The Ricochet Podcast - One Never Knows, Does One?

Episode Date: December 8, 2017

This week, a run through Jerusalem with the Washington Free Beacon’s Matt Continetti and then back home to Alabama guided by the Wall Street Journal’s Bill McGurn. Also, Lileks on Franken and what’s next for Minnesota, Peter Robinson goes for a ride on the Orient Express, and what do they call a Quarter Pounder on Vulcan? Tune in to find out. Music from this week’s episode: One Never Knows... Source

We have special news for you. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Are you going to send me or anybody that I know to a camp? We have people that are stupid. What do they call it? They call it the Royale with cheese. Royale with cheese. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson. I'm James Lilacs and our guests today are Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon and Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal. Let's have ourselves a podcast. Bye-bye. Welcome, everybody, to this, the Ricochet Podcast. It's number 381, and it's brought to you by the fine people at Blinkist. The world's most successful people have one thing in common, and it's not IQ.

They're hungry for knowledge. They continuously seek self-improvement, and they're reading and learning every chance they get. And we're brought to you by Donors Trust. Donors Trust is the community foundation for the liberty movement. If you want to support groups committed to limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise with your charitable giving, you should learn how Donors Trust can simplify your giving. Go to DonorsTrust.org slash Ricochet right now

to get your free investing in liberty guide. And we're brought to you by Texture. You know, why subscribe to just a couple of magazines when you can have all of your favorites on your smartphone or your tablet all the time for way less money, right? With texture, you get access to dozens for one low price.

Now, right now, texture is offering ricochet listeners a 14 day free trial. When you go to texture.com slash ricochet, and we're brought to you by ricochet itself. Peter, tell them about it. Ricochet.

Ricochet.com is a site. Well, let's put it this way. I had a conversation a couple of years ago with a Nobel Prize winner in economics, Mike Spence, former dean of the business school here at Stanford. And Mike Spence said to me, you know, the problem with the internet is the comments. No one seems to be able to figure out how to produce civilized conversation. And I said, well, Mike, we at Ricochet charge people a little bit for a monthly membership, and that gives us the right to impose very minimal but still rigorous rules of conduct. So if people misbehave, they're gone. And what that means is that people don't misbehave and

that the comments are civilized. And a Nobel Prize winner said to me, brilliant. So there you have it. Ricochet, conservative conversation, which is civilized even when we disagree, which is every single day about at least two or three items. It's fun. It's informative. It's a community. No, it's about five or six items, Peter. I'm going to have to disagree with you. Every hour? But in a civil fashion. Well, yeah, that's basically it. If you want to read comments about Hitler and dump elsewhere, there's plenty of places on the Internet for that, but not a ricochet.

You know how you have those words that some people will use in a conversation that just sort of tell you right now, oh, thank you for using that word. I don't have to take you seriously anymore. The code of conduct weeds that stuff out so you just don't find the irritating shorthands you do elsewhere in the web. You got to read. You have to think. And then you have to reply. We're all one big happy family. Like Minnesota itself bound together in this wonderful moment of togetherness that we have right now.

As Garrison Keillor and Al Franken are expelled togetherness, good lord, it split the state. You wouldn't believe how angry people are about this. People are still angry about Keillor, and there are people who are angry that Al Franken was pushed out for doing essentially what they believe to be nothing of significance. They consider him to be the lion of the Senate, and we've lost a great voice. Okay, hold on. So you're a journalist, you're in Minneapolis. I'm going to just ask you questions about what's going on. Al Franken isn't gone.

He said he would resign, I believe the phrase was, in the coming weeks. Right. So at a time of his choosing, what's he going to choose it for? I don't know. Leverage over the governor the your governor democratic governor mark dayton now has to appoint al franken's successor does franken want to have a say in who the successor is what's going on here do you have any idea james well from what i can gather dayton is something and you know i i'm not steeped in dfl politics like the people who follow this uh it's it's to me it's always been something of a madhouse and i

get i get i get sidetracked questioning why they believe what they believe. I mean, this morning when I was- Hold on. You have to explain DFL. Democratic Farmer Labor. It's what the liberal party is in here. It goes back to our old agrarian and union- This is what I love. The states, we get the feeling that the states have become homogenized and there's no real difference that nope not true no you Minnesota for example is just plain Minnesota it ain't anything like Wisconsin it's still less like Michigan or okay democratic and nothing like what's the f stand for again uh democratic farmer labor got it okay go ahead and nothing like North

Dakota too might I add which is very. When you cross the border between Minnesota and North Dakota, you see the stark, the differences in tax policy right there. One side booms, the other withers. So here in Minnesota, Mark Dayton is a bit of an odd duck, and I don't think that he's not a party machine kind of guy. So they may want – this is as I'm gathering the information from my coworkers and such, an observation. They may want him to appoint somebody

who will have a head start on the next election. Somebody who will be there and say, I've been working in Washington for a year now and I can do,

he apparently is less inclined to be a kingmaker and wants to put in somebody who will hold the place and then have everybody else jostle the position.

