The first of the week’s COMMENTARY podcast explores the controversy around the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, who spent years inveighing against “white people” on Twitter. Will that have any political impact, or is it only a preoccupation of the political class? Also, Donald Trump confesses the Trump tower meeting wasn’t just about adoptions…
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the commentary magazine. Podcast today is Monday August six, twenty eighteen, I'm John path towards the editor of commentary the seventy, so my dear old monthly of intellectual analysis, political probity and cultural criticism from a conservative perspective, we invite you to join us. A commentary magazine dot com would give you a few free rein, to ask you to subscribe. Ninety ninety five for a digital subscription. Twenty, my Mammy five for an all access to have some, including a beautiful monthly magazine in your mailbox eleven times a year. We, closing our September issue this week. It is a threat there are twelve, it is oh
the floor was stuff, including the first commentary, appearance of yes Alexander social needs and for more and that later with us, as always a green Waller, senior editor hi, hi John, nor Rossman, socio there. I now I giant senior writer Soroban. So guys a lot of the weak in the world of journalistic twitter and that people like us and others have been consumed with the New York Times, is hiring of the your brand opinion writer, Sarah Jong, whose incendiary of six seven years of tweets against white people in man and journalists. To said things like rolling stone story about cyber by to bring early was about the about the evil. Fragile. Why was fabricated and all sorts of stuff?
But a consuming issue for four for this class of people and she's been attacked by the right and by a lot of people in the middle and then she's been heatedly defended by people on the left on the grounds that she deserves no crime. System cannot be criticized because, as a woman and as a minority korean american immigrant, she can't be racist and she can't be. A Mason rest all she can be as somebody who is speaking, the truth about white privilege and all of that Ok, so here's here's where want to go with us over the weekend, a couple of emails from friends of mine. Liberals who were nonetheless in sympathy with commentary and our mission and various other things who panicked, because they want Democrats to win in November and the
said the New York Times has to get rid of Sarah Jong because she is going to get Republicans. She is she alone. This stuff, so bad is gonna. Help Republicans keep the House of Representatives so first off. I know why, but maybe somebody else here my wanted describe what this fear is, what s or of a good liberal
respectable persons. Fear of Sarah Johns effect on the democratic vote turn out in the republic and voter turnout in November would be well John. I dont think that any American is animated to go to the polls by hiring decision at the near times at a toilet page. I think the thoughtful kind of line of thinking, which I think I share broadly, is that that Sarah Jong and her frankly re racist, anti white tweets are symptomatic of a broader trend on the left, which is openly out, has openly doubted, serve double or hypocritical. Double standards about what counts as racism, what counts is as responsible discourse that certain
groups of people are allowed to say certain things and others are not, and that's going to believe that it is the kind of mentality and way of conducting yourself and public life that create a trump and that will continue to drive voters who may otherwise be willing to listen to the left into the arms of Donald Trump in there. Ok, but no one's making that argument except you. No one has said that in the political sphere, I think they should, I think it's valid, and I think it would do a lot to move it'll fur, the right people, but no one saying at the sign the media's, biased thickness. It's this, the fake news a hates you and hates everybody and its Different variation on a republican argument is a very old one. They been saying for time immemorial. The press is liberal and leftist But the press has never on the ballot Republicans when elections, because they do well in government they propose
policies that people like we're Democrats over region, there's a correction, the press, never going to move people to the poles, I don't start on suspect that it's a very good foil. It's been a republican foil since, as long as I can remember so,. However, saw, the saying is free at the press, Trump and the Republicans are running. We could put it this way. Our trump, isn't do trumpet the Republicans have a shot at evading the blue wave. That is just about the good economy or you know, unknowns, column, cap, her neck and stuff like that, but has do with a general sense that the Trump critique, if you could call it that. For the Trump emotional assertion that these people hate, you.
And so therefore, you gotta come to the poles, because if they get power, they are going to crush you like a bug. Ok yeah yeah, I mean look at did. Do I think she could drunken single handedly. You know an undue or potential blue with no but She is the wife, Her case goes to the question. The credibility of institutions, which is actually where Trump lives and breeds and tv then that Trump is being lambasted. Only end and his basis be lambasted consistently, with with good reason for calling the press, the enemy of the people. When you have a case like this, the rears its head, it's a d at a point in it.
