« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Commentary podcast: What Do You Care More About: North Korea or CNN?

2017-07-05 | 🔗
On this week's only podcast, COMMENTARY's Abe Greenwald and Noah Rothman join me to discuss the unholy choices posed by the North Korea ICBM test and wonder at the fact that the world of political commentary is far more concerned with a CNN story about an anonymous guy posting little films on the Internet than this world-shaking threat. Give a listen.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
some guy welcome the Commentary magazine podcast today is Wednesday July. Fifth, twenty seventeen- I am John towards the editor of Commentary magazine the seventy two year old monthly of it, sexual probity, political analysis and cultural criticism from a conservative perspective, join us at commentary magazine dot com, where we give you a few free weeds and then ask you to subscribe. One thousand nine hundred and ninety five get to a digital subscription and and only five get you in all access subscription, including our beautiful monthly magazine in your mailbox eleven times
they are joining me as always agree walled, our senior editor high, Abe, John and nor Rossman are associated or high. Now I John John when the regime in Pyongyang Ivy monstrous too, tearing dictatorship of North Korea yesterday, fire a missile flu for
seven minutes and landed in the war in the international waters of Japan. The first successful test of intercontinental ballistic missile by North Korea, which of course has been a nuclear nations since two thousand and two we believe- and obviously this now represents the greatest and most significant foreign policy challenge, not only for the Trump Administration but for the nations of the world and the question of whether or not this sum unholy monster of a regime can be allowed to. Possessing nuclear weapon that can reach Anchorage or San Francisco were with the right to lameter even further into the United States or reach Japan or reach
strangely our reach, wherever it wishes to reach and whether or not there is any real modality under which we can prevent this from happening. Many different opinions here max boot commentary blog MAX, notoriously a notoriously, properly whatever a very Serious interventionist actually suggests that the game, the givens e of the risks of response that tab. If we, if we manage to live with her nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China during the cold war, we can probably live with a nuclear North Korea. Others would look at this and say that this is grotesque. Him impossibility Noah the argument that we can live with a nuclear North Korea,
Based on what you been talking about here as the what might be concerned, the rational dictator theory do you wanna I've decided until in endless I haven't heard anybody else say that I'm throwing it out. There is as Rossman Original a Rossman original so I atm right but a tm via a registration as one. So the theory goes is that the Kim dynasty is as MAX boot rights, neither expansionist nor suicidal it has few objectives beyond its own survival, therefore you can get away with a lot that we think we can get away with. For example, you can deterrent, you can surround the thing with weapons and you can contain it
You can even up to and including possibly a limited strike on the regime without expecting the cataclysmic response that Woodness precipitate korean WAR too. You can probably pressure this regime in ways that we have been so far reluctant to do because of their past behaviour and that's when the rational dictated the resort of falls apart when it comes to the north korean situation, because they have a very long history of executing terrorist attacks of being unable to be deterred by the by traditional deterrence model of.
Attacking american citizens, the most recent being the exchange student, who was likely tortured in custody. Of course, we have the very famous incident over the over the DMZ, where to you, a soldiers were attacked with hatchets for trying to remove a tree. They were killed. The regime exports drugs- the regime, as recently as a few months ago, executed a terrorist attack in a foreign country using a weapon of mass destruction. And I'll, be it a targeted assassination that was nevertheless a terrorist strike on a foreign nation using on conventional weapons. So the idea that you didn't detain rather deter and contain this regime meets with a lot of resistance when you examine the record, but these are too eating visions and people are really seriously debating them because we got me eighteen months before, you can put a miniaturized warhead on a delivery weapon and, as you know not just the United States is vulnerable, but big cities like so
Tokyo but they're, not just vulnerable. I mean this, I think, is the problem. Is that the the issue is not whether or not we could execute a punitive strike against North Korea? We could do that. You know six times a day. If we wish to the question is how North Korea will respond it simply, it doesn't just have in its arsenal the possibility of a response. Eighteen months down the road or three years than there were five years on the role of a nuclear of a nuclear weapon, it is that it has ten thousand artillery shells and bombs aimed at soul, South Korea, Capital Sol, which I believe has allowed a municipal soul, has eleven million people living in and around it. So you know the possibility of massive conventional deaths, injuries and destruction,
rain down. If we pull the trigger, that is, I think what people are most worried about. In other words, we can go in, we can had three or four size. We can say boy, you better think about this and come back to the table, but we simply don't oh weather. They all rational or whether this is a rational regime or whether its calculation of its own needs wooden, Lou goodwill would lead it to a second strike that would we would be You know, sending a message and they would be killing a hundred thousand people. Just a flash this out. The thinking of the the rational dictated theory that suggest you can execute a preventive strike or a punitive straw.
