken our moral imagination. On the other hand, they can also be wrong. They can also be swept up in the same kind of kind of twitter politics dynamics where everything is complex. Issues are reduced to arrow means and one sided absolutely evil and wants to kill kids and don't you wanna, don't you want to save kids you clearly, don't you want to kill kids and the other side? It can also be extremely ugly. These fake means, for example, that show Emma Gonzalez ripping up the constitution when what she had done was nothing of the kind should
magazine image where she was holding a kind of ring argue over to arrange target and she was ripping that up and the right had eaten the kind of extreme fake news info wars. Typewriter had changed that into a copy of the. I think it's that actually the declaration of independence or or the constitution a camera, but anyway they can lead the kids. The victims can also be caught up in those dynamics, because that's how our politics work, we don't have patient detailed debates. Everything is stream, the emotional extremely rash, extremely enthusiastic and everyone is either an absolute angel, an absolute devil and that's not how our politics should work and when kids put themselves forward. Those of us who want to have a more detailed conversation can say: hey. I appreciate what you ve gone through. I honour the fact that you're stepping up, but I I agree with you- and that's oak was- as I think you you pointed out. Soroban your piece scrutiny and take
Someone seriously on their ideas is a show of respect. It is it. Is you you're, you're treating them like a spy a serious person by by actually engaging with them truth? Is I mean this? Is this? Is it our modern o rule in this room, has had arguments or disagreements with with teenagers generally about political matters, but this this is it. This is actually a kind of it as sticky dynamic, even though in the one on one to one basis, Were you dont want to discard Euro? If so, if, if Tina, disagrees with you wanna on an issue. You don't want to talk down to them and just pack them on and say well thy that that that's that's cute, you'll you'll learn we get older or you don't want to just you know about applaud them, like there a child learning new words, I'm so you you, It is a challenge to to show them does. Respect by
disagreeing with them civilly and engaging them like like, like an adult with an opinion Yes. So why I sent a sore abs piece inside you know it's not a sign of respect to not engage with these kids. We know on there at the plain of ideas to to say that they are beyond scrutiny, You know, that's not respectful and when I got back from the reliably liberal left is that No one is saying this literally the litter the quorum quote beyond scrutiny, as though hyperbole wasn't a thing that people who share the commonality of language understand as a tool, emphasis it, but to take that literally, no one is saying that no one has attacked anybody on the right for engaging these. It's on their ideas. They have only attack them for doing the info worse thing, which is questioning their their background.
Or what they have done, an arm around saying that they weren't at the school when they were, which has happened and that a lot of those very unfortunate and rate should be conscious of that and should not tolerate it. But at the same time, the notion that these kids were not being that people on the right, we're being attacked for taking these it seriously and taking their ideas seriously. The notion that that wasn't happening is nonsense. It's just fanciful. It's a bit deny denial of provocation that they had wilfully engaged in and continue to engage in and sorrow peace on this. In a very sad that condition, is very similar to what we saw today over the course of rather over the course of this week, with a lot very prominent people coming out against the second amendment? No, this is nothing new. The left has said that we need to repeat. The second amendment, an when suddenly american left and right sort of the ruling of the coalition like Brett Stevens over at the New York Times and the editorial in that
the Jesuit publication. American magazine for years has said the second amendment is problematic and needs to be, if not repealed entirely than amended substantially, and this week they were joined by some very prominent people like justice, former justice, Stevens Jump Stevens and Washington University law, Professor Jonathan Turley, which provoked a series of beds and in local power Personally, I have you concurring with that opinion, and we are told by the likes of people like sand ends. Cuomo about Christmas Momo. Thank you. I was gonna say brother enter. Who is the Governor Chris Cuomo said that is now happening, it's not happening at all, and even if it happening, the concession is within the space of the same breath justice. Stevens doesn't really have a constituencies that the head of a group as though that that was so
how to take away from the the gravity of being a Supreme Court justice aiming at the same time we have the Supreme Court Justice Jumbles Stevens retired, though who doesn't have any cachet or any influence over the left and by the way, was appointed by a republican President Sarkozy down the line, conservative Republican, no matter what his judicial record is, he has no influence whatsoever. But if you step into a child's library, you will be delusion by the cult of personality around Ruth Bayer Ginsburg, who is in fact global figure of hair geographical influence over the court outlook. Cross, the liberal left spectrum which is being foisted upon our children in a way that you cannot escape as a child as it is. The father of a of a child is just entering reading age. It is very difficult to avoid Ruth, Better Ginsburg Hague Geographical picture books in children's libraries, but she has a lot of influence. Is justice?
