The Ricochet Podcast - Making A Run For It

Episode Date: April 2, 2014

This week, all we’ve got all is questions: Is ObamaCare decided? Are conservatives who watch MSNBC masochists? Is Jeb Bush a tarnished brand? What should the US response to Russia’s invasion of Russia? Are we in danger of a Michael Totten predicted zombie apocalypse? What does Utah Senator Mike Lee think about Hobby Lobby and who will get Harry Reid’s office when the Republicans take back the... Source

All right, go ahead, James. All right, coming down in three, two, one. 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. Our guests are Senator Mike Lee and Michael Totten. We'll be talking Crimea. We'll be talking the Affordable Care Act. We'll be talking 7 million zombies. No, not the ones who signed up for Obamacare. Real zombies. Let's have ourselves a podcast.

Yes, this is the Ricochet Podcast number 209, and it's brought to you by Encounter Books. Our feature title this week is Dancing with the Devil, the Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes by Michael Rubin. We'll be talking a little bit more about this later in the show, but in the meantime, you can get this book or any other Encounter title for just 15% off the list price by going to Encounter Books and using the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout. And of course, it's also brought to you by Ricochet.com, the greatest deal on the internet today, $5 a month, $40 a year. Well, and then there's the Reagan. Yes, yes. Badger tears. And for that, I'm going to say, hold that thought, Rob,

because Peter, I believe, is going to make a commercial pronouncement here. We love to see him lower himself into the muck and mud of God. Lower myself. For me, it's a step up. I would like to say thank you to the nearly half dozen Ricochet members who have joined at the Reagan level, two of whom have given us permission to mention their names. The others may not mind either, but we haven't heard back. So I want to thank, and I really do mean thank, Erica and John Amarati,

both of whom have upgraded to the Reagan level. Rob and all of us here at Ricochet had this, we were talking each other into a great lather. There are some people who are willing to pay more. And then we introduced this tiered pricing and held our breath and messed up the transition to 2.0. I don't think anybody would say that went I mean... It was a giant success. I'll be Valerie Garrett in this. Exactly.

We no longer even have any ground to attack the Obamacare rollout. And yet about half a dozen people, we've had about half a dozen who have upgraded to the Thatcher level, $99, and about half a dozen who have upgraded to the Reagan level of $399. And I have to tell you, and I mean it sincerely, it's touching. It's touching that Ricochet means that much to people. I know Eric and John from NR Cruises and from Ricochet events and from – they came down to the event in LA and I see them in NR Cruises and I ran into them at a PRI dinner a couple of years – I don't know if it was last year.

It was a couple of years ago anyway. So I mean they're just sort of part of the family and that's ideally what we want to make of the sort of Reagan level. Some people are interested in that. Some people aren't. Some people can do it. Some people can't. It's the same ricochet.com for everyone. But the Reagan level we're hoping to put on – we have a bunch of little goodies and more smaller events that you can do with a smaller group. The fun of it

is, of course, is that it gets you to meet people outside of your sphere a little bit and outside of your normal day-to-day interchange, which I think is part of the problem with our movement and our party and all that is that we

unfortunately have been in the past in our little bubbles. And part of what the project and the mission of ricochet.com is to sort of connect us all electronically across the country. So we can actually do something valuable. Well, Rob, you've just come out of the,

the bubble of television, which is quite a bubble. And you come out of it. I'm still in it. You're directing, you're putting together the next season, but yet you surely must be casting your eyes around the country, the news. And you must realize now that the debate, the debate about Obamacare is over. It's done. There's nothing more to be said. And

as Rachel Maddow said a couple of days ago or yesterday on her show, really, there's no more stories to be done about this. From now on, it's just back to being a thing. It's no longer political and it's solved and all the critics were wrong. Take that. And if the Republicans think they're going to run on this, they are sorely mistaken. What do you guys think about this? They hit the 7 million mark. Surprise!

And now everything's working great. Well, that's a real problem. I mean, it's a real problem for them. I mean, I understand the cheerleading. I mean, I think that's probably natural. But it's a real problem for them if they can convince themselves that this is true. There's zero

evidence that this is true. The structural problems with Obamacare remain. Of the 7 million that signed up, I think it was 4 million or 5 million were ones who had lost their health care. They're not happy about having to sign up and having to – But they lost it because a mean company kicked them off and made them part of the uninsured.

So isn't this – Health care touches everybody. So the problem – I mean that's a perfectly – I understand that that's the kind of thing that sort of zombie-like cheerleaders will say on MSNBC. I get it. I would expect nothing less. If that's – but if that's something that they're saying in the White House, we can all just kind of cruise to November because that's going to be a gigantic, gigantic upset for them.

Three points, all brief. One, the number of uninsured who have signed up is about 1.5 million. Most of the 7 million already had insurance and signed up only because Obamacare forced them out of the insurance that they already liked. That leaves Obamacare. The president promised us that 30 million uninsured people will be covered. 1.5 million have been covered. Two, they signed up.

The thing is working as well as it's working only because they have refused to enforce the law and pushed off this mandate until after the election and the other mandate until after the election and the other mandate until after the election. And third and most important, this only works if a lot of healthy people sign up and subsidize the sick old people who sign up and healthy young people are not signing up it isn't working and and more than that healthy young people are the millennials in other words are sort of moving away from obama in general so that's i mean in small numbers but that's moving away is a big big big big problem um so yeah i mean what's funny about it is that I think the debate – I think that Rachel Maddow is technically correct. I mean the debate is over. It didn't work.

I mean Obamacare is not enacted. It is not the law. It is not – we do not have it. It's been postponed and delayed and waived to the point that the – the funny thing is when the first thing launched and the website didn't work, Obama kept saying, well, listen, it's more than a website. It's not just a website. At this point, it is only a website. He has waived and postponed every other meaningful regulation and component of this law.

The only thing it is is a website and I find that sort of – that's a great big story and everybody knows it and that's a problem. If everybody knows it, it doesn't matter what Rachel Maddow says. Well, that's really going out there on a limb, Rob, to say that she doesn't because one of the other things she said on the air was that the republicans were hoping there was going to be a death spiral and there wasn't. So now they have to go back to talking about Benghazi or something. That level of intellectual cocooning I just find fascinating.

Well, I don't – now let me ask you something, James. Did you see her say this? I heard it. I heard an extensive excerpt on a radio show that I was listening to yesterday. It always seems to me that the only people who watch these shows are conservatives who just have a blood pressure problem. No, I don't enjoy,

I don't enjoy listening to her. I don't enjoy listening to Chris Matthews. I don't enjoy listening to the president for that matter, but sometimes it's necessary. Well, the president, I understand you have to listen to the president. He's president of the United States.

He's our president. Yes, but he's either dull or he's mocking and contemptuous. Yeah, but he's still the president. I mean, you get, you have to listen to the president. I get that.