The idea is that what wouldn't? Where will compel young to not respond, is the fact that those artillery tubes targeting soul, aren't necessarily reliable and every time you use one, it's targeted its rate ard and its needs eliminated. So you got probably twenty percent of one that will work and you ve got probably another thirty percent of whom will be fired, often destroyed right away, so you'll kill a lot of people. All but you're completely eliminate the deterrence over the DMZ Riley quickly. Ok, so these are all that there are these there's also like history, a right so history tells us that you know Israel hid the hidden Syria's nascent nuclear programme and was not. You know and the effective it was zero did not attack. Israel is really back the Sierra Rock reactor in Iraq, amounting to nineteen one. Iraq did not respond
the regional, Israel, the rest of the world attacked his real right but acted attacked. A verbal Iraq did not respond. In fact, every time there's been some kind of a deterrent attack on a nuclear programme. Those being, I think, the only to its nuclear programme we know about the result has not been that that you know that someone has decided to launch pay back, yet I'm going to take. The point is that you don't want to get into position where you have to figure out whether someone like it like Kim Jong OWN is, is a rational act or not. I mean, if that, that's that's the beauty of knocking out their systems but before their entrench, before their buried and bend and and before they are before the regimes that control their marred, threatening your allies or order? Or you directly right now in the finger? pointing realm. As MAX says in his posters Oh, you know the policy of kicking the can down the road. Until you know, North Korea really became like an enormously. Has basically been a policy of the last twenty years. There is an outrage
just up at the Washington Post today. That says that the reason that North Korea got into this point is that the Bush, the George W Bush administration, decided to get. Hard line with them and started to get aggressive, hostile to them in two thousand and two because hard minors were ideologically oppose them. This is a noxious and false theory, because the reason the Bush administration change the policy that has been laid out: one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight by the Clinton administration, is that the North Koreans went nuclear weed. The day had. In fact, you know I stood a nuclear device successfully that the sick, it's your showed up. In our view, no intelligence, whatever that signature is, that shows you that there was a nuclear weapon and therefore, The policy had failed. The policy was put in place to prevent North Korea from going clear. They went nuclear we announced they had gone. Nuclear in the policy was no longer operational that way
The notion that we were then was to pretend I guess the idea was that we should have pretended that North Korea didn't go nuclear in order to preserve the fiction that the international community was dealing with this. Similarly moving on the Obama administration than that. Then the Bush administration, like everybody else, like everyone, tempted, lay and then them abolish frustration and then the nation Trump administration all say you know, want them and there's only one pay. One party there can really get North Korea to stop doing stuff. That's China, rights or China. Stop to them there. The major trading partner, longest border there, the it's only ally in the world, and so China should go, do open mouth and do something about this. And so we're like great, so China will handle it. Will China doesn't want to handle it? Obviously, so we ve had ten years of a world wide policy in which the policy is China needs to get North Korea to stop and China
do it and that the policy doesn't change, because there are no good policy options. There's an dissimilar, abandoned the New York Times our opinion Peter editorial, rather than your tens opinion board. That suggests that that the glory days of ninety ninety four or what we should be shooting for that, we should get everybody back to the table because diplomacy, the diplomatic approach, is in end and not a means towards demand. That seems to be the the extent to which the left has an answer for the north korean situation, it is to get everybody back to the table and talk- and everybody was only add to Tehran with the drop administration is actually doing is a little bit is a little bit encouraging because it suggests that we're not doing the Cancun thing any more by targeting a sanctioning the Chinese back when talking about trade sanctions, even though I don't think that that's the way to go, it suggests a paradigm shift here that we're not talking about talking that we are talking about an