In that that that goes to support that that argument, I would just a very quickly just add that you're right no added river events have ever said that, or for a very long time said that the press is liberal, its biased and is somehow has been used as a foil against republican policy. I think I suppose that I would say this is a qualitative difference between what normally the normal republican critique of the presses, and what? Where things stand now with the New York Times, the normal type of the group of the normal type of liberal press kind of thing? Is it that the near time in its coverage of the air that we breathe slightly, leads to the left and its policy preferences are apparent in the news stories and so forth, that's all he's been there, and you could say that there is the other publications who the air that we breathe
is a sort of centre right air. This is sort of open hatred, open hatred for for its lots and lots of Americans itself? I'm sorry, China, one. I want evidence, there's another important because she's also data point in arguments that refute the ocean that a uniquely hateful thread is coming from the right, and then, in her case is another example of the he unwitting normalization of this ratio list hate across the political spectrum, which makes the the hatred coming from the right. Let it stand outlets, ok, a kind of agree with one copy out, and I want to post something you guys than the new the argument that New York Times coverage, reportage lean civil left is true, and this is is
verifiable, and it opens for somebody to say that Sir John represents a new norm at the New York Times is like saying: shun. Hannity represents Fox news from this. Isn't the differ? between an opinion venue in the newsroom in its throughout the argument that Republicans have been making for a long time. Defend their media outlets. So they can't sacrifice that argument in order to justice, make sure they sure they can catch your candidature. They have long ahead is not an obstacle. Then you can do whatever you what better way. It's also not true of the New York Times that there is a, but there is an enormous distinction between the opinion pages and the newsroom, because we know that we were paid surveys over the past almost half century show that reporters as well as editors as well as opinion writers all are so seventy eighty ninety percent less. If this is the argument that Republicans can make, there's a special election tomorrow in Ohio in a republican, pretty pretty red District Republican held District Open sea
Credit is doing much better than he should be in any rational calculation of the Republicans should be in this district. And the New York Times as a good piece on what's motivating Democrats and for Democrats. It's all these issues, issues issues issues and for Republicans, its negative partisanship in full of the Democrats and their issues. You don't work, single player. You dont want Nancy publicity, be speaker again and that sort of interesting and eliminating one of the voters they spoke to that we have to protect trump. Now you could think I think, that's kind of a losing message. It's kind of passive. Not really it doesn't instil fear and the right people, especially these crossover voters that voted for Trump and voted for Obama who are really that afraid of government. What afraid of his anti white racism and misunderstood and, to the extent that they can make this person a foil? I think it would be really good for them. I also thing were referring political speck perspective. Republicans are probably do very well behind that message. As long as it's a negative partisanship message, you don't make it. This
There is one possible. The problem is that it streamline irresponsible, to mobilise that kind of sentiment to inflate, that kind of really fringe hatred, massage I am thus Andrey anyway racism and make it this national threat because One woman out a jar of in range: it's it's the it's the editorial pages of our paper of record, doesn't ok. She was hired, however, so serve job was hired to talk right about tech, so white and red pieces that she wrote on contact for the verbs, the website that you work for, and they were put good, like long pieces of reportage a long piece of repertory about kindled. Limited this service, I'm kinda, where you pay attention. It has obtained dollar month fee
and how these writers, who are their pay royalties, are trying to trick the algorithm bye, bye, bye, posting three thousand page novels with you, no blank pages all through them, so that they can register. Or more reeds and more time read, nor that it was very interesting and totally obviously logical is all about how the romance version Andrea had always been this nice swede, everybody helping in supporting everybody else and now, like everything else and Americans devolve, This fits in this world of back stabbing and accusations of fraud and people. Claiming copyright over the use of the word at it out like frisky, something under their in headlines and stuff. I did titles so so she was hired for that's all. I can see how James Manner the editor of the times our whole toil page might have been totally blindsided by the facts
foolishly, since it should now be obviously axiomatic that you wanna go look into people's social media histories, pre high but that he was hiring or for a different reason. Anti that didn't care, that she had these views because he wasn't gonna published. That's not what she was. Therefore she was there right other stuff, but so in the week that Trump. It's coming out and going really hard edged the media salts at these rallies are horrible, horrible, horrible people, fake news there, the enemy of the people, the bigger the enemy, the people, And meanwhile everyone in the media streets is, you know even Bret Stephens like people are going to get killed because of this he's going to get people killed. You don't know the kind of threats that people are are viewed or are directing, and you know it. When did this is just terrible and he shouldn't do it shouldn't do. Is President states it's disgusting, it's disgusting conduct even to say you know that you're adversaries are the
the people that's like beyond all, even if they were his political adversaries, which they are but they're not explicitly. It's disgusting and anybody who says it isn't disgusting needs to like flip it you know flippant and say what is it like if they go? If, if I'm a radical, I that I Rachel Matthau and then took a done to a congressional baseball game- oh yeah, for example, exactly ok, I think that My might my liberal friends who are the reason we're talking about this This way are panicked because They see the brass ring may see eat of ember? They see the Lou wave coming. And they are now in a state of perpetual terror that that this reward is going to somehow be reversed and denied on them.