But I mean our friend, my friend Ann Coulter, gleefully – I don't know why. I think just because she has zero – I think if she didn't have this, she would just collapse. She watches these – she watches MSNBC just so gleefully, constantly. She's always talking about it. She'll always say, hey, did you see what the so-and-so said on MSNBC? I'm like, Ann, first of all, I have a job. And second of all, why would I watch that? And she looks at you

like you're saying, why wouldn't you? It's the most fun television ever. I can't abide it. But I have to, if I'm going to argue with my sister-in-law from time to time, I have to know exactly what they're saying. You can't live with non-contiguous information streams. You've got to get out and see what they're dipping their toes in as well. Yeah, I get you, right?

I mean, otherwise, you would have absolutely no idea how important the Chris Christie bridge-closing story is, that this is actually – this is the most important thing in the world. Pearl Harbor. Except for – well, The New Yorker had the Borowitz Report, which is technically humor. I guess it's supposed to be humor. I've read it a couple of times, and it has the shape. That's what I call NPR fun. Yeah, right. It has the shape and the style of humor without actually being funny.

And they had a piece about how cable news networks are just simply going overboard on 370. Nothing but airline 370. What do you think they chose as a picture, a photograph, to illustrate the idea that the cable networks are going overboard in 370? That's right. A picture of Sean Hannity. Because, of course, Sean Hannity has been wall to wall on this thing. Not CNN. Not Wolf.

Yeah. Right. Well, they don't have a caricature of Wolf. No, this is what they had. This is an actual photograph. Well, speaking of caricatures, if you wanted to come up with something that defines a party's inability to come up with a new idea, it might

be floating Jeb Bush as a possible presidential candidate. And that was one of the conversations on Ricochet this week, was Jed and Hillary, how they happen to be tarnished brands for different reasons. I don't think anybody knows Jeb Bush, really, and I don't think anybody cares to. It's simply third time ate the charm

and this is not a dynasty nation. Peter, what do you think? Well, Jeb Bush may have a tarnished brand but it's the difference between Hillary's tarnished brand and Jeb Bush's tarnished brand is that Hillary's is largely her

fault. I don't deny that her husband also makes her look bad, but it's largely her fault. Her choice. Jeb Bush, I have to disagree with you. There are people who know Jeb Bush. There are millions of them. He was a two-term governor of Florida who cut taxes every year for eight years,

whose approval ratings were in the high 60s when he stepped down, who commanded support among Hispanics, who commanded support among Democrats, who left the legislature more firmly in the hands of Republicans than when he stepped. He was a wonderful governor. I have joked, but only half-jokingly said he should change his name to Humperdinck. He'd be a wonderful presidential candidate. But I've learned on Ricochet that it just won't work. Some people just won't have that last name. Very, very effective, incredibly articulate, persuasive, passionate, conservative reformer, right? I mean – and I know that also has little resonances but he really did something.

I mean when I look for a presidential candidate in 2016, I'm looking for somebody who did something, not somebody who talked but somebody who did something, which is one of the reasons I like the governor. It's one of the reasons why I like Scott Walker so much. And I love Jeb Bush. He is just a spectacular person and a fantastic leader and I worry every day that he's going to run for president. I don't – I just don't think it was going to work and I don't think it's fair and I don't think it's right, but I just don't – I just – but I don't think we live in a country where we need a dynasty. I think you're right, James.

And I don't think that in order to have an impact on the national scene, you have to be president. I think there are plenty of ways to do that without being president. I just worry because I feel like what should not be a repudiation of a very, very, very, very smart, effective, valuable, contributing – And conservative. And conservative man. I just don't think it's going to happen and I hope that he doesn't run. But from what I understand, he's really thinking about it. And if he does, I will cheer him on. I really will cheer him on because he's just a great man. But I just – it will break my heart. I'll put it that way.

Well, let's hope he changes his name to Hubert Horatio Pumperdink and we'll see what happens after that. You're right, Peter. Floridians know him. You're right, Rob. It's unfair. And you're both right to think maybe in a year from now the landscape will have changed so much that this won't really matter very much.

We'll talk about that then. In the meantime, however, we should cast our eyes overseas because there's a world out there returning and the Ukrainian-German situation, far from being done, continues to bubble along. And for that, well, why not call along somebody who's actually been around the

part of the world, and that would be Michael Totten. He's the contributing editor for World Affairs, who has contributed, who has reported on the Middle East, the Balkans, the FSU. He's the author of The Road to Fatima Gate, or Fatima. I always ask him about that. I always get the answer, and I always forget how to pronounce it. It's Fatima. Fatima Gate.

There's a favorite cigarette of Jack Webb, too. And he lives in Oregon, where he has just written a book about zombies. And we're going to get to that in a few seconds here, too. But again, welcome back to the podcast, Michael. Let's talk about sanctions. Kicked out of the G8, some purse strings snipped, hard, hard terms being given to Russia. You think this is going to have any effect whatsoever? Nope, I don't. But I think we should do it anyway. All right. Thank you for talking to us today, Michael. Michael's latest book can be found at

encounterbooks.com. Elucidate, if you will. You guys are hilarious. No, I don't think it's going to get Vladimir Putin out of Crimea, but I think we should do it anyway because if we don't think it's – look, it's not going to get Vladimir Putin out of Crimea, but I think we should do it anyway because – well, if we don't, then – well, it just gives him a green light to just do what he wants. I mean one of his advisors recently said that he kind of wants Finland back. And look, I have a hard time imagining him actually invading Finland.

But let's say he invades Ukraine and nothing happens, nothing at all. Well, then an invasion of Finland is a lot more likely. So I think even though we're not going to get him out of Crimea, yeah, I mean there has to be some kind of penalty, even if it's just a token one. Hey, Michael, how could we have played this differently? So as much as I love to find ways to criticize our sort of feckless president, it does seem like there wasn't much to be done here. I agree, although I think that you're right that the president is a bit feckless when it comes to Russia. Well, not just feckless. I mean very naive. I mean the whole Russian reset thing was ridiculous.

I mean Barack Obama was elected president very, very shortly after Russia invaded Georgia, and he acted as that certainly didn't help. But honestly, I mean I wrote in my book Where the West Ends when I went to Ukraine and Crimea that Vladimir Putin was – that there was a real chance that he might take Crimea at some point. And I wasn't even thinking about these things then because I think – let's say George W. Bush had a third term or John McCain won the election or whatever. I think Putin still would have gone into Crimea anyway. I think. Yeah. Now, my question is – so Crimea, Ukraine, always an area in which he's reclaiming a former Soviet republic in a sense, right? Yeah. Trying to sort of rebuild that. Assuming for a minute that

he likes Finland. Yeah, Finland's nice. Assuming, for instance, that he's smart enough not to want to make any incursions into what is now free Europe. What's he looking at now? He's looking at Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan.

