The Ricochet Podcast - Disturbing Trends In American Society

Episode Date: May 1, 2014

It’s a Super-Sized 77 minute long edition of the podcast this week (gotta make up for last week’s hooky) as we ponder whether Donald Sterling’s exile from the NBA actually is slam dunk, how to avoid being a Glass-hole, chat with Law Talk’s John Yoo on his new book Point of Attack: Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare. Then, Forbes Opinion editor and American Wonk host (yes... Source

FBD doesn't stand for friendly business ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited. Trading as FBD Insurance

is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Looking for the ultimate adventure challenge? GoQuest Carrickmines is the indoor experience where fun meets excitement. With over 50 challenge rooms across GoQuest, test yourself in mental, physical and skill-based challenges. Perfect for

families, friends, corporate teams and parties. For younger adventurers and families, there's GoQuest Junior. Book now at GoQuest.ie. Activate program. More than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Well, I'm not a crook. I'll never tell a lie. But I am not a bully. I'm the king of the world! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lilacs, and our lineup today starts out with John Yoo, and then it's Avik Roy. We'll be talking about perils foreign and domestic, and also a sterling example of some disturbing trends in American society.

Let's have ourselves a podcast. There you go again. Yes, indeed. It is the Ricochet Podcast, and it's number 212. Brought to you this week by Foodie Direct. Why? Well, Mother's Day is coming up, and you don't want to make her cook. No, give her the gift of great food.

Start her special day off by pampering her with the delicious... Well, we'll get to that in just a bit. Foodie Direct has got great choices for Mother's Day, and we'll be talking a little bit later about them. We're also brought to you by Encounter Books. Our featured pick this week is Dancing with the Devil, the Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes by Michael Rubin. And we'll be talking a little bit more about that later in the show. But in the meantime, right now, as you listen, heck, even tomorrow when you're not, you can go to Encounter for 15% off anything if you go to Encounter Books and use the coupon code Ricochet at the checkout. And now, here to tell you about Ricochet itself and why you should open up your wallet, throw bushels and bushels of money are the founders themselves, Rob Long and Peter Robinson. Hey, guys.

Peter, I know that this sort of crass commercialism pains you, so we'll hand it over to Rob who has no trouble picking up the trumpet. Are you kidding me? I live for this stuff. James, I'm glad you asked about Ricochet.com. If you are listening to this podcast and you're a member of Ricochet.com, we are thrilled to have you as fellow members and we are glad that you have decided to join us today. If you are listening to this podcast and you are not a member of Ricochet.com, you are a special person. We spend a lot of time thinking about

you, about you and why you're not a member. And so all I can do is tell you how great it is to be a member. There are three levels of membership. There's the Coolidge level, which is, of course, Silent Cal is kind of our, I don't know what you'd say, our guiding spirit.

There's the second level, which is the Margaret Thatcher level. The Mrs. Thatcher level gives you a lot of goodies. And then the third level is the Reagan level. Of course, the Reagan level would be, as you know, the highest level of membership because what else is there besides President Reagan? And we are lucky and we are blessed. And James and Peter, I would like you to say – we mentioned a shout-out to Mr. and Mrs. James of England and to Joe Octor, who are new Reagan members of Ricochet. There are too many Thatchers to mention, but you know who you are. And there are countless and countless coolages, and we are thrilled to have you all. If you become a member of Ricochet, you not only get the podcasts, you not only get the great site, you not only get the ability to comment get to in order for us to make it – to sail proudly into 2020, we'll say.

Well, so much – it's a great idea and so much work needs to be done because as we found out this last week in the news, this is a wretched country. This is a country shot through with the worst sorts of human behavior you can imagine and we've got to do something about 80-year-old cranky, cuckolded billionaires. I'm going to throw this one to Peter right in his lap. Speaking of 80-year-old billionaires, yeah. Hardly kind. Hardly kind. What is this?

Of course, everyone is pulling long faces and getting on cable TV to tell us what this all means about America. When you combine it with Clive and Bundy, you have a situation where obviously the cesspool of racism that lurks beneath the surface of American life like the Yellowstone Caldera waiting to erupt is just – is vast and untamable. What do you take from all of this, Peter? Clive and Bundy, as best I can tell, is not a racist. He said a few things that could be misinterpreted.

But a lot of people who knew him well sprang to his defense and wrote on his behalf. I think he's not a racist. It's very quaint that you say that because even if he isn't, it doesn't matter. He is now. The stamp has been made on his forehead and that's the end of that. I want to turn the Sterling thing back around on you guys because I am filled with questions and misgivings about that. Let us stipulate – and I know we have John Yoo coming on. I want to ask John about it as well. stipulate that this guy is a nasty, terrible human being who is undoubtedly racist, bigoted,

just a horrible, horrible guy. Nevertheless, all that has happened to him, the sanctions that were announced yesterday by the National Basketball Association, the entire controversy was based on a private telephone conversation. Right. If you had attempted to introduce that as evidence in court, I believe – this is what I would like to ask John about. I believe the judge would throw that out of court and the national basketball association has fined this man two and a half million dollars uh i don't quite understand how they can say you still own the team but you're not allowed to associate with the national basketball association they're going to attempt to force him to sell the team i doubt he'll be crying crocodile tears there that i

read this morning it's estimated that he purchased the team for between doubt he'll be crying crocodile tears there. I read this morning, it's estimated that he purchased the team for between 12 and 15 million dollars many years ago, and that the team is now worth close to a billion dollars. He won't shed crocodile tears there. But it is very unsettling to me, I want to hear what you have to say about it. That scumbag though he is, bigot though he is, racist though he is, throwback to everything in the reptile brain that this guy represents. All of this has happened because somebody engaged in a direct violation of property and no one is mentioning that. Does that unsled you rob it's unsettling i mean i just to go to the year beginning i'm not i'm not sure that cliven bundy is not a racist but um i'm not sure about that one either i'm just i don't want to i think he

he probably is um but but i'm not i don't really i i mean look. The NBA is a franchise organization for better – specifically not quite but close. They have a right to sort of defend their brand any way they want. They have a huge number of African-American fans in the NBA. So I get their – I get why they had to move the way they did. The strange thing is this kind of – this taping of people and the videotaping of people does seem kind of worrisome. I mean on a more – maybe even on a more violent level, this is another thing that happened last week was the CEO of a tech company called Radium One

was CEOs fired because there was some video footage of domestic abuse. Apparently he beat up his girlfriend and the video footage came from home security cameras, I think. And she didn't press charges and it's something

that happened in their house it's horrible right it's unforgivable behavior but I'm not sure it connects to what he I'm not it just there's something strange about the fact that we now have tape and videotape on each other and some of it is some of is this old man at 80. It was recorded and then released. I mean who knows what he was doing? Who knows what that conversation was? If you actually listen to it, I mean you go to – there's some – we'll link to the sites where you can hear it.

It sounds insane. He just sounds like an adult old man. He's not really presenting an argument. As far as racists go, he's the most toothless racist I could find. I mean he has precisely – none of it connects. The girlfriend he's yelling at herself is half Hispanic, half black. So it's – he's a crazy old dude and I'm sure he should be punished but there is something strange about this tape now, the fact that we can tape each other and videotape each other and use it in a larger courtroom, the courtroom of public opinion and also in the boardrooms to stop or to get money or to sue or to get somebody fired.