It would make sense that they would fear that it would come from people that they don't like in their own party right that they don't like in their own general, let's eighty within their tendency, because they also want these people said the Sarah tongues and her by people like her to take over the Democratic Party. They want the Democratic Party to be the Clinton Party in Ireland. They don't want it to be the Sanders Warren into sexuality Linda SAR Sir Keith Alison Party, and this is going to be the big fight. If Democrats, when and if they should be taught me Tom this, when the Senate, which is what party is going to be now, we know what will probably be the impeachment party, but that, The occasion party straddles all these cat good government and you know, Pakistan is and Linda Sorcerer M, Keith Ellison M Trump hatred right, but we don't know what it means beyond impeach.
And there is going to be a battle royal as there was in the Republican Party and we didn't even know what's going on in a funny way we misunderstood, but the fight was. We thought the fight was sort of tea party verses, the main cedar mainstream, where the tea party just wanted to fight I can find find the mainstream actually wanted to pass. Try to figure out ways to advance conservative principles rather than to own the libs and beat up Obama and like come up with fantasies about how to close down the government to four Burma to give up on a bomb care, and we misunderstood. The fight was primarily cultural and not political and not policy. That's what we learned. People like us learn and twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, and that is the fight in a democratic party also because they are all there all kinds of legislative possible. I have some lessons to impart right, think that most of us who opposed that line of thinking well-
look for this is I'm right. What I'm running on today is that look at what the republican agenda has become is blocking. It is funding, ITALY decline as an defeatist, it is we have lost. There is no advance of an agenda. There is no legislative agenda, it is confirming judges not to pass things but to blur the imposition of liberalism, on on states does population the state level issue. It is to block Nancy policy. It is to be Och single parent is animated entirely by the idea Is it the left in a fear of those ideas, nodded and since it is music to my ears, I mean nonsense. Conservatism is is standing, authoritarian and yelling now, but if you will observe the rules also get as also returning power to the states and local popular
and that's what we're not doing, and that is- and that is a mirror image of what Democrats are going to greening instead of having the instead of having administrations rewrite regs, you re right. The endangered species act to rewrite the Americans with Disabilities act. You re right. Various other environmental code this and that in order to enshrine in these changes in law, instead of having them reverse that the struggle Jehanne about time or residencies changes, ideological partisan hand right, said. Democrats now have embraced that logic, which is declining, honest and defeatist it, as this country is terrible and world under racists and Republicans are terrible and we have to block them ideas now. The energy right now is coming from the far left, and so they have these ideas, but when they get our when they catch the bus and they
irritably have to make compromises that you have to make when you're in government right. Ok, so I have one other thing to bring em about Sir John, which is her biography and how it can Let's with her tweets? Ok and whether or not she means what she was saying in the autumn, in the deepest since she is thirty years old. Here is our story. She great when she was five, she God? It's rum from Korea from South Korea? She You got into Berkeley, she sailed through Berkeley. She got into Harvard LAW School graduated from Harvard LAW School. She decide she didn't want to be a lawyer, so she went to work for a website called the verge and she worked for vice and various other places ended before her thirtieth birthday. She has been hired to work on the New York Times is opinion page. This is a. Great classic american meritocratic success story. She comes here.