Stevens does not say a word to say that there was any any sort of movement away from. The second amendment is just bunker nonsense. This is something the left has done for quite a long time they provoke and provoking provoking. They talk to each other in very stern, and rigidly ideological terms and then, if a republican happens to stumble upon this, they say this is not so does not actually happening you're inventing this, it's a fever, dream of your imagination, you're, not you're, putting words in people's mouths. Literally no one is saying that it happens all the time. I do want to make one point about, because you Javert point of clarification. America's the organ of the Catholic left, so votes catholic. It's not a market while the Jesuits who months who I thought, I would imagine, synonymous almost with the liberal left and I used to be the visas to be so. Yes,
not much of a theologian, but that's that's generally, where I come down on the on the Catholic left. Now, of course, no, I figured you addressed this post this week this coming out on the left against the second amendment, is going to have quite unfit. Am I on and on the bed? It really might Republicans or depressed right. I mean that's the story, twenty seventeen twenty eighteen is. There doesn't show up at the polls there there, are enthusiastic and Democrats. Like professional Democrats, you know They have to build up a coalition and are just in the polemicist they really Saginaw. We need to have an agenda. We can't just be a few trump. We need to come out and say we're, but we're for God save them if they come out and say what, therefore, I really think all they need to do is just be a reasonably competent alternative to Donald Trump, a generic, confident alternative. From what you start talking about what they want like a second amendment radio? They are gonna, get ready
look. It is excellent that you made in your piece right that if they go for that, it's actually a big boost to Trump, oh god. What because up until this week in up into or that this possibility, the the left damned the pre. Emptive damage control are left of, saying that no coming after your guns were just talking about commerce has a say in the people going after guns is just something that the right does is to drum up scared, that sort of work to do to ten down hysteria to the abbey. Not enough, so that you, didn't see that border enthusiasm, for example, on the right was not motor. Aided by it and in ways that threatened the left they ve got there. Loan that they had. They should have that covered when I think of it, message is out of the bag now who's. There's no way they can, they can credibly say, were no one's coming for your guns, yeah, it was, it was always a chore for the right to say that you know they're coming
to take your guns away in the Obama years, because they would it wasn't. It was impossible to point to individuals who were advocating that that line of thinking, but it was nevertheless neolithic. And political influence. Usually people who are activists and not in the governmental structure, that's when a former Supreme Court Justice is coming up in saying this, and by the way not saying this is how you get to to its Congress. This is how you get thirty eight states to ratify this. Language. This is how you write a in anti gun. Volstead act to enforce this new repeal once it's actually on the books. I mean this is the sort of thing that you would talk about if you were having us This conversation about mechanics what the with justice Evans is trying to do, is have a in effort to if the conversation and away from that direction, so with a liberal say, is mechanical. Fine pulling on the second amendment repeal because it's not part of the national conversation, we don't actually talk about it. Well, that is the whole point of the state
that a tutorial to get people to talk about it to start pulling on it to start an issue set that creates Overton window that moves everything over the left and makes it feasible to have, conversation about repealing this. The second amendment and everybody thinks it's crazy, but It was prohibition I mean we did. I think that that was sort of this sort of thing. That was possible, in fact, the people who you know you can have this vote on. Prohibition, you can and this amendment of the states, but you can only do it over the course of what eighteen months I think they gave up. Now, then the windows closed, the door I'm being that none of them, happening fast, but it happened. That fast is the kind of thing that can happen. And so I wouldn't I wouldn't let the second amendment havoc- get really comfortable in the idea that you can't the conversation in a direction that you lose control of it. There have been some pulse right meaner than I see one. There was a? U Gov, pull, which everybody has been signing which I cited, which demonstrates that Twenty percent of the public thinks that the sector