Like I say, he's a peculiar fellow, Mr. Dayton, and so it looks like the lieutenant governor is going to go, and she'll be a female, yay, and I'll make a statement, yay, and we'll have something else come along in the next special election, which is going to be interesting. Hold on, the lieutenant governor, Tina, what's her last name, James? I can't remember. Tina Fey, you've seen her on television you've not your lieutenant governor becomes the placeholder she sits in the senate until a special election is held and the governor wants to stay out of the special election and just let that happen as i gather it got it okay all right and why are people angry about franken he did what he did. He's admitted at least some of it. He's admitted he did wrong. He doesn't seem to have admitted. What are they

angry about? Well, he admitted that he did things and he regrets that they may have taken them differently than he intended them. They're angry that he was sacrificed. They're angry that they're sort of, they're angry that the Democrats, gosh, have to be so darn ethical. That's what I love about this. I was going around to my DFL and liberal friends and saying, gosh, have to be so darn ethical. That's what I love about this. I was going around to my DFL and liberal friends and saying, okay, all right, do you think Franken should have resigned? And they said, yeah, you know, given the tenor of the times, yeah, I don't like it, but I suppose. Okay, if we had a Republican governor who would appoint a Republican replacement, do you think that Al Franken should have resigned? And in every instance, the case was, no yeah there you go right so i i mean and i understand that but just don't tell me that this is another example of how the liberal side is the one with all of the ethics i mean i was going to

say james may i point out you have been disturbed understandably so that republicans large numbers of republicans in alabama are are sticking with Roy Moore for partisan reasons. And now you've just discovered that those good, refined, humane, beautifully educated liberals in Minnesota would have stuck with Al Franken for political reasons. Right. Yes. I never thought anything else of them. I mean, that's the curious distinction is that here you have people who are essentially good, decent folk who lead good, decent, upstanding lives, but nevertheless consider themselves to be good, decent folk because they support policies which rely on the coercion of the state to confiscate property. And they're in favor of abortion of untold numbers. So essentially,

power of the state and scraping out the uteruses makes me a great, humane person. And they can argue about my definitions, but that's what it comes down to. So yeah, I mean, they'll vote for these things because endless abortion is women's health and using the state to confiscate wealth is caring for the poor and the

minorities, etc. So, I mean, yeah. I mean, I sort of expect a little bit of it. Every side likes to think that we're the good guys and the other side is deluded about their own evil. But you can't tell me, I mean, you can't sit here and say, you know, they believe that we hate gays, don't want women to be in the workplace and are sexually perverse behind our, our, our protestation of Christian faith. You can't say that's what they think about us and then go and say, and they're wrong, but let's bring in the guy who thinks the gays should go to hell and women should stay

in their home and is a weird kind of Christian. I mean, so don't give them the opportunity to live up to our worst stereotypes is what I say. So what do you think from here? By the way, one more question about Minnesota. James, is Minnesota one of those states? This is often the case, but I just don't have a sense of Minnesota. Minnesota is, well, we've already said this, it's almost more itself than most other upper Midwestern states.

Is there a big divide between the cities and the rest of the state? In other words, once you leave the orbit of St. Paul, Minneapolis, and go a little deeper into Minnesota, does it become Republican country? Does it become more conservative, or is that not the state? In other words, once you leave the orbit of St. Paul, Minneapolis and go a little deeper into Minnesota, does it become Republican country? Does it become more conservative or is that not the case? It's weird. I mean, it's going to be more so in the future as the divide between the city and the rural areas. There are some rural areas, some small towns that are doing okay. They've got a factory, they make potato chips, they make dog food. They make this. And you go to these places and you don't get that awful sense you get in other places where everything's shuttered and it's nothing but the walking dead with people sticking needles in their arms behind boarded up doors. Minnesota isn't at that point yet, but there are distressed communities. And we had more

Trump surge in the last election than I would have expected, simply because there's so much in the bones, in the marrow, in the DNA socialism from Northern Europe types who came over here, the Finns, the Germans, the rest of them, that I thought it's going to be impossible to break that. But yet these are the people, this is the state that gave us Jesse Ventura, that gave us Tim Pawlenty, that has gone Republican from time to time. So I think that the next election, if they think that, oh, resistance after living with Trump, these people aren't going to possibly vote for him, I think that's mistaken. I think there's an actual chance you'll get a Republican out of the outstate. Now, whether it's sufficient to overcome the tsunami of liberalism that emanates from the cities i don't know but it's it's getting less and less old style uh socialist labor up uh outstated because what they see is all right we're gonna elect you to do good socialist labor things and then you have the government saying okay well you can't open that mine but we need the jobs you can't open the mine because of the earth but we

need the jobs earth jobs earth i mean so and and that's breaking down there i mean there are fewer and fewer people who are willing to say oh yes of course we'll all be poor and go on the dole if it helps mother earth no they want the mine they want to go to work right i would just like the record to show that even as we we we who's we in this case we on this podcast from time to time we conservatives generally even as we, we, we, who's we in this case, we on this podcast from time to time, we conservatives generally, even as we worry that certain states, Texas always gets mentioned, are moving to the left, they're becoming less and less red and more and more purple. There are, there is at least one state, the great state of Minnesota, that shows from time to time such tantalizing signs of moving in the other direction. So politics is open-ended and you never can tell. One never can tell.

One can one. Does one. Can one? One doesn't. What? What was Fats Waller's? One never knows. Does one.

Something like that. One never knows. Do one, I think. Do one. Yes. It's Knows Do One, I think. Do One. Yes. It's not coming exactly to mind right now. Well, I feel stupid for that, and I should know that. But if you don't want to feel stupid and you want to know things, you want to head yourself over to Blinkist and introduce yourself to their app.

Let me tell you about this. Blinkist has over 2,000 of the best-selling nonfiction books transformed into powerful packs you can read or listen to in just 15 minutes. Now, since you're listening to this podcast, you, of course, love to learn, right? You love to sit here and soak up and sop the wisdom that emanates from it. Well, if you want to do more of this on the go with your smartphone, imagine that you could listen to the key insights of any nonfiction book in 15 minutes. Well, with Blinkist, now you can. You can feast your mind on the key ideas from the top best-selling nonfiction books such as The Power of Habit, The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, Rich Dad, Poor Dad.