substantial drainage reading, this whole thing is just bizarre in the extreme, because the agreed framework, as it was called of ninety money for existed, as a means of creating a series of loans, and this and food aid and other stuff, sole purpose of which was to prevent North Korea from taking the steps it would lead to have the ability to create fist a material for a bomb and they took all the money and they took all the food aid and they took whatever they could gather than they did it anyway. So. Diplomacy is again. It's almost like it literally like the emperor's new clothes in the sense of the ideas. Let's all go and pretend that it has happened? Of course we want diplomas. Of course everybody in the world would want. To be able to sit down at the table. What's more, I think everybody in the world would even understand that if there were a proper bribe that could be paid to North Korea,
despite its horrible evil, if there was enough money in the world or enough, there was a way in which to bribe them. Out of this, we, would probably look at. That is the as the best of all bad options, Well, you know, not only has diplomacy been useless here, but it's also with north created what rogue regimes do when, when their approach diplomatically, they use the diplomatic process to ratchet up their gains they threaten more instability. If they don't get more out of out of negotiations in it and and that's exactly the north created, we would now, we ve hit a point at which diplomacy. This is the oddity of this, which is that diplomacy there's nothing Diplomacy to do exactly, they have interconnectable a signal. Capability and they have nuclear weapons. Can be delivered through into so. The only thing that diplomacy can do is to go now,
I mean, we can agree to a regime of arms control with them in theory, and there are some It is about this. That dealt well agree. Not to do this if essentially we will you now leave the Korean. Take our thirty thousand as I've, Korea or or won't, will no longer favor south grains of military exercises and teach them how to do things necessary. If there's a war to win against North Korea or something like that, but but there's no reason to think that a classic arms control deal with which, by the way, soviets violet with impunity every time we made one and that we know from the sixties, to the eighties that class and arms control deal with one they don't even have data quite have the arms. Yet so you know what what are we deal for with, as I say it like an event. Eventually, it's only a bride, but but if no no is rational, diverse areas. The weird regime it it does,
but it does solely to control its own people, it does international trade deals, and so I had to get money from other from other rogue there's so that it can perpetuate itself as it so poor and answer? It doesnt have it's not in scented like a normal regime in the sense that like didn't wanna do trade with the outside world, they don't want things from the outside world. They just want to have it I was in your reign over this. You know over these incredibly sad people who are living in a you know in a sort of nations national charnel house of starvation and deprivation and torture, which is not. The way, a rational, irrational dictator rules over his country. Right I mean that there is nothing about the institutions of that country speak to his being
a rational and it's not rational anyway. I'm afraid we don't know about him. You know means so he's the third in line right. It was his grandfathers father in him and there they run the country and he's then there was hope, may be that he was young and inexperience. So he so young and experience that he sends somebody to Malaysia Airport with with errant sarandib kill his uncle? who, by the way, had fled the human wasn't. There was no end, this uncle, we have any plan to, like you know, stay on playboy yeah. He was as an international man of mystery, going about having fun in Southeast Asia, up to him. The carbon is, I just wanted to eliminate members of the veil. I think I did. The same thing goes uncle his uncles x. You know it's, that's. The whole thing is a huge The huge dilemma here you know in the state and the stellar govern aim of friends and that's just what emanating that's being withdrawn sick, except, if he's not really
possible air- but I mean you know that the state philosophy which is called J J is essentially a form of hero, was a form of God had worship right right of the of the Kim family and it's it's. Anti rational media has mystical elements to reality. I mean so there's that you I mean you rather that the huge problem here is that. At an attack. A strike on North Korea may very well be unthinkable that also doesn't mean that we're safe without one right, I mean