I mean, if this is really based on energy and some kind of energy monopoly or energy duopoly or energy hegemony, we'll say, to use three weird terms, he's got to be moving east, right? He's got to be moving where the BTC pipeline is through Georgia and Azerbaijan to the Caspian Sea to Turkmenistan, which has enormous natural gas resources. Isn't that where he's got to be looking at? I mean, is there any evidence that he's doing that? Well, I don't – I mean that's a good point, and it's not quite the way I see it. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just – I'll tell you what my frame of report is.

Michael, go ahead. Go ahead. Here's the way I see it. Vladimir Putin's primary concern is the Eurasian Union, which is his anti-European Union thing, where it's got Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus. He really wants Ukraine in there, and if Ukraine were to join the European Union or NATO, it would just completely screw up his whole plan. I mean he really needs Ukraine really more than he needs any of these other countries. And by invading Crimea, what he gets – he doesn't care about Crimea per se. What he cares about is having Ukraine in the Russian orbit rather than the western orbit.

And if he can create a disputed territory conflict inside Ukraine with Russia, there's no chance that NATO is going to admit Ukraine because it creates a potential – a dangerous potential flashpoint. And this I think is why he's snapped up little scraps of Georgia and why he's got these Russian troops in Transnistria, which is this stupid little breakaway region of Moldova. It keeps these countries out of NATO and under the Russian thumb. I was reading I think somewhere a couple of weeks ago, and I forget where, and I'll look for it so I can put a link to it and make sure that it's not my – I don't claim credit for the idea. But part of the – what we see now is Soviet – not expansionist – Russian – not Russian expansionism but more a re-Sovietization of Russia. Part of what the heart of it is, is that NATO exists, but the Warsaw Pact doesn't. And so, as long as NATO exists, and it seems like the victor, everybody wants to join, all these

former Soviets want to join NATO, and that makes the Russians nervous. It does. It's something that we should have anticipated. Yeah, probably. I mean it makes them nervous the way we would be nervous if the Warsaw Pact expanded toward us. I mean they're not the same.

I'm not drawing the moral equivalence. I'm just saying that's how Vladimir Putin sees it, and that's how a lot of Russian people see it. And in a way, they're projecting. They see NATO coming toward them, and they think of it as meaning what it really would mean if the Warsaw Pact was coming toward us. And we all know the Russian bear has worried about encirclement since the 19th century. Yeah, that's true. Since the 13th century actually. You can't grant them that.

You can't. I was just wondering when you'd jump in. No, you can't. You cannot. that you can't i was just wondering when you jump in yeah just no you can't you cannot when you say by the way when you say the how else could we have played this vladimir putin's speech is quite a detailed and coherent analysis of the russian situation and every bit of it is wrong he should not the president of the United States, whether he does anything in the military realm or not,

and it's clear now that he won't, should at a minimum push back publicly rejecting the premises of Vladimir Putin's speech. The idea that the end of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe and that it damaged Russia is nonsense. And Obama should say so and give heart to those few liberals in Russia who are trying

to find some ground on which to oppose Vladimir Putin. It didn't damage Russia. It gave Russia an opening. It wasn't a catastrophe. It was a liberation of tens of millions of people. You can't let them have this fantasy that they've created in their mind. It's now, it stretches across seven time zones. All for centuries while they've been worrying about encirclement, what they've been doing is gobbling one huge piece of territory after another.

You can't let them have that, that argument. But you can argue that it changed things in a way that was strategically complicated but not – I mean it wasn't a disaster. There's not always a disaster and a happy ending to everything. There are always consequences. Everything has consequences and these are the consequences of that. There are consequences of victory. There are consequences of victory. There are consequences of good things. And the consequences are that there's no Warsaw Pact and there's a NATO and that a lot of these ex-Soviet areas or republics want to join NATO, which is perfectly legitimate. But it's going to cause trouble no matter how you look at it and whether – I don't think that was avoidable.

But I think that it is in retrospect probably anticipatable. I agree with you there. I agree with you there. I agree with you there. I just don't believe you should let Vladimir Putin permit to state unchallenged these lunatic premises that Russia, which still stretches across seven time zones, that Russia has been abused, that we've been cutting deals behind his back, that somehow or other we have aggressive design. It's nonsense. It is nonsense. It's crazy. And the president of the United States should say so.

Yes, the president of the United States should say so. But it's not justifying their actions to say when Ukraine makes steps to join NATO, there's going to be a reaction in the Kremlin. There will be, yes. I mean it's very easy to see that coming. I mean unknowingly. Yeah, it is. The Russian psychology and how they perceive this stuff. Yeah, again, and I'll go with Peter here.

That is the Russian psychology. Boo-hoo. I'm so sorry. If you don't want formally captive nations to join the other side, then maybe you better not starve 10 million of them to death while you happen to have them within the confines of your supposed Soviet – It's not justifying it. It's not justifying it, but it is a fact. And so if you decide you don't want to accept that or it makes you mad or you're going to be so mad about Stalin, that's fine. But then you can't turn around when he invades Crimea and say, you've got to stop that. You have to accept the world as it's given in a geopolitical way.

And I'm not saying that they were right to do it or they have justification for do it or they're not evil monsters. Of course they are. But they are also a large country run by a psychotic event on expansionism. And we have to have a policy for it that is not as naive nor does not resort to sort of like you're bad because of Stalin. I agree completely. They have guns and nuclear missiles pointed at us. They demand attention. They just do and to say

they don't is just as childish as to say I'm not saying they don't. We're screaming at each other. We agree completely. Exactly. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying sorry we're screaming at each other. We agree completely. Exactly. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying, sorry, I did agreement. I guess I'm not exactly going to play. I do many conversations. I remember from college where people had to tell me all the horrible things that the Soviet Union went through in World War Two. Well, yes. So that just because you understand that point of psychology doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have any

sympathy with it. And I don't think that you're having sympathy with it, Rob. Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry. All I would do is frankly just go to the Baltic republics and give them all one nuclear weapon on the house, if you will. Well, that's a very – there you have – I think there you have nailed the great failure, probably the original ultimate ultimate mistake, right? A feckless, cowardly, naive and unforgivable mistake of this most naive, feckless president. In the early days of his administration, he rescinded the deal we had made with the Poles to arm them. Well, just because, for example,

the Soviet Union itself may be dead doesn't mean that its reanimated corpse can't cause problems, which does bring us to Michael's book, which is not about political zombies, but actual zombies themselves. Michael, I bore with gritted teeth the vampire popularity of a few years ago

because I can't stand them. They're annoying creatures. Zombies, a little less annoying and all over the culture and the only real iteration of that that I can stomach and that's the word to use here is Walking Dead,

which is an interesting show. You've written a novel on zombies now as if the genre itself wasn't completely played out and I'm going to ask you to defend yourself here. You're on trial.