I'm about to send a daughter to college, so that's one I'm keen to look at. And many others you've heard of you've been wanting to read and you never have the time for them. Well, if you're just reading, you'll get through maybe one book a week, right? But with Blinkist app, you get through the key insights from two to three books on your way home. Blinkist gives you more knowledge in less time. That's because with Blinkist, you get big ideas in small packages. Now, learn the essential ideas from the best books in your field covering topics like productivity,

business, science, self-improvement. And you can uncover subjects you knew you never loved as well. Their team of experts is constantly curating and adding new titles from the best of list. So you know you're always getting the most powerful ideas distilled so that you can hear them in just 15 minutes or less in a made-for-mobile format. Blinkist was chosen by Apple and Google in their best of selections for two years. And the app is used by over 3 million users. Blinkist will help you to be your best by getting better informed in less time than you ever imagined possible.

Like I said, rich dad, poor dad. Is anybody who's sending a kid off to college, is that not an enticing theory, an idea you'd love to hear more about? Indeed. Well, right now, Blinkist has a special offer just for you. Go to Blinkist.com slash Ricochet right now to start your free trial

or to get three months of your yearly plan when you join today. That's Blinkist, spelled B-L-I-N-K-I-S-T. Blinkist.com slash Ricochet to start your free trial or get three months off your yearly plan. That's Blinkist.com slash Ricochet. And we thank them for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Now we bring back to the podcast Matthew Continetti, editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, of course, he was the opinion editor of the Weekly Standard,

where he still remains a contributing editor. Matt, of course, you realize that an association with the Weekly Standard means you're part of the Never Trump crowd, you're to be cast into the wilderness, and we will sneer at you from here. But before we do that, some questions about what's going on in D.C. now. Brian, New York is sort of unraveling and setting the table for us about this FBI, Mueller, Steele, dossier, Trump connection. Is this too murky and too complex for people to get, or do you think that there's something there that will be very, very clear and understandable once we learn a few more things.

Well, I don't know about clear and understandable, but I do know that the fact that there are all of these potential conflicts, both on Counsel Mueller's team and in the FBI and Justice Department more generally, means that President Trump and his legal team and his allies in Congress and his supporters in the alternative media are going to have a field day and are going to be able to kind of say, look, there's an agenda at work here and don't necessarily believe all of the things that are leaking from the Mueller investigation. So I think these details are disturbing on one hand, because it does raise the question of just, you know, to what extent are these bureaucrats trying to get the president? And then secondly, it's, I think, another arrow in President Trump's quiver as he fights these yet-to-be-proven charges of Russian collusion. Well, what's interesting is that the left and the liberal media – I hate using terms like that.

It's cheap shorthand, but you know what I mean. They're invested in the Russian narrative, and over here on the right, there's the FBI-Steele collusion thing. Each side doesn't seem to be seeing what motivates, what really stokes the fires of the other. That's the part that seems so odd about this. They're so spun up invested in this, and we have this entirely parallel different mindset going on on the right. Well, welcome to America in 2017, where none of us can really agree about anything.

You know, I have noticed, for example, Brian Stelter of CNN, whenever he refers to Fox News Channel and its coverage of the various investigations, he keeps using the phrase alternate reality. The truth is, that's another way of saying difference of opinion. And if you don't believe there's anything there to the collusion charge, then you're going to say, well, look at this other set of facts that are just as empirically true. And I think that's just as empirically true. And, and I think that's,

that's just a debate we have. So I'm a little bit less concerned about the fact that there are two different narratives going on and more interested in finding out what actually happened. And there's clear, imagine that. Yeah. I mean,

there's a lot of smoke, you know, around the Trump campaigns dealings with various Russian connected figures. But there's also some really disturbing things coming out of the Justice Department, including this agent Starzik and what exactly, whether his bias affected the investigation. I would say, too, someone that I very much respect, Andy McCarthy of NRO, he says, look, don't jump to any conclusions with this FBI agent that oftentimes agents are able to separate their political beliefs from their investigative work. And, you know, we just have

to see whether that was the case here. Matt, Peter Robinson here. You have a piece up at the Free Beacon, which you helped to found. Free Beacon, all one word, freebeacon.com. Everybody ought to go look at the Free Beacon and read your piece. The piece is called Promise Keeper. Let me quote two sentences. President Trump has no background in or admiration for the routines, manners, and norms of the U.S. Foreign Service, especially that part of it which specializes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That almost sounds as though you're setting up the president to criticize him. Here's the next sentence.

This has enabled him to state unequivocally the fact others would prefer to avoid. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, full stop. Close quote. Matt, facts first, Trump second. Jerusalem is Israel's capital full stop, and to people who've been paying attention to the history, to the facts on the ground and so forth, that's obvious, should be obvious?

Yes. So obvious to you that you can't even – that's a question very weird and confused. ambassador, sure, I woke up in Tel Aviv, but then I had to drive to Israel's capital, Jerusalem, where I met with Israeli officials, where the Knesset is located, where the government receives foreign dignitaries and emissaries. It's the capital. It's always been the capital. I mean, moreover, Israel is alone in being the only country in the world that up until this week has been unable to choose its own capital. It's amazing that everyone knows Jerusalem as the capital, and yet people don't recognize it because of this fiction called the peace process. And I think it is to President Trump's great credit that this week he finally called the bluff of the people who just refused to admit reality. Okay, so hold on. One more step before we get to the president and what he's done.

And briefly, if it's possible to do it briefly, state the best argument you can for opposing official recognition of Jerusalem. In other words, what has the state, why has the State Department opposed for a decade and a half, two decades since Congress first pushed President Clinton to recognize Jerusalem as the capital, as I understand it. So that's what getting to be a couple of decades ago now. Why has the State Department opposed what President Trump has now done? Because it's filled with the rafters with white-shoed Jew haters. Sorry, Matthew. Go ahead. You took the words right out of my mouth, James.