It's it's not it's not at the end of the day, necessarily a good enough reason we're not till under ten, by the way, the prospect that would necessitate. That is the idea that there could be a delivery, deliverable nuclear weapon or biological chemical, but mostly deliverable nuclear weapon on american troops are still some thirty thousand troops there, and we would have no warning it would be delivered within the space of I've met thirty seconds, Thursday's, ok, here's the other thing. So let us now bring up, of course, the most important foreign policy move of the love last decade, which was the American Nuclear Deal with IRAN, where the world wahoo everyone to say, may the deal with IRAN, so if you believe that the deal will be held to that, the Arabians will hold to their terms the deal, even though they ve already gotten a hundred and fifty billion dollars back that have now returned to them. That was their pay offer grain to
feel, as Obama himself said, you know basically gives you twelve years and then they can do whatever they want to. After those twelve years are over twenty Twond. Next Wednesday. Seventeen point eight some like that, but middle of twelve seventeen. Like its nine years away. So let's go back to so its two thousand and seven two thousand and eight and work about North Korea and the above administration, decides the council strategic patients toward North Korea, and here we are with North Korea within cannibalism vessels of IRAN if you believe that it will wait until the middle of the next decade, the mill So far I mean was it was the ultimate kicking of the candle. Nor are we now have a real world example of a country that went nuclear got paid off, didn't
to obey the rules of the pay off and has now developed bomb and and we're gonna do this again, apparently worse, because in the case of IRAN, the the deal We'll have allowed them to become a fully functioning part of international markets by the time that by the time they could be the restrictions on their on their programme. Moreover, over so the global interest in not striking them. It was going to be enormous exactly, and so we of this year. Will we find ourselves in this interesting situation which nothing in which we have the a broad consensus is that the problem was that somebody decided to say it's bad for you to go. Nuclear North Korea and You ve made a deal with the United States through Gonna made this insanely reckless deal to you depend on uranium goodwill after the after the hundred and fifty billion dollar check, cleared not
to continue its researchers and end the enterprise and too you know we're fine fist material to the level of to bomb level right and they integrated into twenty percent. Then go back to three percent. It's not that and when we member. Now we should look back and remember that you know they were. People have had brag about about, coming be the north korean nuclear threat and bragging about their there. Their diplomatic achieve on their doing it again, including you know, Jimmy Carter, laughter, his presence in what went down there at the Gospel Clinton's behest in and negotiated, gave Kim Jong IL heavy water reactors You know this was all this was all social breaking my memory rendering, even though it failed right at least some sharp rise. We were talking it's better than the ultra right right now. You don't know if it's better than the alternative, because the alternative is clearly could be if their monopoly or detonation and unfriendly territory
but clearly was the opposite. It was the opposite of good, because three stage. We let this. You know by some accounts poorest country in the world, and you know now become the most threatening country in the world, because we paid for its nuclear programme effectively or the west paid for its network and in here something also of regarding matches. Take on this. If we decide that we can live with a Nuclear North Korea, that that even has working intercontinental Ballistic, missile delivery system for for its bombs. What can we not live with? What? Where, where Where do these larger american red lines get drawn? What what? What constitutes a true
full security, merger or national security emergency. If this is livable, because this is only the most recent breakthrough tests, they did successfully test launch within the last year a submarine launch ballistic missile, which represents a second strike capabilities. Others know where I can execute a strike on its nuclear programme and ensure that it is a hundred percent destroyed because still have a submarine launched second strike theoretically, once they minute, whereas now weapons. So as administration is it that of this semi functional hydrogen weapon them, they could be that the size of a building- but still I did, obama- will look the problem here, as I am damn it I'm not obviously nuclear scientists, but I read a lot about this over the years. The situation is that when you test- and I see the m o point- is that like fire, often icy, be M is like a little like hitting a baseball, so it goes up in the air.