No, no, no. The avowed purpose here is social justice. And if the case is social justice, then let's drag in a Malcolm X quote and admit that any means necessary to achieve social justice are going to be smiled upon. So if the government is wiretapping you or just sifting your conversations looking for terrorist keywords, that is the Orwellian state. However, if an individual actor is attempting to take your private words and broadcast them to the world at large in order to achieve a measure of social justice as defined by that person's emotions, then that is OK. These things will all be OK in the future if they provide for the aforementioned social justice or for titillation. And if it's both, well, then you got to – Yeah, you got to –

Right there. Right. No, I think that's probably true. But it's just strange. It's just strange that we now have a public sphere that is so incredibly private it's one thing for people i mean maybe it's a natural progression where we've gone from having no privacy because we voluntarily give it up because we instagram and tweet and we facebook status update and we do all the things that people do online without really thinking about it and give up our privacy it's another thing kind of

entirely where other people are are taking private language and private actions and using them, not just in the court, not just in public opinion, but as a way to – as a business move. Right. There's no private – no, the personal is the political. There is no sphere of your life that is not subject to the flaming finger of these guys' disapproval. Peter, you're going to say something. Well, no.

I was just going to ask. Have you guys encountered anyone wearing Google Glass yet? Yeah, yeah. I did, as a matter of fact, and I'm looking at my knuckle right now. It's still swollen because I popped them right in the cheekbone and they flew off. I just went to the coffee shop the other morning,

Pete's Coffee Shop. It was the first time this had happened to me, and there's somebody standing in line wearing Google Glass. And I could see people looking at him. And I have to say, my first thought, vain worm that I am was, hey, wait a minute here. I haven't shaved yet this morning. You can't. But it's just, it is unsettling. I didn't like it. It was clear that other people there didn't like it. You don't know he's recording or he could be recording everything, video and audio. And I believe legally, again, we'll have to ask John when he comes on, but I believe legally that guy could have gone and put it all up on a website.

Suppose somebody was talking. What are you talking about in line at the coffee shop? You gossip about this neighbor, that neighbor, whose kid did what what on the sat you don't want that put on somebody's website it's all it's all unsettling somehow we're going to have to draw lines i guess oh no you do you or we could be returning to some kind of weird 19th century world in which uh social social approbation is at more powerful than legal i mean we have been through a phase for the past set of you know 50 years where what you did what your actions were socially had no consequences for you the only consequences were legal you know i'm going to

sue you or you're going to get arrested but other than that you can do whatever you want the whole idea of social shaming somebody was just not we just didn't do it and now it seems it's come back but it's come back in a strange way i mean it's come back in a way that seems surreptitious i mean look donald sterling's a horrible person and a ridiculous character he's ridiculous actually he is yes yes he's an ugly clown yeah an ugly clown but i i have a tiny amount of sympathy for this addled old man who got blindsided by these secret tapes and who probably, when it comes right down to it, has said worse things in private. I mean, even in Deadspin, which is a site, they have the extended tapes,

and he goes on this weird rant about Jews. And he is Jewish himself. Same guy. So he's nuts. I have a small amount of sympathy for him not a lot uh not more than two percent but there is two percent sympathy for the fact

they got grandpa going and uh and he's getting served now um in a way that i think you know i just i'm comfortable all the the uh you know the the pompous grandstanding around it you know as if somehow simon Legree has been dealt with finally in the last act of the play. The guy's a multi-zillionaire. He bought a basketball team for $14 million. It's now worth hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. He got an NAACP award two years ago, three years ago.

He was supposed to get another one this year. So there is something here for everyone to be embarrassed about and unfortunately only certain people are being embarrassed. Well, the story can get better. I mean you can have – photos can emerge of him in a swimming pool at a Bryan Singer party. That would change the dimension of the direction of the story a lot. Bryan Singer. I'll have to google brian singer that i i'm james i'm sure what you said was just impossibly witty and i'm just too old to pick

up the reference well brian singer is a is a director is a very oh oh that one film director that's the x-men movies and then very successful guy and he is now facing a lawsuit along with some other people um uh i i don't know the sexual assault but maybe statutory rape or something um loss fbd doesn't stand for friendly business ducks or for the freelance beatbox department fbd stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business.

FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited, trading as FBD Insurance, is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Really, after the Statute of Libertations is over, so it's from many, many years ago, from someone who says this stuff happened in Hawaii or something, I mean, it has a lot of effects. The poor guy, I mean, not the poor guy, he did it, it's terrible, but... I know exactly what you're talking about because there was a beautiful post about that on Ricochet

itself. Yes, well, the hard recovery memories. I can just hear what's going on. Rob said the poor guy, I mean not to excuse what he did, if he did it, but he can't do any publicity for the movie he's got coming out right now. This has got to kill him, right? Is that it? It's not the worst in the world. Is that the Hollywood approach?

I wouldn't say boo-hoo. You're right. But I mean I'm not crying for it. But there is something weird that we now have this private arsenal. Each of us has it on someone else, on people that we're close to, and we can use it anytime we want. And it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. No. It's simply entertainment. And as I said before, everything – if you're on the wrong side of an issue, everything can be released.

And I hope that all of the other NBA owners now, all of them, every single one of them knows that by the new standards, any private conversation they have can be released to the public. And that according to their contract, their property can be taken away from them if they say something that is considered to be against the social mores of this moment. It's one more point. Are you going to jump in? No. Actually, no. You can't. Go ahead.

It's your show. Thank you. What's strange here also is that we are – I think if you're on the left, you are still not confronting the reality, which is that we can change the laws in this country and we can change your behavior and we can force you to behave in a certain way publicly, right? I mean, Donald Sterling cannot discriminate in his hiring. He cannot discriminate in his business practices. He cannot discriminate, right? We've created laws against that kind of racism, But we can never pass a law and it will never work to legislate or mandate someone's private attitudes. And that's the one thing that's so strange I think for people to understand that just because you're passing a civil rights act of 64 or a million civil rights acts, just because you have all sorts of affirmative action programs, it doesn't matter. You still can't change the way somebody thinks or feels.

You can only change the way they behave and act in the marketplace or in the civic arena. I don't care. I don't care. We know that. But for liberals, it seems astonishing to them that that could be true. Well, that's because you have to believe. You have to think correctly. That's the whole point of 1984 at the end of it.

I mean O'Brien isn't satisfied until Winston Smith actually loves Big Brother. It has to be done, the ultimate reduction of the individual spirit. And so in this case, it's not enough to think poorly and act well. If you think poorly, that's the sin right there. You can't be resolved of anything, absolved of anything until you think correctly. I mean it used to be that just – you're right, your outer manifestations were what you were judged on. You know, way back in the old 50s times when people like Bryan Singer, of course, lived in fear of confidential or hush-hush, mentioning a breath of lavender sometime might

waft from some of his associates as they walked past. I mean, it's a completely different culture. And if you think back in those days also, you can think of mothers waiting in bed on Mother's Day for the breakfast to be brought in. And of course the toast is burned because the kids are kids and dad's a domestic dunderhead when it comes to cooking. So Mother's Day breakfast in bed, she ends up cleaning and doing more cooking than the rest of anybody else. But not anymore. Not anymore. Things have changed. James is doing a segue.