it should be repealed. Sixty percent. Doesn't the numbers are a lot higher for democratic decisions in the high authorities? For them rats, which is really high, but when you ask them, for example, Should we eliminate the sale of private weapons in the sample? Should we eliminate the sale of guns to private individuals and limited only to law enforcement, which is kind of incongruous fur, the party that was supposedly very interested in the over policing of african american communities. But if you ask him a question, within the margin of error, forty six percent We cannot say no forty four percent say yes, essentially functionally a repeal of the second amendment and its generally tied among Democrats This is not a minority position among Democrats, It is a really popular idea, repealing the second essentially and that we get to our third and final topic of the day. The topic that all of you have been waiting for that everybody in this room has been waiting to a pine upon the turn of people love, it ABC said, come rose and, of course, not normal
I've seen it and why the routes where why? What we're going dog about is not actually so calm, Roseanne, because none of us is actually seen it what's worse from his I haven't. Even I have not seen a single ups. Out of the original, let alone So as I want it. Yes, I was a young, a young, take in the ninety nine days and my parents watched network television cause. We didn't have cable. Most my young life- and I watched my think just about every episode of this programme. I enjoyed a very I'm sure I would enjoy it today if I were to watch it but it is not about the show, for What we ve seen in the Socio cultural, political landscape, who discusses the sort of things is as though there
political issues. It has become a cultural, battleground, a political battleground in part because they, the authors of the of this first episode that was released the other day. We wanted to make it very much a political show with one side of this family meaning four pillars. One side, Roseanne side being for trumps over, is essentially a rehash of the twenty sixteen election and everybody has their own opinions on it up. When including the fact that Donald Trump himself, gave Rosanna a personal call and congratulate her on the eighteen million viewers very still stellar ratings period for or Roseanne bar. So it is a political issue which is just exhausting from my perspective. Well, but you not, which John nor is it as a great debt commented in your post today, where you know he says because of a sort of wake up, call error message sent from you knows: trumps America to Hollywood, that they will
they will watch things that that not designed to insult them and in the end, in mass he cites he compares the Oscars which, which were high. Highly political and again I mean they were just you're completely serve inst infused with progressive politics. And did terrible Anna and an end to the terrible rating. No one watch and Compare that with the with do with this Roseanne premier, which was was absolutely roof. I think a counterpoint, not the counterpoint but tat. The counter example to think about is the fact that now flakes just hired Susan Rice, former Obama, national security adviser to its, but to its recruiting her to its board of directors, why's that
or because increasingly lots of lots of people get their media through streaming services, as opposed to the more traditional television are going to the to the movies in a box office, Thou movies and in the worst kind of paranoid right wing way to think about? That is that even the new format, whatever may be, is going to now be infused with liberal orthodoxy, just as the older formats, you know that that network news and and the major newspapers in something Had this, this liberal air, that was part of the and it was part of our ecosystem. Now the new format is going to be that way too, and it's I don't know it will it be responsive to those billions of people who prefer shows about a middle class family that says grace for dinner and so forth are now will you know I mean it's it's an interesting question is, of course, because of the act
two away that streaming services work as opposed to television stations. You can you can You can Taylor your own viewing to your own. Haste and extremely service in a way the united. It did in its traditional, If he has you captive for that time, has the whole country cadre of either. You watch that then, or you doubt Me- let's obviously changed Fritz as well beak because of streaming, but it it's not just the old network news that that was infused with the proposed. But if you look back on, you know, entertainment, not just this disasters, but if you go but you remember one: Michelle Obama made her appearance her surprise. Oh yes, at the end of it that's because I think standing with Harvey one scene. If I remember correctly interest yeah was that for Argo, it reminded the same year. I don't know yeah yeah, so