And it comes down based on its trajectory, its torque and all of that, so that you need to test it. A lot of these tests and our test were almost entirely. You know virtual, but you need to test it in order just to make sure that the re that you're doing it right that you're firing off the right angle, that you're doing that. The telemetry is correct, that even a test like this in which they get it up in the air, for the reasons mentioned, lands in the water tells them all gives them all kinds of patient about how how it works, and so that the next time they test they contested to see if the range, in other words there was
enough information of on this launch to suggest that the missile could reach Anchorage if it were aimed correctly time correctly in the right conditions. So it's all ready in theory able to do this as it is often giant rocket. You know. Maybe if they start dimple in that now, if we just lakes, shoot up fifteen satellites that simply stared down in North Korea, and we have five thousand analyse looking every second, what's going on with Greece over truck drivers, we know that there's a truck with a missile on the back of it and we could, like you, know, send a drone to blow it up or something like that. That's one approach. You know we can literally aim all of our intelligence, our eyes on them in the sky, to know litter, play every move and that's being made in North Korea and and then react to it or something like that. But if we don't do that, then you know yeah they're, going to they're going to have this capability threatened
and we don't know what they want and yeah I mean we're we're already looking down the barrel of a nuclear rising, potentially nuclear, rising Middle EAST because of the because of the iranian nuclear threat. You know those countries. You know the Saudis and various other countries are now starting to win our like looking to see what kind of technology they can perfect and by undue had stuff So it's a terrible situation. The other terrible situation, obviously, is that we have an administration that we, I don't think anybody, including its most. You know beloved supporters of the supporters of like it. The most can have confidence at this moment that the foreign policy and defence team impressive, Though the defence team may be, is functioning at a level of competency that would be able to manage a an actual time of crisis.
Right there Pentagon's, not up to speed is not you know, is not populated. The state department has Nobody in it, you know, and- and we have a present and who is more concerned about CNN than he is about North Korea and for all, in other talk of now resurgence in America, Pherson.
Repairing the damage of the Obama years from a period of some sort of retrenchment? Sort of you know I never to scale back american hubris regulation is saying a sods fate is in Russia's hands. We don't we're not gonna. Do anything about that. China is the chief partner in the GO shading party, and when it comes to North Korea, we have sort of off offshore off our offload our responsibility to negotiate these crises and manage these crises and theirs. I dont know. If there's anything, we could concede the. If we were back at the negotiating table to really get Russia to rein in Saddam, really get China to rein in kin that wouldn't sacrifice american grand strategy, a national interests that are
salute leave idle like would we say wheel in a stop drilling with with South Korea and therefore rendering equivalence between South Graham Programme on the north korean illegal nuclear programme or say you know, get poorer render to Beijing private assurances that there will never be a unified korean government with the solace capital would when he knows it right will be, but I mean euro. The asking in a very high level strategic and tactical questions, and we there is a again I say to people who are: who are you? Don't war enjoying the Trump administration are like what he's doing so. That does anybody think that there is a high seriousness of purpose that is going to emanate from the oval office about a two three year threat that needs to be handled with a grim serious. You no set of care skating policies leading to potential engagement.