It just occurred to me. That was so smooth. It's flawless. Seamless. Just brilliant. Come here. I'm sorry. We're having a little conversation here. Yeah. Go on. Anyway, the point is that if mother does a lot of the cooking on the weekends sometimes, sometimes

husbands take over, sometimes wives do. It doesn't matter. Everybody needs a break now and then and Mother's Day is a perfect opportunity to avail yourself of all the goodness, the bounteous edibles that Foodie Direct provides. Now, what is the inspiration behind FoodieDirect.com? Well, it's a curated online marketplace of America's best iconic regional foods, restaurants, and bakeries. They're not just grabbing stuff and saying, here's a burger. It's a burger from this place. It's the ribs from that place. It's an acclaimed online destination for foodies, and it's been featured on Today Show, Wall Street Journal. It's been called one of the best food sites on the web by The Daily Meal,

which I don't know. Now, this Mother's Day, you can give mom the gift of great food, and you can start off her special day with a breakfast in bed, as I mentioned before. But this time, not just toast and pancakes. Foodie Direct has some great choices like smoked salmon, lobster salad, bagels, black and white cookies from the iconic Sable's restaurant or Sable's grocery in New York City. Or Bobby's breakfast from Virginia's Red Truck Bakery featuring their award-winning cranberry orange muffins, sour cream, coffee cake, handmade granola. It's been called the best in America. Give mom a gift, she'll save her. Now, if there's something sweet you'd like to give her, well,

Foodie Direct has plenty of amazing choices as well, like the famous Southern Layer Cakes from Smith Island Baking, their delicious seven-layer coconut cake, or the iconic, yes, everything's iconic and deservedly so, the iconic Original Chocolate Cake. Oh, Foodie Direct is also the most amazing gourmet ice cream. This stuff shows up frozen, cold, not crystallized, perfect, packed in dry ice. I actually ordered some, and it's, mm.

Classic treats of rich handmade ice creams like peppermint and coconut sandwich between handmade gourmet cookies. These incredible treats are available only at foodiedirect.com. So, yeah, bakeries. Tiramisu from the Ferrara Bakery. Southern Pecan from Mississippi. Mud Pie from the Little Pie Company. It's endless. You've got to go there.

So just go to foodiedirect.com. Best of all, exclusive offer for you, yes, you, the Ricochet listener. 20% off your first order with the coupon code Ricochet. Go to foodiedirect.com slash Ricochet and use the coupon code Ricochet during your checkout. You will get 20% off. Treatedirect.com slash ricochet and use the coupon code ricochet during your checkout. You will get 20% off. You will find it shipped to your house fresh, cold, delightful. It's an unbelievable treat of food and it's yours.

And do so not only to get great food for mom or yourself but to thank them for sponsoring this, the Ricochet Podcast. Well, if that doesn't make you hungry for that, nothing will. And if you're now hungry for more discussions on privacy and politics and all those other wonderful things that Ricochet readers love to hear from John Yoo, well, we've got John Yoo. That's right. He's got a new book out as well and it's called Point of Attack, Preventative War, International Law and Global Warfare. And would we like to talk to him about this book? Yes, we would. John, welcome back to the Ricochet podcast. Oh, hey.

Thanks for having me back. Before we continue, can I just say, James, that was a masterful foodie direct spot. I know that was a lot of copy and you did it brilliantly. Well, it was a cold read and so – It didn't feel cold. Certainly. Well, I just – I warmed to the subject because it's so delicious and gooey and caramel. Anyway, you had a question for John. I do.

Hey, John. How are you? Hey, Rob. How are you? Thanks for freeing me from doing a show with Richard Epstein for the week. Well, yeah. I'm sorry. That's tough work.

I know. Your new book, which is Point of Attack, Preventative War, International Law and Global Welfare, you're suggesting that the new threats to global security are not Cold War, big countries one against the other, but smaller sort of – what they call asymmetric forces. Is that right? Yeah. sort of a uh what they call asymmetric forces is that is that right yeah doesn't that doesn't lead you to to think that we're the future is a series of police actions and sort of police activities and not big wars that we have to fight yeah i actually think that the era where believe it or not even though what's going on with the ukraine the era of big wars between the great powers is coming not to a close but is disappearing because of nuclear weapons and the balance of power and

the cost to countries of war. And so that really what the United States can focus on or should focus on is maintaining the areas of democracy and free markets amongst its allies and trying to spread them where it can. And that we've all focused so much on wars in Europe and comparing the great prosperity we've had for the last 60, 70 years. So, John, you're saying that things are about to get a lot rougher. We should pull back and just make sure that we do well in what used to be called the West. Is that right? Yeah, I mean, I think the most important thing is to focus on preserving the West and the area of East Asia that we've managed to bring into the trade system.

That's exactly where I was going to go with that next, which, of course, is the rise of China. It is extremely expensive and difficult for the United States of America to remain – well, to do what it has done for the last 60 years, which is to serve as the dominant force, the police force, hey, can't we sit down and talk this out, President? Even under Barack Obama, the conflict between the United States and China is sharpening, not diminishing. The Chinese are asserting specific interests to this set of violence, to that set of violence. They're launching a new carrier. So what do we do? Well, it's a great question, Peter. And the rise of China, people are comparing it to the rise of Germany between 1870 and then ultimately 1914. So I would say a few things. It's such a hard question to do China. But the first thing is I think we ought to lay a lot of fault with the Obama administration.

I know you don't like to criticize President Obama on your podcast. Unlike our – Try to keep it positive here, Joe. Unlike our Law Talk podcast where I'm the one who defends Obama from Richard. I know you don't like to criticize him here. But I do think that the thing that worries me when you talk about contemporary policy is how fast the Obama administration is withdrawing from the world and how fast, especially in Asia, you can see that our allies all now doubt the U.S. security guarantee because we signed an agreement in Ukraine to secure Ukraine's borders. And now that's been conveniently ignored, and if you're Japan and Korea who have these agreements with us, you start to doubt it.

If we do start to withdraw, and China – China doesn't want to have a war with us if they can help it. But if we're going to withdraw, they're happy to occupy the places we're leaving, especially in the oceans out there. So if we do that, we're almost doing – it's like unilateral disarmament during the Cold War. There are people who wanted to get rid of all our nuclear weapons, no matter what the Soviets did. And there are people who thought the Cold War was our fault and not the Soviets. Soviet aggression is the same thing out there in China. I think if we if this administration keeps withdrawing, that's actually a part of the book's point is it's not just bad for Japan or Korea or Philippines. It's bad for the United States that we are going to suffer because a lot of the prosperity and a lot of the advance in democracy markets has actually been a great boon to not just our economy but actually in the long run has saved us from fighting many other wars. So this is one neat statistic is for the last 70 years that I discovered, for the last 70 years, the deaths and destruction from war between the great powers between nations has

fallen to an all-time low, never recorded in modern history in any hundred-year period. Really? Yeah, since the beginning of the nation-state system and the end of the religious empires. By an order of magnitude, we have had far less death and destruction from wars between countries. Look at World War I and World War II. Europe was the big problem. All the worst wars in our history started in Europe. For the last 70 years, there hasn't been a single war in Western Europe because of us.

In Asia, we have brought a lot of peace, which has allowed all these countries to grow. Actually, the country that's probably benefited the most has been China. Yeah. John, so Rob just sent me a text saying he wants to ask you a question. So I'm not allowed to get grabby, but I'm about to get grabby. One more question for me before I let Rob in. I have open on my computer screen- He's like an old Hollywood star who sees a producer at a party. Exactly right.