The answer is that the peace process industry believes that the final status of Jerusalem is what they call final status negotiation. So they find that we cannot resolve the status of Jerusalem until we have a comprehensive peace plan leading to the creation of the Palestinian state. Now, that's just wrong because clearly leaving this up in the air has done nothing to advance the cause peace because the peace process has been effectively moribund for over a decade so why not just say what the facts are and and and the facts are that jerusalem is israel's capital and so here we have one of those, and incidentally, the piece is called Promise Keeper.

You quote the now president as a candidate in March 2016 at the AIPAC American-Israel Political Action Committee conference. He said, quote, we will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem, close quote. And now he has simply done what he said he would do. So, Matt, this is one of those instances in which Donald Trump's propensity to state the obvious, his willingness to say what other people are only thinking but nobody else will say,

his willingness to, I don't know how you would put it, but his Trumpishness has worked to the great benefit of all that is good and admirable. I'm fumbling here, but how would you – it is right, isn't it? I also think it's part of Trump's transactional nature. Oh, fill this in on that. He makes a promise, and he's going to fill that promise in order to maintain his support among the pro-Israel community. And a large part of that community did support him very vocally. I mean, if you go back to his response of the audience at that APE speech uh from what you quote yes it was pretty electric and so i think he sees it as i made i made a pledge as part of this deal for support and i want to follow through on it and that and that and combined with his

just kind of yes unwillingness to to kowtow to expert opinion has led to this pretty bold policy decision. Let me ask you – go ahead, Jim. No, no, go ahead. Go ahead. Let me ask you this, and I applaud the president doing this. I think this is great, and I think you're right that it is proof of his ability to call a bluff and power through, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and not abide by the niceties. Got it. But what he did was decline to sign the waiver. There would be every six months he'd have to sign something that says,

yeah, we know it's the embassy, but we're going to stay in Tel Aviv. Talk to me in six months. And he let that go the first six months because you're just settling in. But now, good time, he didn't sign it, and it happened. That's different from saying going to Congress. Let's say he had to go to Congress and get this done. Let's say he had to go to state and twist some arms and make things happen. If it required that sort of legislative action or bureaucratic persuasion, do you think he would have done it?

Well, it didn't require legislative action because it's the law i mean this is uh i know i i i know i yeah but i'm just saying the bureaucracy yeah i i see what you're saying in terms of the bureaucracy he does have a challenge because just in the past few days there are people in the state department and state department spokesman who have not quite internalized the policy that he announced. And so that is incumbent on President Trump to make sure that the State Department reflects presidential policy. Now, the question of the embassy is a little bit different from the question of the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

It will take time to move the embassy to Jerusalem because it takes time to build American embassies. They tend to be very large now, primarily out of security concerns, and you could imagine what the security concerns would be in Israel, in the Middle East. So he began that process. But I have anything more important than beginning the process, which is simply stating the fact. And I think stating that fact is kind of a shock inducer to a lot of the actors in the Middle East and and even three decades ago when President Reagan said tear down this wall. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

And before he said that, the State Department fought that speech for three – okay. Same kind of dynamic here, saying something that not only needs to be said, but obviously needs to be said. And of course, the foreign policy apparatus of the United States government opposes you. Larger question about, oh, so actually, no, before we depart from the politics of moving of President Trump's statement, Jewish Americans oppose President Trump by large numbers. I don't have a poll in front of me. Does what does this do? You mentioned his transactional nature, and he's keeping a promise that he made to us. He's just keeping a promise. Is he actually is he moving the politics in any way? Is he actually going to gain more Jewish support? As a political matter,

what's he doing in American domestic politics? Well, perhaps the most pro-Israel constituency in America today is evangelical Christians who overwhelmingly supported President Trump and continue to give him some of his better numbers. And so I think they will appreciate this move because they are real supporters of Israel. The Jewish vote is a very complicated matter. Overall, Trump last year did basically the same as Republicans in recent years. But then when you actually get down

into the different demographic groups of the Jewish vote, and especially the Orthodox and ultra-Or ultra orthodox communities his support is much greater uh... and trend and and continuing the trend towards supporting republicans that we've seen god so i think they'll appreciate this as well and and i have to say you know uh... most of the most jewish organizations came out uh... it with the kind of

you know maybe lukewarm in some cases, but in support of the move. And I think that was important to AIPAC in particular. And, you know, AIPAC did say that they applauded this, this decision. And that's to their credit, because there have been some criticism of AIPAC for kind of tilting toward the Democrats in recent years. Right. And what have we seen? The Arab response, if you had read, as I'm sure you did, if you read the press the very day that President Trump made the announcement, everywhere there were fears, predictions that this would cause outbreaks of unrest across the Arab world.

Hasn't official protests, yes, but this arab street so-called is quiet is this just because they're delaying their reaction or no well hold on peter didn't you didn't do the gates of hell were going to open again and i think this is the fifth schedule that phrase comes from someone actually said that or wrote it a boss yeah i think he said Abbas. Well, what's fascinating is there have been protests, even a few semi-riots in West Bank cities. Not quite the deluge as of now that, say, Abbas was predicting or many of the people in the media were predicting. But more interesting is the response from the Arab capitals. And, you know, in most Arab states, because they're not democracies, there is no protest that is not allowed by the government, right? So if you look at Cairo, if you look at Riyadh, even if you look at Amman, you know, there

hasn't been much activity there. And that's because more important than the status of Jerusalem, which all of the Arab capitals understand as the capital of Israel and will always be the capital of Israel, is the rise of Iran. And what we've seen in recent years is these Arab states really kind of aligning around the question of Iran. And so you'll have, you know, kind of on the one hand, you have a Syria-Turkey axis, right? They're pretty much on Iran's side and Russia's side. But then Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, and some of the Gulfies are moving toward basically kind of a rapprochement with Israel, if not you know,

if not written down, you know, they're pretty much comfortable with Israel now. And from there, the response was, you know, mildly critical, but nowhere near as apocalyptic as we might expect. Bingo.