Did the hard work and you know the passion that immigrants particularly can bring to the these sorts of things and, like It is a story of an upward climb to the summits of american, meritocratic society right best public com the country best law, school, most famous law school, country number one news, media outlets in the country and she's, not even thirty years old, and what did she do? She craps all over America. It's unfair its unjust, treats women are raped, white dominate everything. Her whole life story is a complete refutation of this, and my Question is me be this- maybe she has become the verge, The millennial version of the limousine liberal? In other words, she get she, succeeds in every possible way. And therefore out of guilt has to embrace interest Action, the intersection of feminism, answered of a met white,
Atra hating whites end and all of this because she feels to herself inauthentic, as though her experiences is, is unlimited and unjustified. It's also earlier requirement, given her identity. In other words, India their sexuality scheme of things. I think successful, Asians, mainly Southeast Asia, not for example, Cambodia, Americans, but Koreans, japanese, american and so forth, are called to repent. Now they are not part of the group that gets too aggrieved their part of the group that discriminate against them at Harvard, for example, like my treat them as love has Dombes has meritocratic grounds. They do so well, maybe too well. Some would say on the last day, Therefore they they are one of the groups that has to sort of self flagellate, and this is part of that act, but it could be. It could be an act in that way and yet be driven by sincere feelings. I mean, I think, the feelings
our sincere limousine liberalism is. Is it may be hypocritical, but it's not insincere. People feel guilty about the bounty that there experience. I just want to make this point em in August, as in as an immigrant and I know so many other similar. Situated people. It's like I try to do the reverse, I mean I'm not saying careers, and this is a fairly open society right eminence of its own met. It is a democracy, but nevertheless it would be very hard for an American to go to Korea, partly because of the language. I think, but partly also have other cultural barriers for an American, too big to go, to Korea and whatever the leading paper there has become an inventory writer and sort of shape korean Paul, I would say impact not just not just on lower, unlike his eyes in its you know you would have Americans were in IRAN back before the revolution, but again for them to do. Rise. A level of of leading K. Hon
Now that the leading daily before the revision, and even today, in some ways and an editorial, I've only American, I think a few other sort of countries the Anglo American Sphere have this degree of openness with cultures are flexible enough or someone can come of age five and but in within a span of twenty five years, have a Harvard law, degree and then be opining at the great lady, that's pretty amazing and it just cause for a little bit of immigrant rabbits. You and I we just hear your liberal counterparts. They think they're they're, right, though, that the reckoning is coming coming is coming, because this is such a popular opinion on the left and it accompanies the grass. Roots the liberal grass roots, which, as you know, forgive student alone, debt and the federal jobs guarantee and single pair, and also you know, intersection of feminism and social justice and racial hierarchies. I don't think you can distinguish those things and it's not going to be working parties
we in the Senate in the house, but what working party are we in the White House? That's gonna, be the defining feature of it. You're gonna have an argument over this. The social justice left the democratic primaries and if they want to get engaged in that fight. Time to do it is now because they are going to have to. I think, thwart that impulsive theory are afraid that is, can overtake the party, because that's where the energy is ok. Well, I want pull back and read something by the south korean emigrant novelist men generally, whose book Pacheco is one of the great successes of the past year, a wonderful book, a story of discrimination and really story
who multigenerational story of Koreans living under the japanese yoke, both in Korea and Japan, starting in the early years of the twentieth century and then going to about nineteen. Eighty nine extraordinary book and her first book is called free food for millionaires and that's the story of a sick of up of an emigrant family parents, living queens, run, dry, cleaning business and have two daughters, ones a doctor and one doesn't know what to do with herself and think credible tensions between parents and children and the social hungers of this.