I have open on my desktop right now the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and right there, above the fold, is Americans grow weary of world stage. Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs,

even as a showdown with Russia preoccupies Washington and Wall Street Journal poll finds. Okay, take that datum. And then here's an argument. Irving Kristol used to say, the late and great Irving Kristol, in the 80s, I believe he still made the argument in the early 90s as well, that we should wrap NATO up. Right up through the 1970s, the Europeans needed us. They were still rebuilding after the war. They were still behind us. They were still weak. But by the mid 70s, they were as rich as we were. And yes, it was in our interest to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union, but it was also in theirs. And we risked infantilizing them. And frankly, it's hard in some ways to argue

that we didn't infantilize Europeans when today even Poland of all countries spends less than 2% of GDP on defense. Why shouldn't Japan, a rich country, Australia, a rich country, and on and on throughout. You could say the Philippines isn't as rich. Okay, maybe we can send them an aircraft carrier. But why shouldn't these countries in Asia stand up for themselves and come up with their own way of defending that

region against China? It's a great point. And this is a thorny problem, which is, as you said, it's in our interest and it's in their interest to maintain the peace in Asia, just like it was in our interest and the Europeans' interest to maintain peace in Western Europe. And the hard thing is that those countries have every incentive to free ride on us. FBD doesn't stand for friendly business ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland.

Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited, trading as FBD Insurance, is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. We're going to provide stability and order because it's good for us. As you say, why should they pay anything? They'll just free ride on our provision of security.

That's a different question, I think, than whether the American people are tired of war. You know, with the first problem, we have to force them, and I think we are doing that with Japan, although they're doing it for their own reasons, is we have to force them to take a bigger role in their provision of defense, and they have to change their constitution, so it's not just about self-defense. I think, you know, the interesting thing, Peter, pick japan and australia those are actually the countries that are probably doing the best south korea i would say too are the ones that are probably doing the best they're doing far better than western europe is now that's true just betting and modernizing because they're the ones facing china uh you know the europeans the sad thing about uh what's going on with ukraine is i don't think the european nations are are capable of stopping Russia from taking over the rest of you.

They don't want to. I think that's one thing. But even if they want to, I don't think they're militarily capable of stopping the Russians, no matter how badly off the Russian military is these days. I think that's a different question about how you get them to share. And that's what leaders do. I mean that's where you get people like Dwight Eisenhower or even Reagan. They did – remember, Peter, you were there. Reagan got the Western Europeans to accept the Pershing missile to modernize our nuclear forces. That's really where leadership does matter. That's an area where Congress really can only do so much in buying the weapons, and you need to have a president who's going to lean on our allies and convince them that this is the right thing to do. And we have a president who's moving in the other direction.

That's the problem is what you have. The allies have a – the hegemonic power, which is us, doesn't want to play the role. That becomes insuperable. It's a pleasure. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, just you need a president willing and you need a culture that's willing to back him up on that. I remember that Albert Brooks, the comedian, tweeted out a couple of days ago, this is the most chilling thing I've read in years.

And when I went to the link, it was the news that the administration was sending 250 soldiers to Poland. It just terrified him because by his mind, that is a provocative action. The only thing you can do to a bully who struck you on the chin is to tilt your chin up a little bit more so he's got a better shot at it. Rob, you had a question? This got me wishing for the days of Jimmy Carter again. I'm sorry to say. Staying tall with Jimmy Carter, yeah. Hey, John, I've got a question.

I mean you say the world is changing, but when you open the newspaper, you um and uh about a rising uh military power in the east it doesn't seem like it's changing it seems like maybe some of the nouns have changed but the but we are we are we are moving just go back to my first question that we are moving away from this asymmetric stuff which we might have experienced for the past 30 40 years and we're moving back towards big big countries heavily, heavily armed, making big moves. Yeah, I mean, I think this Ukraine thing is an example. I think you're right on this. When I wrote this book, I mean, Putin's a great bookseller because I wrote this book a year ago.

People are telling me, why are you even writing about war? Iraq and Afghanistan are over. Stay tuned. Yeah, it's going to be peaceful again. And then there you go. Vladimir Putin starts to strut his stuff. So I think you're right. There always is going to be competition between the great powers.

But I think that the United States were playing its normal role, that Russia never would have done what it had done. It's actually that we are almost withdrawing. We're pulling back. Well, we're getting – and our defense capability is going to be smaller. Yeah, and that goes back to this question of are Americans willing to pay for this? And so when you read this headline, Americans want to pull back from world stage poll funds. This looks like a headline from 1936, right? 1937.

You're right. Americans back then also thought let the Europeans pay for it. Let Japan have its37. You're right. Americans back then also thought, you know, let the Europeans pay for it. Let Japan have its empire. We're tired. We don't want to pay for it. It ended up costing us a lot more to have that attitude. John Peter here. Last question, because although the comedian Albert Brooks wastes his time tweeting on nonsense, the AEI director, Arthur Brooks, has need of you.

I know. Different topic. The AEI director, Arthur Brooks, has need of you, I know. Different topic, the Sterling case, the NBA sanctions against him, all of that. We were talking about this before you came on and we all agreed we have to ask John about this. So this is the last question. I'll let you go. Okay. If that telephone conversation, private conversation that somebody taped, if that were introduced into court as evidence, wouldn't it be thrown out? Wasn't the taping of that illegal in itself? Yeah. In California, you know, each thing, it can have a different rule, but in California, both parties to the phone conversation, you know, they have to consent before, you know,

and so in this case, it doesn't seem, as far as I can tell, I mean neither party consented. It was taped by a third party, someone who was just surreptitiously listening in I think. So no, you would not be able to introduce that into evidence. I mean you couldn't try him, Sterling, in a court of law with this kind of recording. On this matter and other matters legal, we look forward to hearing what you have to say. But if only there was some website where you could tell people what you thought about things

and remind them that your newest book, Point of Attack, Preventative War, International Law, and Global Welfare addresses a wealth of issues that people need to know for the next coming decade. If only there was such a site. Oh, but wait a minute. We'll see you at Ricochet. Thanks, John, for showing up, and I hope to talk to you again soon. Oh, hey, thanks, site. Oh, but wait a minute. We'll see you at Ricochet. Thanks, John, for showing up and

I hope to talk to you again soon. Oh, hey, thanks, guys. It's been fun as always. Ricochet's on. And we've got 40 more questions, but we'll take those up in the comments. Thanks, John. And of course, we spin madly now 360 degrees facing well, the exact same direction as it turns

out, to talk to Avik Roy. You know him? He's a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Forbes opinion editor, author of the Forbes blog, The Apothecary, in which he frequently publishes criticisms of the Patient Protection Act and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. He was also an outside advisor to the Romney campaign on health care issues, contributed to NRO, and he hosts the American Wonk podcast right here on Ricochet. We welcome him back to the

podcast to discuss the continuing joy and glee that is the Obamacare rollout. Hey, we know you got to catch a plane here, so thanks for showing up. How does it look? We have numbers now and supposedly these numbers are really great. These numbers are fabulous and it's working, right? Well, it is working for some people. I think that is important to understand. If you qualify for subsidies, the law is a great deal for you. If you are one of the 62-year-olds with a massive suite of pre-existing conditions for whom your health insurance premiums are now subsidized by all the healthy and younger people, it is a good deal for you. So there definitely are going to be people who benefit, but the number of people who've

signed up who are in that category is smaller than what the administration is saying. Hey, Ovik, it's Rob Long in Los Angeles. Thanks for joining us. So you told us – you wrote recently – I guess it was the Rand Corporation came out. 1.4 million americans right um 1.4 million americans who didn't have health care before now have it or now signed up according to obama the obamacare numbers is that roughly right 1.4 well so that's that's a specific analysis to the people who've signed up on the exchanges so the administration is running around saying eight million people or whatever the number