That's the fascinating part about this. I mean, the American media and the left had it predictable if there's any bloodshed in the streets, it will be laid at the feet of Donald Trump, as if there's no agency whatsoever amongst people who live there. They're just sent into a murderous frenzy by this completely ridiculous decision of Trump's. Yeah, you know, it's like, yeah, we got bigger fish to fry. And you're right about Iran.

What's fascinating about this is the shakeups in the Saudi leadership and the assembly of power that that guy's doing. How do you view the Saudis now as a revitalized, soon to beibly modernized entity that can help lead with an Israeli coalition, which is something remarkable to think about, and almost makes it seem as if the whole Palestinian issue was just a big stick with which they could whip Israel at their convenience. Imagine that. I mean, I'm fascinated by what's happening in Saudi Arabia, as most people are who are following this. And there is clear some moves, anti-corruption moves by the Crown Prince and some modernization as well, not really democratization. But I'm a little bit skeptical of the Saudis as being kind of the key to the Middle East.

You know, they've been engaged in this war in Yemen now for a couple of years, and it's really not turning out as anyone would like. It's creating a huge humanitarian disaster with no clear winner. And they also didn't really get what they wanted out of Syria either because of a variety of factors. So it's good to have them as kind of a hedge against Iran, but I'd be a little bit leery about jumping into their arms, which is kind of what I see the Trump administration doing. They seem very pro-Saudi in their recent moves. Matt, Peter here with a last who throughout his public life, throughout his life, because he's led his almost his entire life in public, has been ideologically inconsistent to put it mildly. He's donated to Democratic candidates.

He's stood at different positions on different issues. And now that he's president of the United States, on every issue I can think of, with one exception that I'll come to in a moment, when he has an actual decision to make, he decides it as if he'd spent his whole career as a conservative. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. How long have conservatives been saying just that? Tax reform, cut the corporate rate, do the best you can on individual rates. Very conservative. Ronald Reagan is somewhere smiling about that. In the administration, Scott Pruitt at EPA is peeling back the administrative overreach that's taken place at EPA.

On and on and on you go. Jim Mattis, a completely bipartisan figure at defense, was confirmed as secretary of defense by a vote of I believe it was 98 to 1. Kristen Gillibrand, the great hero, senator from New York, voted against Jim Mattis. And Jim Mattis is actually – he's as aggressive as some people thought Donald Rumsfeld would be. The one exception I come to is trade, where conservatives believe in free trade, and Donald Trump, he hasn't imposed tariffs, but he clearly is not a free trader. Still, aside from that one issue, this man is governing almost like a lifelong conservative. How on earth do we explain that, Matt? One, I forget who it was, but I just read yesterday, someone described the Trump presidency as startlingly conservative.

And I agree with that characterization. This is in terms of just the first year of a presidency, President Trump's first year has been much more conservative than George W. Bush's first year, because remember, George W. was working with Ted Kennedy at this point in his presidency to do No Child Left Behind and prescription drug entitlements. Trump is basically governing as a Reagan conservative with the exceptions of immigration and trade, both of which, you know, Reagan's records are a little bit more complicated than some people present today, especially on the trade question. Oh, I'd say on immigration it's more complicated, too, but that's a separate – you and I can discuss that. Maybe that's another podcast.

But in any case, it is a Reagan conservative. So what's the result? Well, I actually think – or what's the reason? I think Newt Gingrich put it well. I saw him speak a few months ago. Newt said the thing about Trump is not so much that he's a movement conservative, which he's not, but he's certainly anti-left. And I think that has also been something that is a consistent. I mean, Trump, when we think of Donald Trump, we think, well, he's politically incorrect, right?

He hates political correctness. And that, I think, that kind of core has pushed him to a place as president where he is governing as indeed a conservative. Another aspect of it is Trump is a contractor. Remember that? Trump is the developer. And so when you're a developer, basically you're kind of the man in the middle of the ring and you're orchestrating different types of activity, but you rely on your independent or your subcontractors to get most of the work done. And so the people that Trump is subcontracting to now are people like Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt, Jim Mattis, Leonard Leo at the Federalist Society, right, which is playing a great role in judicial

appointments. So this has the effect of having an extremely conservative policy tilt as well. So as a conservative, I have to say I'm thrilled at some of the policy changes. In fact, most, if not all of the policy changes that have been made in the last year, there are, of course, downsides as well. Yeah, well, of course you'd be thrilled because as a conservative, you want to give away all the public lands to the people who are going to strip my arsenic into the groundwater. We got you figured. Hey, thanks, Matt, for talking to us today.

We'll have you on the podcast down the road. Anytime, guys. Take care. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. You know, great ideas coming from politicians. We don't expect that, and it'll be great to see if we get that, actually. But where would the politicians get the ideas in the first place?

Well, they come from think tanks, from public interest, law centers, and other principled individuals and groups from around the country. And the best ones, the best individuals and groups and centers are those that do not rely on government money to operate. If you want to help to move the ideas of liberty forward, you can invest your

charitable giving in those who are doing the real work of conservative causes. And the simplest way to do that is through Donors Trust. Donors Trust is the community foundation for the liberty movement. With a donor-advised fund at Donors Trust, you'll simplify your giving and you'll receive excellent tax benefits, all in a way that gives you an additional layer of privacy as well. All donor-advised funds offer the same basic services, but DonorsTrust is the only donor-advised fund that shares your commitment to conservative principles. So go to DonorsTrust.org slash Ricochet for your free investing liberty guide that gives

practical advice on how to identify principle-driven charities that deserve your support. As we near the end of 2017, Donors Trust is the partner you need. The stock market's booming, tax code is changing, and Donors Trust experts can help you navigate all of this and equip you in such a way that best benefits you, your family, and the principals you hold dear. So visit DonorsTrust.org slash Ricochet right now to download a free copy of your helpful guide. Discover a better way to support the conservative values you believe in at DonorsTrust.org slash ricochet. And our thanks to our friends at Donors Trust for sponsoring this,

the Ricochet podcast. Now it's time to talk to Bill McGurn. He's of course a Wall Street Journal editorial board member, writes the weekly Main Street column for the journal each Tuesday. And previously he served as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, and we welcome him back to the podcast. Hello, sir. Hey, how you doing?