so. No there is there is this this message that, like you know, but they just don't want to be in few- do they don't want to be over with that trumpet trompe in America were or dissenting American doesn't want be overwhelmed by this constant stream of cause it. What to care about how to care about them and who to support as result of, but they did they do, though they just want to be inundated with conservative causes here's the thing conservatives have a real problem with Hollywood right up until the minute, a celebrity throws them a biscuit and then neg gush over them and elevate them to celebrity status and say this is the total of all. This is the avatar of our rebellion. They the end he rebellion for use arose Amber appears on Jimmy Kimmel Show and goes after him for being objectively ray, they ridiculously anti trust in saying no
you're losing the Middle America have you and it's all over twitchy end and all the other conservative websites boom pow sublime. Oh look at those totally faced. Jimmy Kim Isn't this a really? You know a fantastic moment for the conservative movement, no, its not resemble does not have any ideology resemble not a very stable person. She's she ran for for president on an honour of far left presidential ticket in twenty twelve she was, Israel until she was brought, Israel. She was ended, but till she was prototype. She doesnt have ideology and for anybody who is trying to make a cultural told him out of this figure. It's gonna end in tears because she just doesn't have she isn't tethered to ideas. In the same way, the people who toil politics are for a living are that's partly because of the look it is going to sound. She did is gonna, make liberal ears fume and in the robe minds explode. What have you, but, but the right is actually culturally pretty powerless, in other words, that the resources that the right
it can Marshall. In favour of the traditional family or around have, you are all kind of clunky and and just because serve active cultural engagement as such may always makes you grant as much as I may sympathise with the underlying cause. You know that the typical kind of either the evangelical movie industry, the evangelical Hollywood that puts out whatever as an alternative or other efforts of the right to to court on core engaged a culture. A are massive failures and be just state are not persuasive because they just don't have well frankly, that the Hollywood magic and so when they, when one celebrity, no speaks up for tromp or when you have you. No James puts ranting on twitter. If you like
there ya go. We have one guy like one washed will step back from the Ninetys it sad, but that's it just is a testament to the cultural powerlessness of conservatives that isn't gonna come conserves I'll have power elsewhere, but in the realm of of ideas and emu jeez images mainly, but I don't know if that's true, I tell you the last little. The left has all the Agora ascribing all this cultural power to the left, but they do precisely the same thing with celebrities. They element celebrities into this position of ridiculous he'd, I have tons of celebrity does Amazon someone new every month, but it's always would order. Does John Rowing and obeyed lids Roseanne, whose unstable rapid? But I think the important thing about the Roseanne. Premier is said, is the calculus changing Is there a power among conservatives in the form of viewers ship and if that if, if this is this, if, if it turns out that concern
of audiences are a means of making money. Then what then, then we will problematic programming. Laguna haven't seen this episode, but I've seen people on both sides of the border spectrum, come out and say that their side even though you know everybody celebrating it that that it was a verdict, it was caricature of Trump supporters and that hit the Hillary Clinton in support in the form of sister. Jackie was I was shrill and obnoxious and rude and that nobody was very satisfied with the sort of thing because its art and it's not support the bearded demonstration of your political you, those this has not been a bad. It is some it is that it is something that is an interpreter bull in many different ways, and it has nothing to do with a color with put getting a one. Bond and on the cultural warfare that is as endless an unseen it is fine in a way that I can't accurately described. I don't understand why people enjoy Azeri charitable characterizations coupled resent art but
absolutely are we talking about the same thing that still generated as it is our end and the we conflate art with politics, in in ways that I dont think are healthy, because it is not a battle that can be won. An endless endless war that will probably not satisfy anyone with that. We are going to college day Commentary magazine a journal of intellectual opinion and insight and wisdom publishing consistently since one thousand nine hundred and forty five four hundred and seventy three years, you can go on our website and take a look at the content. We give you a few free, reasonably ask you to subscribe, one thousand nine hundred and ninety five per month for a digital subscription, two thousand nine hundred and ninety five for an all access subscription, plus our beautiful print magazine in your mailbox every month. With that, so Rebel Murray and Abraham Old and John boards
wherever he is dead. The candle burning.
Transcript generated on 2019-12-12.