Military engagement that may have horrendous Austin hard decision, It is being made over many sleepless nights about what kinds of things we can and cannot tolerate as opposed to somebody you sitting there changing channels and like having temper tantrums, because people are talking that nicely about him. I mean in the end Can I have the greatest secretary defence who have the greatest national security adviser? You can have these that the buck stops at that desk and the series- the purpose of village of administrations gonna behave, emanates from the leader, and you know we have just found ourselves in a five day. You know for raw go or week long Ferrajo. That starts with an attack on Joe Scarborough and make a Brzezinski and then moving into way Bay, Giff Jif about where to
this beating up CNN that he himself tweets out leading to CNN Fight the person who devised, Jeff and to creating and saying you know he guys, but we reserve the right to doubt his identity if he is being done, January does something we d like to Conservatives and saying CNN, the greatest villain in the world for being mean to this poor anti Semitic read it are creep and you know, This is what we're talking about like this is, in fact, if you were to go, tween last night when we found out about the korean stuff, and today, There is more heat and passion in political twitter about the CNN Outing Semi Outing of the guy who did the with the chief of from then about North Korea and
to make sure that we are crushing crushingly marhaus? Yes, this was July. Fourth hell yeah. So thank you very much for the opportunity for us to assess these. Extraordinarily serious threats against the country from without and the Roma, go on seriousness of the of the President. I mean an end just the president, because this is where we are, and I were in an unholy circumstance in which the press is obsessed with the media, the meteor obsessed with themselves. The president hits the media. The media goes, oh, my God, the presents hitting media will. How can we ever possibly survive the horror of a president attacking us and what about the free press and what about in Europe? This is really Nothing like this ever happened before and nobody. Is about them. Accept when I, by the way, I am one of them. So I'm just saying like what walking round whining about how you're being people are being mean to you is not anyway,
To get anybody, the support you in Europe in your wall wooden time of trial, because the president is being nasty, two people think that We have a lot of power and that tree a lot of people who are wouldn't even be particularly favourably disposed word trump. Think like. Okay, we'll see you then there's a lot of bad stuff, and you know the media is a lot of bad stuff and so can find someone's hitting them. And they fall for it every time, even if Trump doesn't mean isn't in a world in which he actually is thinking that this is a way of distracting them from more serious issues they fall for every time with Lucy in the football. It's like all, look, I'm gonna attack. You go you're taking me so awful right and that is by the way that was also a member. We reverend heard much from Steventon these days, but that was very much. His part of his approach to media was what we're gonna do. That's gonna make their heads explode round and ended
and it's gonna work every time, but it turns out what makes their had explode. Isn't policy be as you know, right now, I'm in urban stories about this. But you know the Scott proteins The EPA is reversing decades of EPA policy there, but a couple of stories in the times are there too million tweets about that. No that the media, because the media is about the media, because oh do threats me, you know, I mean parliament's afforded by the way who just heard about that from you just now will say. Well look at succeeded. I didn't even know about it. And you didn't either and because of that, the strategy is is working because we're governing Sub Rosa. That doesn't make any sense like that I guess he's doing it they would have in Zambia. Anyway, at some point. You reach the diminishing returns right. I mean it. Suppose you have your supporters, who are a hundred percent jazzed about attacking the media enough governing and nothing
particularly in especially when governing is really hard and attacking the media's super easy which, by the way, is right now at some point, you act demonstrate some sort of ay a compliment. And that point is coming up fairly close. I haven't even have Republicans, who are trump supporters? Don't care about republican majorities in her frankly, if they were being honest, shot him full of sodium pentathol in and asked him this question, they would say: yeah, we don't like a republican majority in Congress and much prefer our victim status. At some point, the president has to say this is what I've achieved and is just a bunch of gifts about CNN. Well, he can claim achievements that are illusionary. That's one of the ways he does it, but I would say that what way what is interesting to me about the Trump and the war in the media lab. Look I've been