All right. Right now here in Minnesota, we're still dealing with the reverberations of the shockwave of the end of Al Franken's career. He says he's not going to go away. His voice will still be heard. Is there a political future for Al Franken? Well, I think he sure hopes there is. That's what it looked like this was about. Look, I have some sympathy for people that are forced to take acts as a result of

accusations that have not been proven or heard out or adjudicated in any one way. Al Franken, in his resignation speech, said that he was innocent and that he would have been vindicated by the Senate Ethics Committee. If that's true, I think he did a greater disservice by resigning because he just encouraged people to make charges that are not true and bring someone down. So if what he said is true, it's a great disservice to his resignation. On the other hand, it sort of seems to me that what he did make sense only if you are guilty and you fear that more stuff will come out. This idea of political viability that he's going to continue some other career, that's a Harvey Weinstein defense, isn't it? I'm going to continue my fight against the NRA. So I hope we can put this past us. It's just, it's just, I'll put it

this way. If there were a worst way to resign for the United States Senate, and I normally have some sympathy with people that are down, even Al Franken, he picked the worst way to go. Bill, Peter here. You had a column earlier this week with the very provocative headline, Roy Moore's liberal enablers, Judge Roy Moore's special election in Alabama. The vote takes place next Tuesday. And of course, the women have come forward to say that some decades ago when he was in his early 30s, he molested very young or underage girls. And he dropped like a stone in the polls.

You note in your column that he's actually back up in most polls. And in fact, apparently in the lead. The money today would bet that Judge Roy Moore is going to win this election next Tuesday. And Bill McGurn writes that there's a force that gets little media attention. Quote, these are the liberals who are enabling Judge Moore. Close quote. Liberals enabling Judge Moore. Explain that, Bill. Right. Well, I probably should have added inadvertently enabling him.

Look, the decision right now is in the hands of Alabama voters. I cited a CBS poll that showed him up six points. That was, I think, last weekend. And the same poll showed that I think 71% of Alabama Republicans didn't believe the charges. Now, you can argue they're wrong, they're putting their heads in the sand, but they don't believe the charges. One reason is, you know, he's been a lightning rod in Alabama for years. I mean, he's not a new face there, right? He was twice booted off the high court in the state for disobeying a federal order. So he's well known. And people saying after 40 years, this just comes up now. I think people are less persuaded by the Democrats'

sudden embrace of sexual propriety after all these years of defending Bill Clinton. Look, these are all things, you know, it'd be nice to have this sorted out in a court. These are all things voters have to do. But then you have things like Jimmy Kimmel sending a comedian to disrupt the thing down there. Really, is that the way to persuade voters in Alabama to come over to your side? I think a lot of people, and this is how he's campaigning, he's campaigning that outside forces and liberals and, you know, homosexuals are all plotting against him. And so when they do these things, I think it benefits them. And look, I'll add one other thing that's getting almost no attention. The only thing we know about his opponent, Doug Jones, is that he's militantly pro-choice.

You know, when he was asked about it, he basically denied any support for the 20-week ban, which is very popular even among people that are moderately pro-choice, and said he wasn't in favor of anything that infringed on this right. So he took the Hillary Clinton point of view. Abortion is sacrosanct. There must be no limits, and there must be, according to the Hillary view, full federal funding for people that can't afford it.

Well, Alabama is one of the most pro-life states. You know, that Doug Jones position would play well where I live and in Manhattan, but it's just not going to go over. And if they had a candidate who could have given, wouldn't have had to be pro-life, but if he gave the Bill Clinton idea, safe, legal, and rare, I think he'd be walking away. I mean, look, if your opponent is accused credibly or plausibly of having inappropriate sexual conduct with teenage girls. You should be walking away with the election. Now, that's not to say Roy Moore doesn't have his conservative friends. He's got the evangelical community on his side. He's got some other people.

I think the state Republican Party and the governor who declines to support him but says she'll vote for him. So he does have there. But I think in this heated atmosphere, he's campaigning against what he says, the Hollywood Washington sort of cabal, and too often they're confirming that for him. So, Bill, James wants to come in.

I can sense it, but I've got one more question. No, I'm having some listening. Oh, okay. I have one more question here, Bill. So the Democrats, of course, as you make the point in the column, as we all know, for two decades now, they've said that what Bill Clinton did was just no big deal. Oh, sure. Somebody accused him of rape. It's about sex. Exactly. Ian Pertree, just about sex.

Exactly. Exactly. And now all of a sudden, we see the Democrats do a couple of things. One is that Kristen Gillibrand, the senator from New York, you'd know far more about this than I do here in California. You're in New York. You watch New York politics. The word is that she's positioning herself for a presidential run. And she said in an interview, what, 10 days ago, that Bill Clinton should have resigned. And now along comes the Al Franken matter. And Kristen Gillibrand is the first to call on him to resign. She said enough is enough. And within something like 20 hours,

the Democratic caucus in the Senate had almost universally called on Franken to resign. Question, is it the case that democrats have had a change of heart that they really believe they made a mistake in protecting bill clinton or is it the case that they look at the current environment political environment and say wow sexual harassment is a hot issue we want to be able to use that for our political purposes oh the way to get to donald trump is through al franken and through bill clinton we've got to throw them overboard but once we do that we'll be able to use the harassment issue against trump himself is this pure political calculation why don't they it may not be pure political calculation i think they're

right that to recognize that bill clinton has cost the party a lot in terms of credibility. So giving them the old heave-ho is probably something that they had to do. Yeah, I mean it reminds me. I remember all the stuff about the greatest generation, you know, how 40 years after World War II suddenly the liberals were all discovering, gee, these guys were great. It wasn't what they were saying in the 50s and 60s. Remember the songs about little houses of ticky-tacky and the condescension? And you could see Alabama voters saying, well, we'll take the same standard in 20 years. We'll regret having sent Roy Moore to the Senate in the meantime.