What you've brought new to this. Your book is called, what again? Reanimated? Resurrection. Resurrection. I'm sorry. Go. Well, I am in pretty much agreement with you about the state of the genre. I don't think it's played out. I think it's mostly just a terrible genre. And really because there's the state of the genre. I don't think it's played out. I think it's mostly just a terrible genre.

And really because there's two kinds of zombie stories. Most of them belong in the horror genre, which basically is a bunch of reanimated corpses eating each other until the end. And those stories, in my opinion, are really stupid and not interesting.

And they're all pretty much the same. There are a couple of them, The Walking Dead being one, and the other being World War Z, and I'm talking about the book here, not the movie, which could be more accurately described as post-apocalyptic science fiction, which places an emphasis on characters and ideas

rather than gore and the zombies themselves. And mine is not a horror novel. It's post-apocalyptic science fiction it's character driven and it it it's about ideas and how how people not only trying to survive but how to behave as civilized people in a world where civilization has been completely annihilated it's not really about the zombies the zombies are just the way to blow up the world and i don't think that's played out at all because hardly anybody who writes in this genre deals with this stuff yeah i don't want to give away i don't want to give away plot details

because i've got a bunch of stuff that i've not seen done before in this genre so there's that but i don't want to tell you what those things are because i don't want to ruin it for anybody who hasn't read it who does want to read it there you go uh now but don't you to tell you what those things are because I don't want to ruin it for anybody who hasn't read it who does want to read it. There you go. But don't you think that there's more awareness now of the kind of spread of contagion or just the fact that we're all collected in these cities? I mean every time – I mean I live in LA. We've had about a bunch of little earthquakes following a big earthquake, and then we had a month later we had another big earthquake, and then we had a bunch of little earthquakes. And everybody I know is saying things like we're two, we are two steps from the Walking Dead out here. Dad, people react that way.

I mean how do you think people on Staten Island felt when Hurricane Sandy slammed into the place? Probably a lot like The Walking Dead minus the zombies. I mean otherwise it was pretty much the same kind of scenario. And Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans. Yeah, right. I mean these sorts of environments minus the zombies actually happen in cities in America right now. I would note, however, that the key phrase is minus the zombies. Sure. That does tend to change the equation of things.

When you look back, it will be interesting to see how social cultural historians regard this version of zombieism in the media. Because in the 70s, for example, we had different kinds of zombies. Omega Man had zombies, but they weren't really zombie zombies if you recall. The book on which that was based, I Am Legend, right? When they remade it with Will Smith, lots of zombies and fast zombies and photosensitive fast zombies. Yes. They were like zombie vampires. Weren't they kind of a weird fusion of both they they were in a mega man however um they were sort of pasty faced um uh well they were led by a former television anchor which tells you something um who was going to purify the world of all the evil technology which was whole that and

sort of green were all part of these mankind as a pestilence on the earth. And the zombies are just a manifestation of that pestilence. I I'm with you, Michael. I like the idea of a book that shows how you maintain your humanity when humanity itself has descended into the feral mess. All right, then that's the book.

If you like the genre or if you like Michael Todd, or if you like post-apocalyptic science fiction, you ought to go out and get it. And you can find the link at Ricochet. Thanks for being with us. Thanks for listening to us shout at each other after you've made a perfectly reasonable assertion.

We do. We'll talk to you later. Thanks. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Michael. Bye-bye. And now continuing our string of Michaels, we have Senator Mike Lee, elected in 2010 as Utah's 16th senator. He graduated from Brigham Young with a Bachelor of Science in political science and served as BYU's student body president in his senior year. Graduated from BYU's law school in 97, went on to serve as a law clerk to Judge D. Benson

of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, and then with future Supreme Court Justice Judge Samuel Alito. Lee and his wife Sharon live in Alpine, Utah, with their three children, and we welcome him to this, the Ricochet Podcast. Hello. Alito. Lee and his wife, Sharon, live in Alpine, Utah, with their three children, and we welcome him to this, the Ricochet podcast. Hello. Senator, welcome. Senator. Thank you very much. It's good to be with you. Peter Robinson here. We have news for you, Senator, direct from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. As of yesterday, seven million people have signed up for Obamacare. And Rachel Maddow now instructs us that it's over. There is no debate to be had. There are no more stories to be written. Obamacare

is here to stay. Senator, what do you think? Well, that's definitely news. That's certainly news to me. You know, whether or not it's here to stay really is up to the American people. But what I'm seeing so far, what I'm hearing from a lot of people is that regardless of how many people have signed up, we have to look at the impact that it's having on the American people and on the American economy. What it's done is to make health care less affordable, more expensive, and more complicated. It's taken decisions away from American families and their doctors, and it's put it in the hands of Washington, D.C. bureaucrats. It's not really how we like to do things. And so I think she's

celebrating prematurely, and I also think that time will prove her wrong on this. Senator, go ahead. Senator Lee, yeah, James Lalix here in Minneapolis. One of the things, of course, that people are looking at when it comes to Obamacare is the way that we're having this argument about whether or not employers are going to be able to force their religious views on the bodies of their employees. That's how the opposition is always placing and framing this issue, which is preposterous. The Hobby Lobby case, up for debate. Discuss your feelings on where it's going to go. First of all, I'd have to respond to the characterization that some are making about this being about employers forcing anything on their employees. That's not at all what it's about. Nor is this about anyone having access to prescription drugs or to birth control of any kind. That's not what it's about. No one is challenging, no one is questioning whether or not Americans ought to

be able to make those decisions themselves. All that's at issue here is whether or not the government should be telling employers that they have to violate their own religious beliefs in order to provide something to someone that violates the employer's sincerely held religious convictions. I think that the Supreme Court will see it that vote of 5-4, maybe by a vote of 6-3, will end up concluding that this rule put forward by the Obama administration runs afoul of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We'll see for sure sometime between now and the end of June, but that's what I'm predicting is a victory for those who say we don't want to be forced by the federal government to violate our religious freedom. Let me follow up on that. That characterization that I made at the start of that, which is preposterous, nevertheless seems to be the way the left is seeing this. Is this because of their inability to comprehend the idea of religious liberty? Or is this because they find this a convenient way to contort the issue and convince the electorate that business once again is doing nefarious things? Do they really believe

that that's what is the issue here? You know, there may be some out there who actually do believe that. If they do believe that, then I'm going to take every opportunity to disabuse them of that mistaken belief, because it is mistaken. Who knows? Maybe there are some out there who actually know that to be false and are saying it anyway. And if that is the case, I think that's appalling. Anyone who would knowingly mislead the American people by mischaracterizing what's happened really should be ashamed of themselves. But yeah, I think it's probably a combination of the two. I think some of them probably understand the reality of it, but find this too tempting, too convenient a messaging position to avoid doing it. But I

think that's wrong because it's just not at all true. This is about whether or not the federal government should force an employer to violate his or her sincerely held religious convictions. And, you know, the American people are always going to be on the side of answering that question in the negative. The government shouldn't tell people that they have to violate their beliefs. Hey, Senator, it's Rob Long in Los Angeles. Welcome. Thanks for coming. Thank you. This week, Nate Silver posted on his website FiveThirtyEight that he now believes the Senate has a 60 percent chance of going Republican in the midterms.