a professional journalists for thirty five years on the right and more than that, and you know, attacking the media from inside journalism has been one of the one, the hallmarks of my career and allowed people's grew. I've got nothing against is a very important thing to do to correct records and to deal with the liberal bias entered talk about the ways in which you know liberals. Are you no press agents for the and are you know and are deeply unfair critics of the right- and I think, that's very important, Having said that, there needs to be two tracks here, one of which is that its unfair and unjust, because the right was a serious vehicle and form for policy discussions and ideas that were being not only belittled, that ignored and Nonetheless, we persisted and kept on four
leaving things I'm coming up with new policies and being serious in a way that sometimes our adversaries on the other side were not well that series of seriousness purposes now very much challenge by the fact that these empty cow, the empty calories of the media attack, have now taken the place. Of the high protein dinners that were the virtue of the right. You know that we were dealing with policy that we were creating new ideas or new responses and now all anybody wants, is the junk food of you know, Siemens Mean and Siemens bad, and this is terrible and if you're gonna die, This kid we're gonna, docks you and blah blah blah blah and am the junk food is gonna, be
leads to obesity in the obviously leads to heart attacks and heart attacks lead to death is. This is the way in which a movement can spiral into nothing other than that. The crisis is just because the Republican Party is no longer the party of ideas. Is that outside the party of ideas anymore either right. Nobody has any ideas right. Nobody even interested in idea right will. So it's it's a bit beautiful, it is a beautiful horrible example of a served Neil ISM, into which the country descended by having itself to candidates Trump on the one hand and Hilary the other Hilary, this kind of legacy you no kind of them the queen, in the queen and waving legacy candidate idealists, thoughtless. Robot of you know what policies, and things will appeal to people on her side and then try. This kind of unpredictable, all where the map You know emotional extremist and in our what what is it
and we have to choose from she when policy death in her own way, nothing free nothing new to her twenty two people to get through the right, a paragraph about how the future was tomorrow. When we all had to get there, that was shattered about the about the clear campaign? It's like you know we're. Let's Hilary really wants to talk about how together we can ouch a greater tomorrow when it took them two weeks to get to that paragraph. You know you think that was gonna, be fruitful and wonderful administration it would have been like here, would have been like living in you know, living in an era lists bubble and on the other hand, we have this kind of embryo again used to be read reminded of ever been a barrage of alma went out of offices as late as December of twenty. Sixteen was blaming the ubiquity, a Fox news and out of radio talk, show
US as young enough preventing him from reaching its full potential here as an anxious that the exact same thing. That's one thing: it's like empty calories. It's all empty calories, but when it, the only diet that is being supplied supplied to people is empty. If that's how the White House is going to act when we have Obamacare about the collapse, but the health care bills, that's supposed to replace. It are revise it or do something to it is about to collapse, which will mean that there will be no tax reform, which will mean there will be no economic reform, which will me they'll, be nothing they'll be no way to do with defence build up. If that's what he wants, because the budget won't function that way we have a total mexican stand off and and we go into town eighteen with Trump Testing Noah's proposition, and this is what we don't know. We said this on the last pod progress also, which is you dont know. We say you ve got of accomplishments, gonna run on something right. Well, if we're in them of a cultural war. Maybe it'll have to run in anything. If it's ninety
forty, two or one thousand nine hundred and forty three or the Westin you've been losing all the battles in the pinot. Is you haven't like one much that doesn't mean that everybody turns on Roosevelt the enemy is still the enemy. The item you saw the Japanese and the Nazis and and your beer trying your asked, the enemy is fighting you and you know it, you don't start. Turning on the general and that's the question about the right: will the right look at Trump and say he promised Ex wines in it didn't happen and were really depressed The house and senator lousy and we're going to punish the sitting party they say. It's all CNN and the liberals, fault and they're gonna move Heaven and earth to do what they ve done in the general election, which, when do you think, is more likely, but I would say I think that that You get punished, remarked having accomplishments and for not moving the ball down. Even just start. Writing it was in convincing. The idea that you can move over is out today taxi and then they boy you sick, C and ended up on the ballot yeah. I would like to think that accomplishments mean something