Look, my personal view, and it's also the view of the Wall Street Journal, is I think for practical reasons, Alabama Republicans would do well not to feed into what the Democrats want, which is to portray the party as predators and molesters, and not send Roy Moore to Washington. And I think that because, yes, you may keep that Senate seat, but as a practical consideration, we've got a big year, 2018 in the Senate, and control of the House is also up for grabs. And so it's quite possible that Roy Moore might cause other seats. You know, he might win his own, but at the expense of, and also he's just a distraction. You know, we're going to be wanting to talk about regulation or Middle East policy, and you can bet they're going to harp on Roy Moore every day. So I think there are good practical reasons for people in Alabama to say this is not the person we want to send to that seat. But look, it is a tough choice, right, because they have to pick someone who is much more liberal than the population to do it. Quite unlike Minnesota where a Democratic governor can appoint another Democrat.

It's likely not to cost the Democrats anything in terms of their party strength. So I have one last question. Go ahead, James. Go, go, go. As we were saying earlier, if the governor of Minnesota were a Republican, I don't think the people who are saying

this is the right moral thing to do would be clamoring for Al Franken to go, especially if it, for example, tipped the Senate. I mean, then I think they'd be willing to cede the moral high ground or the mohigro in order to get what they wanted. And it's going to be the same thing with these rules that they now, I mean, the Democrats never really seem to have to live up to the rules that they set for others. They never come back to bite them in the tuchus as much as you think. But there's news that the Washington Post or somebody is going and looking at sexual harassment in Congress itself and looking at 20, 30 names. So they may find themselves saying, well, look, we've cleaned house. We got rid of Al Franken. We've given back all of Harvey W.'s money. We're pure and we're up

here and fit to judge. But I don't think they like exactly how these rules are going to be applied to them in the next year or so. Right. Well, look, you know, one aspect of this is sort of the, you know, double standard. Joe Sober, when I worked at National Review, used to say behind every double standard is a single standard. You know, one of the things someone sent me this morning was a composite of an alternative time person of the year. You know, it's on, what is it called, Silence Breakers, the voices that launched a movement, you know, that brought us to all this and bringing it down. And the alternative one I got had Paula Jones, Juanita Brockrick, and Kathleen Willey on it. And that does say something, you know,

that not taking away anything from the women they do on the comer, but they weren't the first. You know, people were doing it 20 years ago and they weren't acknowledged. So I think the larger point you're making is that if voters have a lot of cynicism about Democrats discovering religion on sexual harassment, they have good reason for it. Bill, just one nuts and bolts question before we let you go. Judge Roy Moore looks as though he's going to win. Let's suppose that he does win next Tuesday.

What do Republicans in the Senate do? Can't they immediately institute ethics hearings and sort of quarantine this guy in the Senate and at least contain the Democratic charges that they're welcoming him as one of their own, they won't welcome him at all, will they? Yeah, I mean, one of the things that's been lost in this about the Republican hypocrisy here is that quite a few Republicans called for him to step aside. Quite a few of people who will be his colleagues here. I think the law is that he has to be seated, right, as a result of the Adam Clayton Powell thing. So they have to seat him. I think they will insist on a Senate ethics investigation. And then that puts them in a very awkward position. Again, one reason I would prefer Alabama voters reject them there, because then that puts them in the position of

rejecting the will of the Alabama voters who have heard these charges and made their own judgment. And they'll have to vote to one way or the other. And at this point, they can no longer argue, well, it's the people of Alabama who sent them here and put them in the Senate, because at that point, they will be the ones making the decision. So, you know, I mean, I think that's the way to go in terms of accountability. But again, for practical reasons, that's why I think the party, the country, and the Senate would be better off if Alabamans didn't send them there. Bill, thanks so much for being with us today. We'll talk to you next year when 55% of the House has resigned due to sexual harassment allegations. You think they'll still be 45%?

Oh, you're an optimist. I am an optimist. Life is good in Minnesota, and it breeds clear-thinking people. Thanks a lot. We'll talk to you down the road. Okay, thank you. Bill, to you and everyone in Madison, New Jersey, Merry Christmas. Thanks very much. All right, have a great weekend.

You know, people may think that we do these things here in some lavishly appointed studios and whatnot. But, you know, the fact of the matter is I just picked up from the floor a dog toy because my dog wants me to play with him. And it is nice to know that there are things that actually go beyond. Sure. Blame it on the dog as if you don't love those squeaky toys yourself. This guy's got quite the grip. Hey, listen, the thing of it is, is that, you know, my wife was looking for a magazine that had to do with dogs, Labradors in particular. And you know what?

Of course there is a magazine for Labradors. There's a magazine for white ivory Labradors. There's a magazine for everything. And you probably love magazines and don't get enough time to read them. But, well, okay, look at it this way. If you're looking for dependable political reporting, high-quality storytelling, the latest on culture and entertainment, magazines are great. They deliver it all with high-quality writing

and beautiful photography. And now you can get all of your magazines in one place with Texture. The Texture app gives you unlimited access to over 200 premium magazines. And you can find National Review on Texture texture app for example you'll find other well-known titles such as time atlantic the new yorker look if you're looking for

a break from news and politics textures get you covered there as well because they have sports illustrated national geographic forbes better homes and gardens entertainment weekly food network magazine wired and many many others over 200 premium titles and i want to note that when they when i said entertainment weekly that was a magazine that I used to subscribe to. And during the great purge that we all went through perhaps in 2007, 2008 when we were looking around and saying, I can lose that. I was happy to get it back because there are things in the popular culture. You may not like them, but it's probably important to know about them. And that's where Texture can help you to find and discover those magazines.