Did you read that? Do you guys talk about that? I'm sort of wondering more if after the, when you sort of gather in the morning, the lonely Republicans in the Senate, you kind of look at each other and think, we may not be lonely come next year. Is there a sense? I agree with that assessment. I think he's got it about right. I think I would put it at about a 60 percent probability that we will to pick up about six or seven seats, possibly more. But I think that we're going to capture a majority of this year. And so then what are you going to do first? That first morning you show up and everybody gets their new offices, and I assume Harry Reid gets some tiny little broom closet somewhere. Do you make plans for this now? Are you keeping your powder dry?

Are you trying not to think about the future too specifically? But if you had to, what would be your top three things that you think the Republican Senate could really do that would change the direction of the country? Okay, so a couple of things. First, it is important for us not to spike the ball before we enter the end zone. That's generally considered poor form. And it is important to point out that if we do take the majority, Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Harry Reid, the minority leader, my understanding is that they would actually both stay in the same office as they have an arrangement worked out over the years. Oh, that's no good. I'm against that. The Republican leader. Well, there's one that's sort of set aside as the Republican leader's

office and the other is the Democratic leader's office. It just makes things more convenient so that they don't have to switch periodically. But, you know, part of what we're trying to message is that we as Republicans would govern differently. And I can tell you, although I don't speak for all Republican senators, one of the things that I would hope that we would focus on is this administration's abuse of executive power, the administration's consistent overreach into areas that really, constitutionally speaking, belong to Congress, belong to the legislative branch. We've got so many regulations and executive orders and other executive actions coming out almost every day. You've actually got more law being made in the

executive branch than in the legislative branch right now. And I think that's bad. We've got a number of Republican proposals, including the REINS Act, of which I'm an original co-sponsor, that's designed to require that any new major rule, any new regulation that has a significant economic impact on the country would have to be passed into law by both houses of Congress and then signed into law by the president before it could take effect. I'm certain also that one of our top priorities would be repealing and replacing Obamacare. That's a difficult lift, obviously, with the president still having two years left in office.

But we at least need to be prepared to move in that direction and persuade the country that Obamacare is a non-starter, that it needs to be repealed and replaced with something else. What's left to repeal, though? I mean, everything else has been delayed and waived. I mean, what are the things that you would actually do for Obamacare that you could run on and do? It doesn't seem like there's that much, right? The mandate. Wouldn't this be a good case for the Republicans to make? The terms of the mandate, what they're forcing insurance companies to cover and why that is affecting people's policies and leading to cancellations. That would be a good point it would seem to make to everyone.

Yes, I think so. And I think some of these policies by the administration requiring employers to do things that violate their own religious beliefs, regardless of how the Supreme Court decides this case, you know, we have to make clear that the administration can't do things like that, that it can't impose coverage mandates that violate the freedom of religion. And I think there are some fixes like that that could be brought about right away. a replacement for Obamacare, hoping that the American people would get behind that idea to the extent that perhaps we could consider urging this president to sign legislation like that. And if not, that we could make that a centerpiece for the 2016 presidential election and for the

congressional election cycle that year. There will come a time when we as Republicans will need to get behind a single Republican health care overhaul proposal. But right now we don't need one plan. We need ten. And so I'm pleased with efforts that have been made by some prominent Republicans. The House Republican Study Committee put together a plan. There's another plan that's being worked on by Senators Burr, Coburn, and Hatch. And Paul Ryan has talked about putting together his own health care reform plan. I'd like to see at least 10 of those move forward, compete in the marketplace of ideas, and eventually we'll get to one that we will conclude is the best.

Senator Peter Robinson, again, defense. We've been talking about domestic policy, defense. The Secretary of Defense has outlined the Obama budget for the next year and years beyond. It calls for reducing the army to the lowest level, around 400,000, the lowest level since 1942. We've already gone from Ronald Reagan's almost 600 ships to fewer than 200. And personnel, as opposed to actual weaponry material and so forth, personnel now costs a larger portion of the Pentagon budget than at any time. I'm not sure this is correct, but this one I'm not sure of, but I read it somewhere. Anytime since the 1920s.

So we've got retirement and health and all kinds of things that don't go – nothing against paying our people well, but it doesn't go directly to the mission of defending the republic. And yet there's almost no controversy about this as best I can see. Is it that the American people are sick of the burden of being an exceptional country in the world? I don't think it's that. And I actually think most Americans are proud of American military exceptionalism. And I think most Americans are legitimately concerned

about making sure that we maintain our military edge around the world. They don't want that to change. One of the things that has happened is that as our federal government has gotten so big, as it's started doing so many things, so many things that it was not necessarily designed to do, telling people where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it and telling Americans they have to buy health insurance, not just any health insurance, but that kind that Congress in its infinite wisdom deems necessary for every American to purchase under penalty of federal law. When we do things like that, we distract time and attention

and resources away from those things that we are uniquely equipped to do and that we are unambiguously constitutionally authorized to perform. And so I think one of our areas of focus has to be on getting our federal government focused back on what it was designed to do in the first place and to see to it that we do those things extraordinarily well. Senator, it's Rob Longhand. I remember a few years ago you and Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul proposed a plan to extend the solvency of Social Security. And what was interesting to me about that is that three very different senators, all Republicans, but come from different sort of wings and communities in the Republican Party,

came together to do something important. And one of the things that Ricochet listeners and sort of conservative listeners around the country worry about is that a lot of these new senators will come from states or be kind of blue-ish senators and be sort of go-along, get-along Republicans or rhinos or whatever that term is. You, of course, are not one of those. How are you – how do you plan to work with more moderate Republicans who come from – maybe have a tighter, more purple state than Utah, maybe even a red – even a blue state sometimes Sometimes they sneak in. I mean, is that something you think about, something you worry about? Is it something that you can't wait to do? Speaking as a conservative senator from a conservative state,

how much can you really get done with Republican senators from New Hampshire or New England or places that are a little bit more purple? It is something I think about, along with the fact that there is within any political party a natural tension that tends to exist between that party's political base and that party's sort of senior elected leadership. That really can be found in any party at almost any time. It's a tension that exists within the Republican Party right now, certainly, and many people are noticing it. I think right now that tension has created something of a gap within the Republican Party that needs to be filled. And I think the best way to fill it is with a conservative reform agenda, one that is comprehensive and one that is undeniably conservative in its approach, but one that also can help us expand our tent, so to speak, one that focuses on improving the opportunities available to all Americans, especially the poor and the middle class. And so this is the kind of effort that you just described that really brings those principles into play. And I think the more we can do to send the signal that we are conservative

and Republican, not in spite of our compassion, but because we are compassionate, the better off we're going to be as a party. We'll need to do that in bold colors and bold strokes, nothing apologetic, nothing that waters down our conservative message. But nonetheless, we need to do it in a way that will help America's poor and middle class. And I think the more we can do that, the better off we're going to be as a party and as a country. Senator, Peter Robinson here with the last question. We know you've got to go. Pete Wilson, major figure here in the Republican Party in California, mayor of San Diego, member of the United States Senate, governor of California.