is today have signed up for coverage on the exchange. And there are two things that you have to keep in mind. The first is how many people have paid, which I think a lot of people now understand. If you haven't paid, you're not enrolled. You don't actually have health coverage. And the second point is what percentage of the people who've signed up and paid were previously uninsured. And based on all the evidence we have, about two thirds of the people who've signed up on the exchanges were previously insured people. Maybe their old plans were canceled. Maybe they got a better deal on the exchange. Whatever it is, that's a big chunk of it. So the expansion of coverage by the exchanges specifically

is not as large as the administration is claiming. But so a third of those, say a third of those were genuinely Americans who didn't have health care, health insurance and now have health insurance. And that's around a million, four million, just say a million and a half. How much would it have cost the federal government to buy policies four years ago, five years ago without Obamacare? Just buy them for one point to ensure 1.4 million people. Wouldn't it have been a lot less? It certainly would have been a lot less, especially if the plans were more rational, right? So one of the things that Obamacare does is it forces people to buy these soup to nuts health insurance plans that cover everything from you have cancer, you're covered, to I want the government to pay

for my birth control, it's covered. Now, if we think about health insurance, when we think about car insurance, think about why you buy car insurance. You buy car insurance so that you crash your car, your car gets totaled, your car gets stolen. You are protected from that massive financial loss, but we don't expect car insurance to pay for your gasoline or your wiper fluid, whatever, your car wash, right? So the thing is, there's this ideology with health insurance where the Obama administration is saying, well, your health insurance has to cover all those things, the equivalent of your car wash and your wiper fluid, gasoline. Now, if the sole goal is to just make sure that people are protected from bankruptcy

and high medical bills, you could do that for a fraction of the cost of Obamacare. And the way things will eventually go, my Writers Guild of America fancy Cadillac Rolls-Royce plan, which I of course perceive that I'm not taxed for, where I actually have to pay for that or get taxed for the value of that, I would just choose a much cheaper, smaller plan. So people who are currently insured need to be able to buy sort of lower profile plans and people who aren't insured need to be able to buy sort of lower-profile plans, and people who aren't insured need to be able to buy lower-profile plans. What was the logic between not having – not even offering those kinds of sort of simpler, easier, cheaper, I guess in a way more financially risky for the policyholder but certainly more efficient plans? Was there – is there a logic behind this that I'm missing? Absolutely. Absolutely. So the logic is that Democrats are very smart, and what they have realized and conservatives have not, is that health insurance is a mechanism for economic

redistribution. And the way it works is by forcing all the insurance plans to cover these soup to nuts services, the people who actually need those services, the cost of those services for them are being subsidized by all the people who don't need it. So let's say you're a crack addict, and Obamacare's health insurance plans cover addiction treatment for crack. So that's great if you're a crack addict. Now your health insurance – Good news for you, Peter. Yeah, your health care costs for crack addiction are covered by all of us who have the good fortune not to be crack addicts. Well, speak for yourself.

So it's a mechanism. I have one last question. Now I really mean that, Peter. It's more of a personal question. You are the – my certainly – We're all leaning in. Ricochet readers and people all over, you are the go-to person for this – the guy who figured it out and now explains this to those of us who are a little slow like me who need a little help. How much pressure is there or has there been any pressure from anybody in the sort of Obamacare world on you personally? Because if they – I mean my feeling is if Ovik Roy tells me something about Obamacare, I'm going to believe it.

Have they figured that out yet? That's a good one. Wow. You know, I don't think I – I mean maybe people do pressure me, but I don't – I'm so insensitive to it that I don't notice it. I mean I think that somehow – and I don't really know how exactly, but the liberals sort of see me as a good faith critic for the most part. They get mad at me from time to time. But because I acknowledge sometimes when I feel like they have a point, they tend to tolerate me perhaps more than they should. And so I've managed to carve numbers in a slightly better way because after all, it's the dissenters who they need to sort of bring closer to the – closer into the flock.

It shows me that they're a little – they're not even as smart as that. I mean I would have – were I Obama or Kathleen Sebelius, I'd have a full-time person on you. What Rob is saying here, Ovik, is that if he were in your position, he could be bought. Oh, God. I think that goes without saying. I'm bought now and I'm not in his position. I'll make two points. One is there was one situation last summer when I first started writing about the dramatic increases in the cost of health insurance in California, where the left went absolutely nuts and tried to basically do the Zelensky move where I was delegitimized as a good faith writer on these issues. But to my great fortune, a lot of people on the right came out and defended my work on that particular subject, and so

that effort failed. So that was one thing that did happen where I was under a lot of kind of ad – Krugman wrote like three blog posts talking about how terrible I was in one week, which really kind of made my week, but it was – Congratulations. They were trying really hard to say – Yeah, I know. I was running around smiling the whole time, but there was a lot of effort on their part

in that particular episode to try to delegitimize the work, but that didn't work. And then to your second point, yeah, I'm actually kind of surprised that the White House doesn't try to make their point of view more known to people. I mean, I certainly would listen to them and give them a good faith hearing and say, okay, if they have a point that I haven't perceived because I'm just, you know, so critical of them, I'll listen. But they have definitely not done that and haven't felt the need to do that for whatever reason. So that sounds as though you're saying, invite me to lunch. Is that the... Well, I mean, Rob would hold out for more than that. Ovik, I have a message for you, and it comes directly, this is Peter speaking. It comes directly from President Obama.

This is what he said. This is just a couple of weeks ago when he announced that eight million Americans have enrolled in the Affordable Care Act. Quote – this was at a press conference but I know he had you in mind. Quote, the repeal debate is over. The Affordable Care Act is working. I recognize that Republicans are going through the stages of grief, anger, denial, all that stuff. They're not at acceptance yet. Close quote. Ovech, just get to acceptance. Let it go, right? Well, you know, actually, I think on that specific

point, he's not completely wrong. I do think that there is a degree to which conservatives have not wanted to accept the fact that Obamacare is likely never going to be fully repealed. But my whole argument is that, well, okay, Obamacare may never get fully repealed, but that doesn't mean that we don't have substantial options to reform the entire healthcare system in a substantially conservative direction. I think what I try to tell conservatives is, I think conservatives have perceived that if we don't repeal Obamacare, we're doomed. There's no other alternative for saving a semblance of constitutional market-oriented government unless we repeal Obamacare.

And my argument is, no, that's not true, because you have to remember that Medicare and Medicaid are actually the dominant avenues for government interference in the health care system. Obamacare expands those existing architectures and infrastructures, and there are ways to reform the entire entitlement system in our direction if we think about the bigger picture. I think for so long now, we've been focused on the trees of Obamacare. We've missed the forest of the entire landscape of government intervention in health care. This is a show in itself, of course. I realize the question I'm about to ask.

And I also recognize that you're talking from an airport and you have a plane to catch. But let's dream. Let's hope. Let's suppose the Republicans capture the Senate. Let's hope that they get to 51 seats in the Senate in November and that they retain the House. Republicans control both houses of Congress. Repeal is still out of the question because Barack Obama would veto any such measure, but they would then have two years before the next presidential election.