I don't think they necessarily do anymore. I think it is about this cultural war and the landscape. Then we will emerge into by the time of the next election will be so much more disgusting and and earning than it is today than it was during the last. Presidential election, who you gonna defect to, as at due to know his point about both sides. Having being being brow two ideas- no there's you don't you Even if you wish Trump had accomplishments, you look at the other side and you go will what what's, you know they, they don't even know what they are and if, if, if there are new Figaro, Go gotTa Sanders, Rude United defect that and then, Who else is there I mean? So I don't. I did its, which my way of saying, I don't think
I'm so sure that accomplishments omair this. As I said, this is a testable proposition and the twenty eight election will probably tested, because, though, Republicans will claim to pass the Tailor Force ACT and the to fill Smith ACT at the gates, timely act, em the Social Bottleneck ACT, and they will have done that they will not have done anything big and there will be foreign policy crises like the North Korea, crisis and Democrats will say what have you done? How have you governed? What have you done to make the country better and the Republicans will say we have all sorts of ways we wanted to do with a new stopped us, because your evil and in the end, didn't work for Democrats. Well. Didn't, but Democrats had accomplishments, and this is you're wrong, Republicans,
responded and the voters responded to democratic accomplishments, the stimulus bill, Obamacare, Dodd, Frank, tarp, talent, Nice guy, auto nationalization. It was democratic actions, led to the counter response. Where the country went well, you're spending a lot of money here, taken over the auto industry are gonna nationalism, sixth of the sixth of the economy, with health care. What the hell are you doing? a responded to actual actions you are now saying that the so yeah they ran. I got a random destruction as a man, two thousand and twelve, two thousand and fourteen in twenty. Sixteen, the instruction as a mini the economy, is doing as well as a good because of republican right. Well, one in three Obama, one in twenty forty in and Democrats less than twenty four to twenty six, the, although I think that the obstructionism argument was Hitler, leading argument. Twenty six they all I'm saying is that you know it's one thing
to be punished, because you did things that voters dislike and it's another. If you think that when you don't have accomplishments that you can't maybe will generate base enthusiasm by saying we would have had accomplishments, but these guys are monsters a could happen. I'm not saying I'm not. It will but it could. We also urge the were already a different country from the country we were in twenty tat. I know it's only seven years and to go back to your metaphor. Junk food is delicious and if, in that, they wanted junk food from Trump, Why would they necessarily now want substantive meal right? Will it's like You want to read: open our or do you want to read second soup for the sole right? You know: do you wanna, watch Shoah, or do you want to watch the gorgeously? the rustling we I mean that's yet so in all things, if the diet that this support is is and the point
the dominion, no better, media are no better like they bring, you want nothing more than just talk about themselves and to reflect on themselves and to look at their own Naples like that's, who wouldn't its human nature to fall prey to the idea that you are the most important actor in the world and therefore you know everything should revolver and by the media. Critics love that too, because there are the subjects of their criticism or that much more important and therefore their criticisms are that much more import right now. Remember you know like this: is people of jobs? To put me in a declining uppercut So I so thanks very much for listening to yes, another, the crushing veracity of the commentary. Pike S has returned after a couple of March chip. More cheerful shows. We had tat, we had to pack and pay, in the morass exists is our only podcast. This reality
I guess the weekend we will just to let people know we will be doing our first back as next week on Tuesday, not on Monday. So we will have to next week. But we will. We will be skipping a day because I will be returning to my daughter from camp. So if that just give you the important reason that we will be waiting, I have to pick up my daughter from camp. So for no Rossman and Amory mauled, I am John, the Etc commentary magazine. Ninety ninety five at commentary magazine dotcom, gets you a digital subscription. Twenty then, and if I get to an all aspects, were all access subscription. We we should have tested that phrase for you now forked tongue twisting problems before we adopted at, but maybe I'll try to come a new one off access subscription, gloomier, beautiful monthly magazine in our male by your mail Buxton eleven times the earth. So thanks
Much were listening, keep the camel burning.
Transcript generated on 2019-12-13.