And Rob and I both know Pete Wilson. He's a lovely man. He just turned 80. But I was talking with him about his career once, and he said, you know, the truth about the Senate is that it's boring. By comparison with being mayor of San Diego and by comparison with being governor of California, it was just boring. You couldn't get anything done, committee meeting after committee meeting. Senator, you've been there two years. Are you having fun? Yes, I am having fun. And, you know, look, I would describe this place in a lot of ways. I would not describe it as boring. So my experience has not been

what Mr. Wilson's was in that respect. But then again, hey, I'm just a small town kid from Utah. I'm easily entertained. I find the place exciting. I find it fascinating. I find it very entertaining. But more than anything, I find it very rewarding to work on issues that are important to many Americans. And it is a lot of things. It can be frustrating at times, but it's definitely not boring. Not for me. Well, glad to hear it, and thank you for your service, sir. And thank you for being on the podcast today, Senator Lee, and we hope to talk to you down the road. Good day. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Senator. Thanks a lot. Well, it can't be boring in the Senate if you have Harry Reid standing up there and fulminating about the Koch brothers and apparently losing what mind that he had in an endless rhetorical jihad against this to gin up hatred amongst the American people. These are to read. This is a duopoly of malevolence, the likes of which the nation has never seen and from which it may not recover unless they are stopped dead in their track. The greatest threat to America is the Koch brothers, not Iran. As a matter of fact, he would give you the craziest look possible if you suggested that

Mueller is trying to lob an EMP over the country might be more. Right. Because those are the people actually, if they hate us and they're dangerous and they want to do something to us, those are the people that we have to get along with and learn and understand and accommodate and drop the sanctions and talk down. Because as long as you're talking, it's always better than war war. This is nonsense really. You're dancing with the devil when you do that and that's the title of Michael Rubin's new book, Dancing with the Devil, the Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes.

Wow. I was actually going to start talking. I forgot that you're doing – I forgot that you're doing a segue. Well, time is short and we can't really wind through the labyrinth for this one. We just got a jam. I was going to talk about the Koch brothers and stuff. It was great. I was totally sucked in.

Well, in a second, we'll get there. Carry on. Don't let me interrupt. Carry on. I just had to go from first to fourth gear as quickly as possible. No, no. You did a brilliant job, by the way. You completely got me into it.

I mean, I was like, wow, this is interesting. Bracey's of the book is such. The world has never been as dangerous as it is now, says the description of the book. Rogue regimes, which are governments and groups that issue diplomatic normality, sponsor terrorism and proliferate nuclear weapons, challenge the U.S. around the globe. And our response has been to talk, talk, talk, talk. And the theory that it never hurts to talk. Well, seldom is that conventional wisdom so wrong, as Rubin points out. While it's true that sanctions and military force come at high costs, case studies examining the history of American diplomacy with North Korea,

Iran, Iraq, Libya, the Taliban, Afghanistan, all those wonderful guys, LA and Pakistan, too, demonstrates that problems, both with strategies that don't make engagement with rogue regimes a cost-free option. So, these regimes have one thing in common. They pretend to be aggrieved in order to put Western diplomats on the defensive. And, you know, we go along with it. Whether Pyongyang or Tehran or Islamabad, rogue leaders understand that the West rewards bluster with incentives. Dandy. And that for the State Department, the process of holding talks is often deemed more important than the results.

If this sounds like something you'd like to read, and of course I don't know why you wouldn't, you will go to Encounter Books and you'll enter the coupon code RICOSHET and you'll get 15% off Michael Rubin's book Dancing with the Devil, The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes. Buy it and thank Encounter for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. If the Koch brothers, yes. If they didn't, to change the

aphorism, if they didn't exist, they would have to prevent them. I talked to John Fedoras yesterday on the podcast and he had a very good point which is that nobody cares that this is just dog whistle to democratic donors who believe that the you know coke brothers are very very useful uh fundraising red meat uh and harry reid is fighting for his political life so um i mean it has no impact on americans they just it glides right through them but it you are probably 200, 300, 400, maybe 1,000 Democratic donors for whom it inspires them to get out their checkbook, which they have to do.

I mean what I think is interesting is just how – I mean I would like to have a voice print of all the senators we've had on, and it's a lot, since about a year, since it's looking like there's a good chance that the Republicans will get the Senate back. And just compare it to the voiceprint of the senators we had before that. And I think that you're going to be able to detect some kind of psychoanalysis here and there, a mood upswing. You got it. That is not attributable to pharmaceuticals but a mood upswing. You got it. That is not attributable to pharmaceuticals but a mood upswing. And I love that – and Senator Hoeven two weeks ago, three weeks ago and Senator Lee, they're both like, we are not celebrating. There's nothing. We're nothing.

But you can kind of hear them. They're like, damn, it could get really fun here in about nine months. Hey, by the way, uh, we got everything of Senator Lee just now, except his sense of humor. When I was in his, in the heart off Senate office building, what was this two months ago to interview him for uncommon knowledge?

I noticed this, his suite of offices was right next to those of a certain Senator from Massachusetts. And I said, Senator, I, I see you share a wall with Elizabeth Warren. And he immediately said, don't worry.

I've had a layer of kryptonite installed. Nice comeback. Nice comeback. By the way, speaking of the Senate, here's my segue. How's that for crude? James, why aren't you running? Maybe it's not too late. Maybe you can start your campaign today.

Why aren't you running against Al Franken's not too late. Maybe you can start your campaign today. Why aren't you running against Al Franken? That's a really good question. Isn't it though? I never thought of that. That's a really good question. It gives me – Lyle, what's that? I just have to do a lurch here.