Right now, you can try it for free. Sign up now at texture.com slash ricochet. It's normally $9.99 a month. You can get 200 magazines with a 14-day free trial at texture.com slash ricochet. One more time, that's 14 days to try Texture for free when you go to texture.com slash ricochet. And we thank Texture for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. And I'll have to take a look at Entertainment Weekly to see if there's any news on this Quentin Tarantino Star Trek reboot.

I, Peter, are you excited? I don't know anything about Quentin Tarantino and the whole Star Trek thing. Just I missed that. And I know I'm saying I missed the last four decades of popular culture, but I did. I just don't I just don't get your connection to it, James. But here's the thing. Here's the thing, Peter. I don't have a connection to it anymore.

The older you get, the more you sort of slough off things that you find that you used to be interested in and that you aren't anymore and you find you go back to an old passion and what was once a well banked fire is now cooled it's never been like that for me with Star Trek I stuck with them for all the iterations for all the different sequels when it disappointed me when it came back

there's this new show on CBS which is Star Trek and it's not. And I hate it. I hate it. And we've had discussions about this on Ricochet, by the way. So if you're thinking Ricochet is just some boring site where wonks talk about politics, no, no, no, no. Fred Cole, I think, was pounding the table in defense of this show, which I think is anti-Trek.

It is miserable. It's full of sour people who don't know how to behave in a military hierarchy on a ship that's hanging out there trying to fight a war that we don't know anything about because it's so poorly done. They bring back characters beloved from the original, and they mess them up with stupid fan service. It's an unhappy show marinated in what they think to be Tumblr social justice warrior culture and so far five episodes into what I detest. I have paid

money for it and I hate it and I'm going to have to watch it to the end too just to be able to say with detail how much I hate it. Now you saw a classic piece of television or movies, Murder on the Orient Express. I did. I was about to offer you one note of cheer when it comes to holiday movies.

Just this day after Thanksgiving, what can we all go see as a family? This has that rating. This has the other rating. There was one playing that night where we could still get seats, and it was Murder on the Orient Express. And I have to say I went reluctantly. Why? Because I read the Agatha Christie book. I saw the Peter Ustinov movie, Good Lord, I don't know how long ago that came out. When I was a kid, it seems. And then, of course, I saw the David Suchet murder on the Orient Express. And I thought, I've seen it. I know the story. What can they possibly? And it was wonderful. It was wonderful from the first shot. Kenneth Branagh has reinvented, it is an astonishing thing because it's fresh. It really

draws you right into the story and Branagh is a director of real brilliance. It goes right up to the line that you've got this big ensemble cast of mellow old actors. Michelle Pfeiffer turns in a wonderful performance. Judi Dench turns in a wonderful performance judy dench turns in a

wonderful performance johnny depp has a three-minute scene in which he's got a conversation going with kenneth brana and johnny depp is a he's none of these people maybe because they're all a little intimidated by kenneth brana but you've got a wonderful large ensemble cast of seasoned old pros and everyone turns in his best performance and brana has reinvented this story the camera angles the shot it's just a wonderful piece of entertainment i will say that he has airq poirot give a speech at the end of the movie about 90 seconds of which starts to sound as though airq poirot was almost a liberal there's two minutes of which starts to sound as though Hercule Poirot was almost a liberal. There's two minutes of which of the movie I would have rewritten,

and Agatha Christie certainly would never have written. But aside from that, it's just a wonderful piece. It's a tour de force of acting and costuming and shooting, and it won't change your life, but it's just a beautiful, gorgeous, wonderful piece of entertainment. Murder on the Orient Express. So there's a part, right, where the train that they're on turns into a giant robot, okay,

and stands up and then does battle in Paris. Isn't that what happens? No, no, not quite. Picks up the Eiffel Tower and swings it around and throws it into Godzilla like a spear. That's got to happen, right? That has to. Peter, you've restored my faith in humanity and the movies.

I will go see it and I will enjoy it and I'll walk out saying, Peter Robinson was right. Actually, I would – when you see it, I would like to hear what you make of it because it's – I mean you make the point. In this time when you have to have a Marvel comic hook in or you have to have some dramatic computer graphics. It is an old-fashioned movie set inside a train that has been pushed off the tracks by an avalanche. They're stuck in the Alps for three days. And in a close, it's just an old-fashioned story. But it's wonderful.

Absolutely. Thank you. And thanks, everybody, for listening. And thanks for Donors Trust, Blinkist, and Texture for sponsoring. Please support them for supporting us. And you might want to head over to iTunes and put in your request to buy Star Trek Discovery or Murder on the Orient Express when they come out, or to give us a nice review because that helps get more publicity for the podcast.

And please, podcast listeners, what's the matter with you? Join today. $2.50 a month. $2.50 a month. It's cheap. That's nothing. That's nothing. All right, everybody. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Peter. And we'll see everybody in the comments at Ricochet 3.0. Next week, James. One never knows, does one, when love will come along, then so suddenly life turns out to be a song. Mmm, one never knows, does one, the moment or the place.

Then right before your eyes, someone occupies your embrace. Someday Look and you'll find Two hearts were blessed Someday Fate may be kind Pray for the future Hope for the future, hope for the best. One never knows, does one, that's just the way it goes. All at once you hear, hold me, caress me, and then

Love may come, but when, one never knows Ricochet! Join the conversation.