What are the top two measures Republicans should enact that would have some hope of being signed by the president? I think that's a terrific question, Peter, and I do actually think there are a lot of things that will get passed into law because the president will feel enormous political pressure to sign into law things that get to his desk that are very popular. So I could see major changes to the individual mandate, the employer mandate, perhaps some things around how the subsidies are structured in certain fiscal negotiations,

other aspects of just sort of deregulating the exchanges, the grandfathering provisions. I think there are a lot of, let's call them incremental steps that Republicans will pass. But I will say this, there is a kind of a line of thought on the right that says, well, you shouldn't make any changes to Obamacare, kind of this Leninist approach, that if we make no changes to it and it falls apart, then our ability to enact a conservative revolution later on is going to be higher, or it's going to be more probable. I don't know if I agree with that, but that's something that divides the right as to whether- You don't know whether you agree with it. In other words, you- That kind of policy activism is worth it.

You haven't thought that one through? Oh, I have, but I'm just saying on the right there is division on that. I personally believe that actually Republicans should enact some changes because, first of all, I don't actually believe Obamacare will ever get repealed, and therefore you've got to try to reform the system while you have the chance. And secondly, I look at it more in the standpoint – we can't be Leninists. We actually have to be people. And if you're a leader of people, you actually have to try to make things better for people. And there are actually real people who are suffering under this law, and we have to do our part to actually make sure that we're looking out for them.

And if we just sort of say, well, it's okay if you're suffering and your health insurance is terrible and you're paying all this money because that's going to achieve our long-term political objectives. I don't think we can – the left can think like that. I don't think we can. Well, it looks bad and it doesn't give the right impression and it doesn't tell people that the GOP cares about their concerns, which brings me to something else. You said the other day in a tweet because we don't view you entirely because somebody who can speak only on health care. You had an interesting tweet about Rick Santorum's new book. You said that you were very impressed with his message about conservatism's need to address

the problems of blue-collar workers. And in his new book, he talks about how the eye-shade approach just bores them and turns them off. They don't get the whole fiscal cliff budget negotiations. It has no resonance in their personal life. And the difficulty of the Republicans is when they start to talk about the social issues that affect the blue-collar people, we can come off looking like scolds, blue noses who want them to assume some 50s mode of personal behavior. Tell me what it is about Santorum's message you thought should be listened to by other leaders looking at 2016 and how to connect with people. Well, let me step back and just put it this way.

There has been no device ever invented in the history of civilization that has done more to lift people out of poverty than free markets. But why is it that we never talk about it that way? We always talk about it in terms of freedom, which is, of course, appropriate. But we rarely ever, if ever, talk about it in terms of what it has is, of course, appropriate. But we rarely ever, if ever, talk about it in terms of what it has done to lift people out of poverty. And if we just sort of turned around and said, okay, yes, we agree with you liberals. The moral authority of any political philosophy is what it does for the poor, and that is why your philosophy is immoral. Why don't we

talk about it that way? Why don't we actually attack them on what they do to trap people in poverty and what we do to lift people out of poverty? If we did that, we would dominate politics in this country, and we don't. And that has to do with, I think, failures on our part, both in terms of the people like us who comment on politics, but also people who vote Republican, who are obviously concerned, who are typically employed people, retired people, middle class people, who are concerned about the burdens of the system on them in terms of taxation and regulation and things like that. But if we want to reach out to people who don't already vote Republican, that's where

we need to be. And we have a very good message for those people. We just don't talk about it that way because it's just not our constituency. And I think that's one challenge. Something that liberals do a lot better than us in general is that they're much better at saying, okay, how do we bring new constituencies into our existing coalition? We tend to say, let's take our existing coalition and cater to that as much as possible. And I think Rick Santorum is trying to do that, and I salute him for it. It's because they poll very well on the question of whether or not the Democrats feel compassion for the people who are having a bad time. And that goes to a point that Rob made on Ricochet yesterday about how Republicans need to figure out a way to make people fall in

love with them, according to these wonderful 11 criteria that he borrowed from a dating site. Well, we've got a couple years to figure this out, and no doubt the old light administration itself is hard at work at coming up with the perfect candidate, he said, with a grim feeling in his throat. Avik, we know you'll have to catch a plane, so join the shuffling

herd and stow your stuff in the upright over compartment, whatever, and enjoy your trip, and we hope to talk to you down over compartment, whatever, and enjoy your trip. And we hope to talk to you down the road at this, the Ricochet podcast. Hey, thanks so much for having me. It's always a pleasure. Thanks, Ovi. You know, in some day, in some days soon, actually, it's going to be ridiculous to say something like, and we know you have to catch a plane, so we'll let you go because that

person will be able to walk onto the plane still talking and sit down still talking. Yeah, on Skype and continue all the way up into the air talking. And it's just like the person who has Google Glass wearing in a public thing. It'll be a question of whether or not this person is actually ruining the experience for everybody else. And what do you do about that? As I said before, you can't punch him. You can't slap the phone out of his hand. You have to play nice with him.

But what if he's a jerk? How do you play nice with a jerk? That's like the United States attempting to play nice with rogue regimes. It doesn't always work. As a matter of fact, you could call that thing dancing with the devil if you were engaging with a rogue regime. And you could call that the title of a book by Michael Rubin, and it's available for you at Encounter Books. We've mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again. It's about the fact that the rogue regimes, you know who they are,

the ones that sponsor terrorism, proliferate nuclear weapons. They challenge the U.S. around the globe, and our reaction usually is to play nice under the theory that it never hurts to talk to your enemies, jaw-jaw being better than a war-war. Well, that's conventional wisdom, and it's wrong. Well, it's true that military action and sanctions come at a war war. Well, that's conventional wisdom and it's wrong. While it's true that military action and sanctions come at high cost, the case studies examining the history of American diplomacy with North Korea and Iran and Iraq and Libya, the Taliban and Pakistan, demonstrates that the problems with both strategies do not make engagement with rogue regimes a cost-free option.

In fact, rogue regimes have one thing in common. They pretend to be aggrieved in order to put Western diplomats on the defensive. Works every time. Whether it's Pyongyang, Tehran, Islamabad, rogue leaders understand that the West rewards bluster with incentives and that for the State Department, the process of holding talks is often deemed more important than the results. Important book. If you want to get it for 15% off list price, and why wouldn't you, go to encounterbooks.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at the checkout. And we thank EncounterBooks for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Well, gentlemen, we have a few moments here to ourselves. We could – hey, let's talk about Sterling and –

I just want to say, anybody surprised that the Obama sort of message machine hasn't been twisting Ovik's arm for the past six months. He would seem like the perfect guy. I mean I'm surprised. It kind of like makes me – not that we needed more evidence that they're arrogant. But it doesn't seem – it seems incredibly short-sighted. He is the go-to guy for our side. That's right. For broadly speaking, for the center right, even for I'm sure moderate democrats for information and analysis parsing this complicated law and they haven't been PRing him.

That's crazy. Krugman has taken care of that. Perhaps for all we know, there's a cell where he'll be bunking with Dinesh down the road. What fools they are. It works both ways though. Back during the George W. Bush administration, when things were going badly in Iraq, as best I could tell, there were exactly two people in the entire country who were sticking up for George W. Bush and the venture in Iraq in public repeatedly and intelligently. And those two people were Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Stein, both of whom I know. And it was years, literally two, three, four years before anybody in the Bush White House thought to have either one of them in for lunch

or to say thank you or to drop them a line of any kind. It is just amazing how stupid White House – government service turns people – I shouldn't say that. Government service, White House, no, I shouldn't say that either. Rob, over to you. Well, it is – that is very true. I am – I was interested in how we wrapped it up with Ovik because I'm not you know i'm not i'm not i'm not a big fan of rick santorum um as we've already been established many many oh here it comes again but i i do believe that there is something um to the argument and to the idea that there are a vast part of american voters i think democrats as well as republic Republicans are simply not represented and not spoken to by

any political party. I mean if you look at what the political parties – what the political factions are in DC, they are sort of broadly speaking the environmental doomsayers, right? And then the people for whom the world is shrinking and resources are shrinking and we need to trim our sails. And then there's the sort of progressive big government socialists. And then the third group are libertarians writ large, libertarians meaning free trade, free markets, all that stuff, which I'm broadly in agreement with. But there's no traditional American party and I don't mean that like in the UKIP idea.