Dissatisfied young woman who is trying to serve make a life for herself in New York? So Bentley came here. I think when she was nine- and this is from the afterword of her first novel free food for millionaires, I can be critical of how this country works. She writes, but I also respect its ideals of rugged individualism, the protestant work Ethic and the american entrepreneur. Real spirit is easy: criticise America, but from a global perspective- and this is your points or up- this is an amazing country with tremendous openness. The common has been made before elsewhere by many pundits, and I think it worth criticising many who criticise worth
centering. Many who criticise America would still prefer to leave here, rather than anywhere else. Carlos Bulus, on Filipino american author title, his rich novel novel America's and the heart to me and other immigrants from a later time I to possess a complex America in my heart. Having said that, if you want honestly love any object or subject, you will ultimately need to admit to its flaws in the hopes of some idealized love, we were. We were Paul America's chequered backstory near annihilation of native Americans, enslavement of african Americans, Jim Crow legislation, gender equality, immigration quotas, the Chinese, its lose him act and the list continues and thus recognize with those shock and compassion how, with every generation America's transferred it set of insecurities anxieties to the newcomer. So this is a
complex, open, hearted, serious effort by a south korean hider to engage with the United States as a thinking per dealing with its complexities, its problems and what it has given. To her and part of she took her eleven years. Writer first novel she had many rejected. I was a very hard adverse period and he got through it and and and Sarah young, by the way, I am told by people criticising me on Twitter, that I have no idea the difficulties. The surgeon must have experience in her difficult drive to end up on the New York Times editorial page by the time she was thirty because you know how do you know the kind of for years that you had to surmount you know at bury, she had to surmount they weren't that hard to surmount that's. What it means to be able,
who succeed and succeed and succeed in out before you reach Europe. You know we're fourth decade Life, I love how, in the quote that you read there is that there is an echo of the frequent comics come up with a model for America, contacts the as the authors of Reaganomics said, That's come up with it. It was a mob for the: U S and lots of people sentence of missions and the one that one was America are worse. Critics prefer to stay ok guys, so let me pull back. Because whether you're a liberal or conservative south korean emigrants or a daughter, the American Revolution or son of a daughter of the affair, I will show you know you gotta: do you got a shave? I have to take a shave, otherwise gonna look like some millennial bomb and red hook with one of those ridiculous beards that makes them look like you know. You know, J Beth, the the FAO.
Among them the the farmer in Yemen. In that worry, no fraud or something like that right, you got a shave, that's Harry Shape, that's how we come to talk but Harry Shape, delivering its close comfortable, say with a fair price, because its founders were fed up with overpaying for expensive, rare razors with unnecessary features. They knew a great shave comes down to great blades, maple, sharp, durable steal that lasts. They bought a factory, that's making some of the highest quality. Blades than world for over ninety five years by selling directly to you over the internet, Harris can offer their blades at a price. Much less the merely the leading brand. Just two dollars were Blake compared to four more. If you don't love your shave, let Harry's no within thirty days and will give you full refund, so I use it. I use them. I liked it
even cream. I, like the blade I like the blade better than any other blade I've used. I strongly recommend it. I have a partial beard, which means I got a shave and the most delicate area right, which is under my nose like by a double Jim. Basically, very software, easy to cut Harry's. Doesn't he spoke it? So that's why I say you should get Harry shape. Its harry stands behind the guy there blades, but they know that switching razors, isn't it easy decision sort of like. I think it's a pretty easy decision, because it's really like Sarah John getting to get out the near time so they created trial, offer claim yours by going to Harry's that comes lashed commentary. Gonna thirteen dollar value trial that comes with everything you need for close comfortable shape, waited ergonomic, handle five blade, raise it with a lower hating strip, interpret blade, rich leather and shave jail, travel way, how travel blockade the cover listeners of commentaries show.
Our podcast right here, can redeem their trial set of Harry's dotcom slashed commentary, make sure you gotta Harry's dotcom, slash commentary to redeem your offer and let them know we sent you to help support this podcast. Ok, so we weren't going when I want to take my russian collusion right. We really don't we hate. We can't stand that. We can talk about it anymore. It's driving me crazy, live to data points. One trump basically admitted that Ninth meeting a term tower was for the purpose of getting dirt from the Russians on Hillary Clinton, but he says it's not a crime and he is wonderful. Son Donald did because it's always wonderful to meet with Russians to get dirt, because that's what that's America is there a John men gently and getting dirt from the rock from the russian security services on other Americans it's. What I look to do I action
asked the Russians to give me. You know dirt answer of Amerika and they didn't have any before we before he came to work for us, as very upset about that, so terms as he did know about. That's all you say see these thou knowledge, acknowledging that the meeting was the meaning that he, that date, issued a statement. Saying was talk about. Adoption was actually to get dirt from Russia, but he did know about it and Donald Juniors. Wonderful, that's very nice! The causes are wonderful, very happy that they have such a warm and close relationship. This is really bad. Once again, it's really bad. It's is bids, the enemy, the people, things bad, and this is bad. My wish that he would stop, bad things. So I wouldn't have to say that it was bad, but I don't make him do it, I'm not responsible, he's responsible, it's really bad. You can I defend that. I dont understand how any human being is sitting here in our
bed and saying that it's ok, that the Trump campaign wanted dirt from a foot from an enemy or we're sorry, security service. Basically, on the person they were running president, so that the world will be open about this now yet both above its also bad to say, oh yeah we will write to the whole country before answered it. And it didn't matter- and this doesn't matter in and that a lot of people think that this version of the truth is the real truth and there's no other lies that are being concealed here. Yet the trumped, our meetings is we have a problem for the rest of this presidency. Theirs I mean if you don't think, there's more to the story at this point, I don't know what to tell you your credulous voters and it was- it's always been, I think the sort of one substantive core of of any the actual credible collusion,
and there are people already. It is the only thing that we know about that. There you can. You can draw a line that says that day, sought something and that in theory they must have offered a quid pro quo and the only thing now separating keeping that the president with some distance from his campaign manager. His son and his son in law is the notion that he was no point ever informed before or after of the existence of this meeting, and thus, frankly, a tougher and tougher pill to swallow. Ok, but forget the pill, what we don't know in what gets very confusing here. Is that Donald Junior has no privilege to assert. He did not developing a Senate hearing is yet he did vote, but they would have to like okay. So if so, let's put it this way,.