No, I'd have to quit my job for one thing and I don't want to quit my job. For heaven's sakes, our paper just got bought by somebody who wants to make a, who wants to use it to make more money, which I like. And it's a good time to be at the paper and I want to stay there. So why would I want to give up the life that I lead and have to go to Washington DC again to live? No, that would just completely upend everything. And plus the, I just, there's nothing about politics that appeals to me whatsoever. I had one brief little example of elected office when I ran for, in my neighborhood, a position on a little board that dispersed public money. They got all this tax money from various businesses downtown and they used it on something called Neighborhood Revitalization

Project, where they would give a million here, $700,000 here to various neighborhoods. And you had to come up with a strategy for spending this money. It wasn't that you said, we have a problem, we need X amount. They said, here's the money, figure out how to spend it. So I was involved in this steering committee that had to come up with the process by which the process to identify how we would spend it would be eventually identified. Surveys about what kind of survey you would like to see. Response mailers to people about what the survey that you said about the survey you would like to say said, and so on, and so on. And it was all about process, and it was excruciating.

No, they have staff for that. I understand. And I did actually get some things done. There is a, My big push was to put security phones in the dark part of the woods by the creek so that if somebody is jogging late at night and they don't feel particularly safe,

they can go to the blue light and they can dial 911 and boom, the cops show up. And every time I see that thing, I look at that and say, hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm. Thank you very much. Oh, you're welcome. You're welcome. But it was gruesome. And also the amount of toadying and hypocrisy and smiling and bowing.

Wait a minute. I see you at National Review cruises or at the Ricochet meetup, and you're affable and friendly. Yes. You look really back-slapper. I mean I wouldn't go as far as Peter would say. I would say that you're probably a dignified Midwestern politician with the right amount of gregariousness and the right amount of dignity and the right amount of political calculation. I don't see why. I'm actually like –

Because you can't bark that's nonsense, that's cod swaddle at somebody in a meeting. You can't? You have to – that's codswabble at somebody in a meeting. You can't? You have to – You could in a debate with Al Franken. By the way, I'm not even suggesting that you win. I'm not even – Now you have a lose. Maybe you should throw the race.

I want you to lose. I want you to win. I'm talking about entertainment value here. I don't know. I think you should run and win. I think you could. No. Thank you very much for that.

But the last time somebody actually ginned up a couple of fake stickers about that, I got in such trouble with the national news service that I was writing for at the time that I got a sternly worded letter from the editor saying you either have to clarify this or you have to quit your job. So thanks. You have to quit your job anyway. Thank you, but no. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry about that. Sorry, it's not going to happen. No, we'll have to just go back to letting the Koch brothers defend themselves. And speaking of which, to go back to those wonderful guys, I always wonder – I never hear anybody personally in my circle condemn them. But if they do, you want to ask them specifically what is it about their positions that you hate?

Is it David Koch supporting gay marriage? Is it them wanting to liberalize pot laws? Are these things that you just don't like? It brings to mind – That's what's amazing about this, right? Forever, all you've heard from moderate-ish to liberal democrats is, you know, I look at this and I understand your economic arguments. They make a certain amount of sense. I disagree with them in certain ways.

But I don't agree with your social positions. Always that. Always that. Hey, listen. I'd vote for – every progressive Democrat says something like, hey, I'm fiscally very conservative. But I'm socially very liberal. Well, here you have the two perfect specimens for that kind of republicanism, that kind of conservatism, and all they are is demonized. I mean Jerry Falwell got better press. I know.

And it's interesting. But you do make a point. I think they give far too much money to Lincoln Center. Yeah, well. Well, that's another thing. It is very lefty, frankly. Supporting the arts, building wings of hospitals, all of these things.

It can't just come down to the fact that their money comes from evil carbon. It's got to be that they support Alec. They're part of a devious tentacular network that's out to do something to Americans. We're not quite sure. But they stand in the way of utopia. Another person who stands in the way of utopia. a devious tentacular network that's out to do something to Americans. We're not quite sure. But they stand in the way of utopia.

Another person who stands in the way of utopia. Before we leave the Kochs, it is important. You remember the whole notion of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's novel. Right. Which was that the capitalists should effectively take their toys and go home. Just stop making the things that they made. You know, the Koch brothers are the major manufacturer in North America of toilet paper. Yes. We would miss them in a hurry. I would just like to note that. Go right ahead, James.

Well, not really. You know, the old sponge on a stick is much more sustainable, I suppose, that being one of the key words. Whenever I see sustainable in any piece and it's not surrounded by quote marks, I know what I'm dealing with. There's a piece of my paper today about how Minnesota, Minneapolis is doing very poorly when it comes to containing sprawl. Now containing sprawl means not growing. And the term sprawl, if it doesn't come in quote marks, is telling you that the author has bought in completely to the idea that cities that actually grow and provide lots for people in places they want to live at the expense of a longer commute, we got to do

something about this james forgive me but that doesn't even that doesn't even come not what you're saying but what the news sprawl it's minnesota i know what i mean there are millions of acres of not much taking place isn't that right or is, wow. Is that just a terrible – It's a great way. That's a great way. Perfect example of a coastism, Peter. Millions of acres. It's flat out there, right? No, no, no.

I actually am making a point. For example, in Texas, you take any city in Texas, Austin. Houston, of course, is close to the shore. But any city, even Houston except for 60 degrees of the 360, and you drive from the center of town in any direction, and within half an hour, at the very most, you are in open country. And that is one reason Texas is a relatively affordable place. They build houses. Land is relatively inexpensive in Texas. There's room to expand, and they expand happily. There are two biggest cities in Texas. Dallas and Houston have thriving

downtowns in a lot of ways. Maybe researching thriving downtowns. There's no reason to have that, but the way you get a thriving downtown isn't to contain sprawl. It's to make downtown, the interior of the city, attractive for entrepreneurs and businesses. That's how you do it.

Why shouldn't Minnesota be this? I mean, there's plenty of room to expand. Minneapolis has a lovely-looking downtown for sure. What about the business climate? What about making it attractive to people more than just targets, say? James, come on. Get on this. You must run against Al Franken.

Senator Lilac. Here's the drill. When it comes to sprawl, what they hate is the fact that people move out of the city because they want to and go to some place where the schools are better and they can escape the horrible diversity. They always feel that that's what people are fleeing. Ooh, icky. There are people of a different hue next to me. It's not that at all. They want a yard. They want a larger house. They want a smaller tax burden. These are rational responses that people make. Unfortunately, we have subsidized their ability to do so by building roads to the places that people want to go. So what we have to do then is put light rail everywhere and preferably bike lanes next to that, which of course are used three or four months out of the year, but that's a whole different issue. So when you have the opportunity for people to leave, people sometimes take the opportunity and go, but they're also coming back to the city in huge

numbers. Minneapolis is doing well and adding people downtown because downtown is an interesting place now. And there are developments going up all over the place. You wouldn't believe it. Every week I open the paper, another 15 to 20-story apartment building or condo is being proposed for downtown. Lots of people are moving in. This is good.

And they're doing it of their own choice, not because land has been limited, not because a wall has been built around the city, but because the amenities and the safety and the convenience are things that combine to make it attractive. Now, are they all 20-something symbolic managers without children? A lot of them are. And this article about Sproul said, we have to figure out how to make downtown work for these people so that the patterns of suburban disbursement aren't repeated in the future. God forbid that these people might want to go for the whole picket fence out in the burbs. We can't have that. It's the sort of purse-lipped lemony social engineering at its absolute worst.