But I mean there's no party speaking from patriotism, meaning the Reagan Democrats who were Democrats and voted for a Democratic congressman but voted for Reagan or Archie Bunker is a perfect example. Archie Bunker was this conservative character in the early 70s on TV, but everybody knew that Archie Bunker's family and Archie Bunker himself voted for FDR. There isn't anyone talking to what was traditionally called blue-collar Americans or hardworking taxpayer Americans or middle, lower middle economic class Americans about their needs. And it does seem – and I am a free trader, but it does seem like that's the thing no one talks about is that we, we sold their jobs overseas. And the democratic message to them is we sold you out to the Chinese, but we'll put you

on welfare. And the Republican argument is we sold you out to the Chinese and you're out of luck. And there's nobody speaking to that large group of Americans who were in the Rust Belt or who were in manufacturing areas. No one is talking to them about their practical concerns. You are headed directly into the embrace of Pat Buchanan, Rob. Well, I understand that and that's why I'm saying it at the end of the podcast. Are you in Venice today? Where are you?

Are you in South Carolina? Where are you? What's going on? If you start looking at the number, it's something that we on our side need to be sensitive to or aware of or think about. Right now, we have no message. So maybe – unfortunately, that message may be delivered by somebody we don't want to deliver it. sensitive to or aware of or think about right now we have no message so maybe unfortunately that message may be delivered by somebody we don't want to we don't want to deliver it but there is something to that there is something to that argument i'm not saying i i'm a buchananite but

there is something factual about so who do you like who do you like rick santorum you just complimented but who do you like people who are in public life today? Who's running for the Senate or who's the governor? Before – go ahead. I don't want to get off the Santorum point because there's more to what he said that I think is almost – I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know, Peter. I don't know. All right. We'll revisit that. James? I just want to say there's more to what Santorum was saying that actually, in my mind, conflicts with what Rob is saying. And I agree with what Rob is saying. Somebody has to make the point that, and I wouldn't go back and say, we sold your jobs away now. Now, please, you know, forgive us and we'll try to do something new in the future. I think you point to the places in America that still exemplify American values and virtues and

dynamism, like Texas. You point to Toyota leaving a high-tax state to go to Plano. You point to the successes that Texas has had, the successes that North Dakota has had and show. These are examples of building – examples we can take and transplant elsewhere in the country. But one of the points that Santorum is making is that the building block of the country is not the individual. He breaks with libertarians there. He says that the building block of the country is the family unit, which is not surprising coming from Rick. And I don't think that that's an erroneous statement.

I mean that is the basic element from which communities arise. And he says that right now we got a government where if somebody is – if a woman is making $15,000 a year, a single mom let's say, she gets $35,000 in government benefits. I think he used the example of somebody in Pennsylvania. If she gets married, she loses them all. So you have a perverse incentive structure that says she should have men who live with her or a series of men who live with her, but she should never get married and that that had the unintended consequence of devolving the role of marriage as a social building block. I think he's right there. But what do you say to that then? Do you say then if you get married, you still get to keep the $35,000 in benefits? I mean is that where the Republican Party has to go?

I'm asking that question. I know, I know. I realize. And I don't know. I don't know the answer. Oh, really? Because I leave the easy questions to you, Rob. Go ahead.

I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer to that either. But when you're talking about communities that have absolutely been blasted and atomized by the changes in the global economy, I mean, yes, Rob is right. You've got to figure out a way to talk to those people and just simply telling them that we're for liberty and freedom isn't sufficient. It just isn't.

You have to tell these people how you're going to do things to make things better. And I'm not sure that just saying we're going to get out of the way, true though it may be, is the best message. Well, it's not the best message when it's delivered by Mitt Romney or a Mitt Romney. I don't mean to pick on Mitt Romney again, but this is somebody who just – you talk about Reagan Democrats or you talk about people in Appalachia whose jobs – coal mines are shutting or their jobs have been shipped overseas. People down in the Carolinas who used to make pretty good money right through the early 90s in textile mills those jobs are gone it's just mitt romney is not going to connect that would also probably argue against a jeb bush i guess but a scott walker or a paul ryan and and by the way the answer to the question this is you know this is tricky this is tricky and this is why i hand it to paul ryan the answer to the question this is tricky, this is tricky and this is why I

hand it to Paul Ryan. The answer to the question you posed James do you say you get the $35,000 if you get, the answer is you have to go through the social programs in great detail it is extremely hard work it's wonky and then

some and you have to go through them and make sure that every one of them is structured in such a way that the incentives are to stay married, to get married, to stay married. The incentives are to go get a job. This can be done. The Republicans under Newt Gingrich did it in the welfare reform back in the 90s. Well, wait a minute. Why do you want to penalize women as part of the continued Republican war on women? Why do you want to penalize them to force them into a social construct, a heteronormative – well, previously, social construct to privilege your idea of how society should be? Check your privilege, Peter. that that doesn't cut any ice except at the University of Minnesota. I mean at campuses, that cuts ice. You're talking about reaching normal people and they know better than this nonsense.

At some level, people understand that jobs are better than being on welfare. They just want to make sure they're going to be OK. That was the best – I can't remember who wrote it. Well, I guess several different people wrote it. But the notion that Republicans, particularly in the last cycle – again, I don't want to blame Romney. Well, I don't mind blaming Romney. But I don't – it's not necessary to blame him personally. The overemphasis on the entrepreneur as if we could elect a president on the basis of the 12 people in Silicon Valley who are libertarian billionaires who really understand. Most Americans don't want to go start a company.

They want jobs. And excuse me, what I'm saying is that James is exactly right in my judgment. Rob is exactly right. We have to be able to talk to folks who are ordinary people whose first concern is their family, their kids, their own circumstance. How do I move up in the world? I don't understand health care, but I understand it's too expensive. If something bad – I grant all of that.

My own feeling is that people such as Scott Walker and Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal are doing the extremely hard work of figuring it out. And I can't wait for 2016 to tell you the truth i think that's exactly right i i completely agree i i just feel like um at some point we're going to need to connect with in a meaningful way connect with voters who represent a completely forgotten and enormously large group of americans so we can't it it's not enough to rely on Venice Beach anymore. Exactly. It has to be somebody who can connect with these people on a cultural and value level. Again, to go back to Rob's post about how you make candidates fall in love with you,

you can't fake the sort of understanding of what people are all about. And that's why I have the fear that if once again the Republican Party puts up somebody who ticks off the right boxes but inspires enthusiasm in absolutely nobody, then forget about it. It requires a certain amount of theatricality. It requires a certain amount of preacher in the tent in the outside of town. I mean we need somebody who can sell that message but who tells people I understand on an elemental level what your values are and that people understand that from them without him having to spell it out. Uh, so you're endorsing Ted Cruz. No, I'm not. I don't think Ted Cruz is

that I don't know. You don't, I'm kidding. You're of course you're kidding. I don't, I don't think, I don't think he's the guy at all. I don't know. No, no, no. And Mike was a politician, fun to watch fire in the belly to a lot of the right things, but probably not the guy at all i don't know no no no and i'm like it was a politician fun to watch fire in the belly to a lot of the right things but probably not the guy uh so that's the challenge that we face unless uh you know it would be amusing if hillary doesn't run and elizabeth scott finally takes the bait because it's just too funny that would represent excuse – No, no, no. Excuse me. But Ted Cruz isn't the right – so we've been thinking who's interesting. You know a race that's interesting in my opinion?