The blue way really happens at the Democrats when the senate- and they descended intelligence committee- calls Donald Trump Junior back to testify and ass in the same question any says the same thing and they hit him with a contempt of Congress, citation which the republic and lead It would not do that's number number two. He has no privilege with he's, not a play. These echoed a branch and there is no family privilege in law. There are spousal privilege, are not obliged to testify against your spouse, but children, have no privilege against you as a far so. What we don't know I was what's going on with smaller and Doll Junior and if this meet this meeting I we can only presumed, is the locus of the entire inquiry into the possibility that there was a conspiracy I mean. Maybe they news of other things, but there's all you know the toll who met with the who met with Carter, page and George Papadopoulos in London,
where they go here that that's not. We have the principles of the Trump campaign with the x the president, in a room They russian intelligence officers orb up or presumably a russian intelligence officer at the jet trump tower. That's metaphor: guard cushions and Donald Trump Junior. All in the room with this on that scale, the lawyer and she did ask for- We prefer from what we can tell she said, get rid of the Magnets Gay ACT and they Which they work, I mean there was no it rational Hilary forthcoming. So presumably that's why this meeting was a, but what? If they're? What's what? If we are told the beating was about right, but we were also told it was about adoption. Why do we have to take Their words at the meeting was about us. That's bets on this. Guy is worth while she said it, and they said
Well, they say I know who I am story. They said they were board. They said it was an interesting to. There was hardly a machine like about about, but about banknotes C, and they do they didn't want to talk about magnates key but Phoebe the trunk campaign never produced any explosive secrets on Hilary Oh I mean that the left is saying the time line of this meeting. And what we know about the meeting now and then the president having this press conference where he called on Russia to release he's right, thirty thousand email, but that was a month later right, that was debt was late July. When he the thing where He calls nighttime confusing. Ok, there was supposed to be a press conference where the president, day right. He said he was kind of new information about right click. The press conference never happened. I have my mistake. I confusing those two things: it's very easy to get confused, but so
Basically, all I'm saying is, I think, all of us around this table have expressed degrees of extreme scepticism that that the russian conspiracy was there going to be proved in a way that would lead to his impeachment would lead. His removal from office, and there was all just kind of like and why woody in it's ridiculous- and I you just even with the best will in the world- you can't- Say that so easily after you can say that collusion is best practice, seeking out information on your opponent. No matter where it comes from is just standard operating procedure through that's it otherwise is too unilaterally disarm, and that's what we're here for that they're saying let me that's. Why that's what people? The federalists are saying. That's what.