Listen, I live in the city. Yeah, you're a city boy. My house may not be typical because the lot is a little bit larger, but all of my friends who are rock-ribbed and red as they come in the modern sense of being Republicans all live in the city. They grew up here. They love

it. They wouldn't go anyplace else. I would even go farther than that. I would say that if you look at if you want to look at the losses of the Republican Party with a different lens, right now we look at – if you want to look at our – the losses of the Republican Party with a different lens, right? Right now, we look at it entirely from a demographic lens or an age cohort lens, right? We lose young people, although they're coming back a little bit. We're losing these demographic – these ethnic groups. If you look at it from another group,

another way, you could say we're losing cities and we should we need to get the cities back because cities are important and cities are valuable and uh you know one of the things i'm not a complete bore on but i think would be a major major coup for the republican parties we had our national convention in detroit and said this is this is what liberalism is this is what this is where it ends and we're here to stop it. We think Detroit, we think these cities are beautiful and incredible places that should be in Tampa or something. But to me, that would make sense and getting the cities back and talking about cities and the value of cities is a way of connecting with city dwellers who traditionally don't think Republican but should. Lylex for Senate, campaign manager Rob Long. I myself have one contribution to offer which is

that it is true, James. Your house is a big, beautiful old house. It's on a slightly larger lot. I think you can weather all of that, but you are going to have to get rid of the gazebo. That's sort of Koch brotherish, don't you think, Rob? That seems a little – yeah, I think you got to get rid of that. $229 from Target? I beg to differ. No, I think – I mean as your media consultant, I just don't know if that's an image that – well, I'd to differ. No, I think – Actually, I mean as your

media consultant, I just don't know if that's an image that – well, I'd have to look at the demographics, but I would rather see you as a sleeves rolled up kind of city kid with your family and I think that you could – you'd bridge the gap between

a more rural part of the state and the more urban part of the state. I can see that. Well, the rural part of the state and the more urban part of the state. I can see that. Well, the rural part of the state is nothing but farmers. What do I want to go talk to them for? Well, we can have you. You can stand in front of a farm. They didn't even go to law school.

No, that's what we're going to – that's your campaign slogan, James Lilacs. He did not go to law school. Yeah, but his wife did, which is part of the things that helps finance his lavish, indolent lifestyle. No, here's the drill. I mean where I live right now, for example, would have been considered to be sprawl if these guys had been around 100 years ago. Because when they built this neighborhood and laid it out, it was supposed to be for the plutocrats who wanted to escape the malarial air of the inner city and move to the open countryside. It didn't sell because there was a panic. I think it was the tin panic of 1892

or something that put the country in depression for three years. It didn't sell. Chopped up the lots a little bit smaller and when they ran the streetcar line out this far, all of a sudden it began to populate. But before then, this was the distant, or Iberia, you know, beyond here be dragons. Now it is safely seen as being gathered within the arms of the city because definitions of what is sprawl and what is city and what is urban change over and over and over again.

The idea of presenting two options of having, yes, a thriving suburban ring and, yes, having a thriving inner city seem to be working against each other, which is just absolutely, that's not how you create a whole thriving, breathing city. Rob is right though. Detroit would be a great example. And just try and have all these videos with Public Image Limited and Johnny Rotten singing one of their songs, this is what you want, this is what you get.

This is what you want, this is what you get. It's a very dark song, but it's apt. Now, somebody in Ricochet pointed out, and I think it may have been Rob, actually, that Detroit is starting to repopulate because they – It was not me. It wasn't? Okay. That actually people are starting to come back to it because in its absolute destitution, there are bargains and you can go places where actually it's free territory. I mean the government has just given up on providing services or light or water or power, the rest of it, and people are filling it. That's not exactly the sort of post-apocalyptic landscape I like.

But no, show Detroit as a great, great tragedy of American urbanism. And something that can be avoided and something that should be avoided, something we have a plan to avoid. And also just grapple with the real world. It would be useful for independents and persuadables to see a Republican Party with two hands grabbing something that's real and hard and saying, OK, give us a chance. We'll try to fix this. That would be energizing I think. And you do it by standing back. You do it by letting people do what they do. By taking your hands off the parking brake and the dead man switch of the government.

There was a piece in Slate the other day, I can't remember who wrote it, but it caused enormous concern because the guy said, look, I'm childless and I think we should raise taxes on childless people like me so we can drop them on parents because parents have a harder job. And after about 25,000 comments, you probably got the idea that there's a whole bunch of people out there who would rather tinker with the tax policy to do this instead or tinker with the tax policy to do that instead. If we stand up and say, we're just going to drop the tax rate down to 17% for everybody, fill it in on a postcard and let everything boom. Make that argument. At least start making the argument. So 10, 15, 20 years down the road, it will percolate.

Just like every other thing that we look around now and see different from when we were growing up, it didn't happen overnight. And what we want isn't going to happen overnight. Derelict, decrepit, crime-infested, falling apart, not working, poverty-stricken city in America is run by Democrats. Well, that's just an absolute and total coincidence. But that's – if you're making a political argument, you want to go to where the guy is weak. Defend yourself, Democrats democrats because of this defend yourself and then they can't be very hard for them to do so and you know be on the attack if you're attacking yeah well then they would just hold their convention at some place where they can point to a chick-fil-a and say see see how what these people they hobby lobby they eat chick-fil-a

and they use firefox well that's another topic for another show. Thanks, folks, for listening to this, the Ricochet Podcast. Thanks to Peter Robinson and Rob Long, of course. Thanks to Encounter Books for sponsoring this. Go there. Coupon code Ricochet. 15% off. You know the drill. And if you're just listening to this and you haven't ponied up yet, what a deal.

Five bucks a month. $40 a year. Join, join, join us. Join us. Come join us. And us. Come join us. And be one of the fold. Join the growing Ricochet family. Guys, thanks.

We'll see everybody in the comments. Next week. Another head hangs lowly Child will slowly take care And the violence calls it silence Who are we mistaken? The violence causes silence. Who are we mistaken? But you see, it's not me. It's not my family. In your head, in your head, they're fighting.

With their tanks and their bombs And their bombs and their guns In your head, in your head Yeah, I cry, yeah In your head, in your head Zombie, zombie, zombie What's in your head? Ricochet. Join the conversation. Another mother's breaking heart is taking over. When the violence causes silence, we must be mistaken. It's the same old team since 1916.

In your head, in your head, they're still fighting. With their tanks and their bombs and their bombs and their guns. In your head, in your head, they're dying. In your head, in your head. Zombie, zombie, zombie. What's in your head, in your head. Zombie, zombie, zombie. I'm out.