Let's watch this one. Let's talk about this one between now and November. It's Scott Brown versus Gene Shaheen in New Hampshire. Scott Brown really does – he is an ordinary guy. He spent much of his life as an ordinary guy and he, as of December, transferred his residency from his place in Massachusetts to his longtime vacation home in New Hampshire and he is now a declared candidate for the United States Senate in New Hampshire. Let's watch that one. And he's a good campaigner. We know that.

I mean he's good at that. That's a hard job campaigning. New Hampshire is a tough state. It's definitely a purple state with a strong libertarian bent but still they are – they can be reliably democratic. really good one to watch because that that kind of that kind of gets to the area we're talking about kind of gets the idea of connecting with voters um and you know my favorite right now scott walker because i feel like he lived it and so he is probably a more authentic character speaking of authentic characters we do have to say uh i don't want to turn this into willard whole willard scott situation but i do want to say a happy birthday to Bob Bama. He's a Ricochet member, and it's his birthday.

Happy birthday, Bob. Happy birthday, Bob. Happy birthday, indeed. Well, there was, um, what was I going to say? Shoot. Um, I forgot. You guys talk amongst yourself while I remember my point. Oh, now I know what exactly what it was. Talking about Elizabeth Warren or somebody else of that ilk coming along to fill Hillary's moderate shoes.

Well, I mean everybody thinks that she's invincible but she probably isn't. I mean if you think of political ambitions and political moves as filling a market, there is a market, a Democratic Party market that Hillary Clinton doesn't fill and that's the sort of progressive wing. She will run more progressive – she'll do a classic run left to get the primaries, move right to get the general. But still there's – the Democratic Party is unruly and people jump in. So who knows? I don't know who that progressive voice is and it'll be crowded up there. But if I were a progressive Democrat,

I would think to myself, Biden's probably going to run. Clinton's probably going to run. That divides up the establishment vote. There's room for me if I'm an exciting progressive. I don't know who that is, but there does seem like there's room. In the same way that in the Republican Party right now, if you look at it, it seems like there's room for an America first or however – whatever version of that you want.

But someone for whom America first is the argument and I think that would be a very, very, very – I am just astounded but I can see it. I never thought this would come to me. But it has come to me now. Buchanan-Long in 2016. Well, I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just saying that you need to address those concerns. And a broadly defined America First campaign for republicans I think in the primary certainly would be compelling.

Okay. I agree. Especially if it's up against somebody who, whether it be Hillary or Warren or whatever, starts to take – puts their finger to the wind and detects a strong leftward breeze coming out of Paris and thinks that what the nation is really ready for is the Marxist economy of Thomas Pickett. I mean, you have all of these editorials from the left absolutely soiling their drawers in joy over the prescriptions that this man makes. You even have, I believe it was Ross Douthat the other day tweeted out that the one thing that he liked about Pickett was his attack on the rentiers, the petite bourgeois, who actually have the gall to accumulate property. These people are thieves. These people are thieves. And every single economic system and government

they have ever set up has resulted in tyranny, death, confiscation, failure, and starvation. And yet all of these people are lauding this man to the sky. Why? Because he wants to take away money from people who make a little bit more than they do. And it is thievery and envy of the sky. Why? Because he wants to take away money from people who make a little bit more than they do. And it is thievery and envy of the worst sort. There's no economic basis for it whatsoever. It is simply the right thing to do to take other people's property. And I would love very much so if you have a primary, you have an open, you have Biden, you have Brown, you have Warren,

you have Hillary, everybody's butting heads and everybody has got to run to the left and see who can put the best American argument for taking other people's property away. Let them display all of that. But I am looking at a copy of that book right now. I don't have the time or the attention to read it. I do tend to read it. I do tend to read it. There is an argument and there should be a Main Street Republican argument against the rentiers for sure and against crony cop capitalism for sure because that just goes right into the pocket of this sort of dangerous, big government, big business kind of cabal in which it doesn't really matter who the president is.

The chairman of Goldman Sachs owns him anyway. That kind of theory, which is a theory right now and kind of – and you can roll your eyes. That's not really how it works. But more and more and more, Americans are seeing CEOs of companies, not people who built something or invented the iPhone or drilled for oil or got their finger hands dirty, but CEOs, just MBAs, people who kind of just administrated a large organization, making these massive, massive, massive paychecks, getting these huge paychecks. And I think there's something disturbing about that.

And unless we address it in a way that I think is thoughtful and conservative and proper, that resentment, which is legitimate, and that feeling of being – that the game is rigged, which I think in many cases is legitimate, is going to turn – and won't turn towards a more conservative solution but will turn to a more socialist solution. You know, the European socialists came out of an aristocracy, not a vibrant representative democracy and if Americans believe that there's an aristocracy in this country and there are signs that there is, they're not going to say, well, let's get rid of it and then turn to be more free market. They will say, well, let's get rid of it and then turn to be more free market. They'll say, well, let's just tax the hell out of those guys and let's have a socialist revolution. I think we need to be aware of that. You already have one. Crony capitalism, the word – when you have to modify the concept, you're in bad territory.

This is closer to socialism. This is closer to the hand-in-glove relationship between government and business. I would not call it – I just start pointing out that all these guys are Democratic donors and they're all getting these little cozy deals and that the Republican Party, without going full populist on you, can tell people about this and stoke them.

More like friends. Right, and seek and point to examples of places where things are freer. Well, we are freed up now to end, I do believe, because even though we could sit here and do this for the next four hours and it would be great fun. Why? We didn't even get to the fact that they released the new Star Wars cast. Oh, yeah.

Same as the old one. We can talk about that maybe next week. I know how much Rob loves to talk Star Wars. I'll talk Star Wars. Just not Star Trek. That's right. Well, we'll have to do that in a little adjunct podcast or maybe do it in the comments. In the meantime, we want to thank foodiedirect.com for sponsoring this. 20% off your first order.

It's extraordinary. Go to foodiedirect.com and use that coupon code RICOSHET. And also, of course, we thank Encounter Books. Same deal, 15% off this or any other title, Perils of Dealing with Rogue Regimes at EncounterBooks.com. Go there. Let them know that you listened to the podcast and you appreciate the fact that they actually shelled out shackles to help it keep going. Thanks to everybody, of course, who belongs to Ricochet and has listened. Thanks, Rob and Peter. I'm James Loddickson.

We'll see you as ever in the comments at Ricochet 2. Moi do. See you, fellas. Next week I don't know why I keep on Believing You need me When you've proved

So many times That it ain't true And I can't find One good reason for staying Maybe my leaving would be the best for you But these rose-colored glasses Those colored glasses that I'm looking through Show only the beauty Cause they hide all the truth

And they let me hold on to the good times Good lines, the ones I used to hear when I held you And they keep me from feeling so cheated, defeated When reflections in your eyes show me a fool Those colored glasses that I'm looking through Show only the beauty Cause they hide on the truth. So I'll just keep on hoping, believing. Ricochet.

Join the conversation. You'll believe me when I say I love you And I'll lay these rose-colored glasses aside These rose-colored glasses All the glasses That I'm looking through Show only beauty Cause they hide all the truth