I don't know I mean this idea that yeah, you know, let's all be grown ups here. What do you think people do? Well? Ok, great! So let say that it has been done before. Maybe that is the perfect distillation of what trumps impulse on or what the trumps effect on them on the Republican Party has been civic ideas as to how we just have to finish that thought it is. It is too legitimize and justify abhorrent behavior immoral behaviour, possibly illegal behaviour, because what do you think of it? This is just how the world works. You know that what people do was wasn't I do what he's your Emulous ate a bill o Reilly right. He said: what are we to great we're so innocent? We ve killed people. Just the assumption is that everybody's awful and therefore you have to be awful or you are, I'm not the puppet you're. The failing to perform best practice
the standard practice should be, and we should declare this on the commentary podcast, that, if you're running for elected office in a foreign Emissary come see offering dirt on your opponent of opponent that the American to do is to call for get that's right right out. By the way we should also say of a commentary tie the ways. Tat was standard practice than he is not like. This is a theoretical thing. This happened, Hey look do the label now your story dupe, do people without where there was a stolen debate, predatory right. Ok, so do people do back things. I'm campaigns yes do day. Ok do they seek To yours, a Ford intelligence agency as a primary source for information on their rival, that's new and by way. This is the whole point about the problem. With this administration going forward, which is it is
argue rating or innovating approaches to politics. That argument that that, if they become if they become simply that done from now on forever income? voting time, a blind eye to efforts to, or be now being being dismissive word, not carrying all that much about efforts to interfere with our election process, I'm not saying it's gonna destroy the country, but but it is going to do great part of this ongoing degradation of normal, practical politics that maybe there's a core of it in which people
we're naive and are now learn, dropping their blinders and learning that the world is a dark place and dark things happen even in a nice country, but not like this. So what happens if there is a blue with and the magic of twenty sixteen is gone and Donald Trump Coalition looks a lot like thirty seven percent, and not this elephant that we imagine it to be, and the Republican effort to play, play block fur. Donald Trump looks more like a waste of time does. Does this it is aiming for and does the boy do you mean they lived locked like too. I am about to serve as a blocking tactics is right, and this is again I say that New York Times piece about twelve, where they talked to a vote when the voters said now that we have to protect trump, and that is the highest aspiration of the Republican Party is to protect trump towards what and I dont know. I gotta tell you what I'll tell you, what and from the surgeons of the world, not to bring the conversation circular actress
from Sarah Jong, or do they have that America from Sarah Jong? They have to protect rum from the Democrats from impeachment kind of that. Yet I can I get it, but after November let's say they lose the house and maybe they perform as well. I think in the Senate. I don't, I don't think so. It's going by who knows say the coalition looks a little more fragile and Republicans respond to one and only one thing and that's winning real action, and if that Donald Trump looks like less of an asset towards that end, what changes? Ok, I'm gonna pot. I'd suggest why the idea that Republicans will turn on trump if they lose as it is, it is a mistake or is a mistaken. Hope or gas, or something and then analogies it to two advertising spending on television just to just to be even weirder than you can possibly imagine. So what happened in the United States
it's from nineteen. Eighty two now is that, before the add real general advent of cable television, the three broadcast networks controlled ninety percent of the audience right and then ask ro starting about ninety ninety. In a little forward, they declined from ninety to seventy two, fifty to about thirty, ok and what happened. Happened as the audience, Atomizer and shrank was that advertising rate went up not down. Why? Because, just because there were fewer eyeballs didn't mean that the intensity of the viewer ship network television had changed and there was no other way to get even thirty percent of eyeballs at once, because it all atomizer- and it's not like you- could take that spending that you were spending on on a network commercial and spend it on HBO because HBO didn't he
the advertising, for example, and so the fact that they were- aggregating, an enormous number of people relative to anything. Still made it incredibly valuable, similarly, that what the Republican Party has now, because it as so badly itemised its coalition is Trump and eat. If the coalition shrinks and shrinks suggest smaller and smaller on smaller theirs. Thing to save what what are you gonna do if you turn on Trump who's. Gonna support you for turning on Trump, no one's gonna support the only people who have any skin in the Republican Party game, under this under my reckoning here, as the party goes through, if the party were to go through crucible, because Trump lost the house too. Still the only game and how you end,
applicants can be in the event of a blue with report can then go to the argument that yeah Republicans are having a hard time but tromp. He can still do it it's him he's the one that's carried the match was Obama's argument right, well boxes. I suppose, in the absence of a conservative agenda in out there really is an all that much left, but damn traditionally in that situation, Republicans would say: well we need to get back the house to do ex, but there is no ex. Third, there hasn't been, I suppose, repeal Obamacare again, but I mean who's really on that train and let it ok. The other thing is this gives you a sense: here's a possibility. The trumps anti media frenzy this week, Comes out to know where he could have been, he could be talking about the GDP growth. He could be spit spending an hour these rallies talking about. How is that four point? One percent growth and three point: nine percent unemployment,
and wages are up two point, seven percent from last year and you know blah blah blighted there are. You know there was a net loss of manufacturing jobs under Obama and there he already has three hundred and fifty thousand net manufacturing jobs during his tenure and he is saying any of that. What does he do is talk about how the press of the people is rallying people against accosted, calling them horrible. Why work, as he has said, because he is, stabbed pushing the predicate for his defeat or the Republican Party defeat November. Why did we lose because the horrible media, the witch hunt, the fake, in fake news made me lose He is that's pretty good. Thank you. It was amazing to me to take it. A little bit higher up is on both sides, really how legislate, how little of a roll legislative policy makes in these debates at all,
In other words, I dont, even here Democrat saying, really like what piece of immediate legislate sure I'm not drive our ally. Do I therefore address the far left, though, because people are not far left anymore. It's worth a misnomer now, but when you here democratic consultants and all these people. The Democrats who are like trying to help get candidates elected in twenty eight. They say they know what people in my district don't want to talk about Trump. They were talk about health care, they're worried about health care, we're trying to tell them that basically Republican screwed up your health care and new needs, they help fix it because all they did was coming and destroyed and they left at a wreck without doing anything to fix it. So that's policy that has led us into the wrath routes used to be very interested in policy before it was all trump and only Trump. They had a set of legislative agendas. And now it's the left that now that the grass roots left at net roots conference over the weekend, which is talking Medicare for all love it or not. Its policy proposal, the forgiveness of student data federal jobs, guarantee that
I think the way things were all three things that for college, I'm in those serpent I mean it is profligacy ridiculous properly. But only on religion as well, but it is signed while we're going Please use the filing Robert high line and schools again rikers. That's the moon is a harsh, mistress tonnes. Thoughtful. There ain't no such thing as a free shipping. The simple fact of the matter is that one of the things that happening is this cyclical thing where, where America's gonna have to learn all over again, that there is no such thing as free college to issue there's no such thing as Medicare for all that vinegar for all over the wave saying healthcare rationing of an extreme order and I had a good quota one. We gotta pay for things that cost thing I heard a quota. Will we ever get home? I'm stealing it, because I cannot tribute at ten you buddy, but I want to say it was something along the lines of people who say we should be or like Norway, are saying the equivalent of. We should be a very small country on top of an oil feel. You know what
very big country on top of very large oil fields. All of a sudden and the that's another thing that the liberal left is like insane about like these sir coming out talking about how fracturing is killing people were, a net exporter of oil for the first time since the nineteenth fortys- and this is held by this- is axiomatic among people in the Democratic Party that this is bad. It is bad. So this is where, when we were all of us, remember oil, peak oil, ten years peak oil. Meanwhile, The New York Times magazine where Sir John does not work as she works on a different floor or will has a forty five page essay on how there was a moment of nineteen seventy four when we could have stopped global warming, but that moment is gone. So what is the message of this? What is the message now devolving into
environmentally right. Franking is killing people and global warming is now climate. Because now irreversible and symbolic straws in plastic saga has so like if irreversible. Now what you got that piece of New York tie that Guy Roy stem from the Euro resubmission writing about how he sorry he brought a daughter into this world because of because you know of glove climate change and then now she's gonna die fatalism. She might not intraday easy enough. Today was not today, not miss a shame. Shady, don't pull out a political process per se, but you stopping rational about it, and that, of course, is the other. Fear, so we ve seen the consequences of a certain type of Publican concern of rationality overtall over them over the last two years, and I we were discussing here and will give maybe get into this in a later, show about how what happens to the Democrats, if they don't
if the blue way doesn't happen and they don't win and Trump walks around saying I am bullet proof and you can't get me and I am in a man and then there and Republicans are wandering around feeling like they dodged the bullet and he's there saviour and they can How on earth are gonna beat him and twenty twenty if they couldn't them, Biederman, twenty eighteen and what become where it is, where did they go psychologically? There are two places they could go. One is to be contrite introspective audit themselves in their conduct and make resolved, Page, that's not gonna happen. So the early the other option to lash out and to convince yourself that the political process has left behind, There are no options available to you beyond extremism.
And by extreme, as am I mean, extremism in the very traditional sense of the word, not adopting policy, ok good at the mainstream. So that's a very that's a lovely teaser, assuming we don't have like huge news in the next couple of days. We will begin, the Thursday podcast with The question of the extremes of american politics and where they might be leading people, particularly after November. So with that we bring this to a close for everyone, no Rossman Unshorn Maria John keep the cannon.
Transcript generated on 2019-12-12.