The Ricochet Podcast - The Iron Lady

Episode Date: April 12, 2013

This week on the podcast, we take a look back at Margaret Thatcher with someone who knew and worked with her: the great John O’Sullivan. We discuss her policies, how she changed Britain, her relationship with this country and with Ronald Reagan, and the country Great Britain would be without her. Then, Mark Krikorian checks in to discuss immigration and what the Republican response and strategy... Source

Looking for reliable IT solutions for your business? At Innovate, we are the IT solutions people for businesses across Ireland. From network security to cloud productivity, we handle it all. Installing, managing, supporting and reporting on your entire IT and telecoms environment so you can focus on what really matters. Growing your business. Whether it's communications or security, Innovate has you covered. Visit Innovate today.

Innovate. The IT solutions people. Thank you. Activate program. To those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say. The ladies not for turning. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lylix and our guests are John O'Sullivan from the National Review talking about Margaret Thatcher and other matters, and Mark Krikorian, also of the National Review, talking about immigration. There's something for everyone to love in this one, and something for everyone to hate. Enjoy! Let's have a podcast.

You know, I walked outside this morning to get the paper, and not only did I see half a foot of snow, but then I heard a clap of thunder, which tells you that everything in the world is askew. Everything is off. Everything, the universe is out of joint. Except for the things that are, of course, just where you want them to be. And that is something like the sponsorship of audible.com for this podcast, which is right where it should be at the beginning, in the middle, in the end of this podcast, informing you that, of course, they are the leading provider of spoken audio information and entertainment on the Internet. Go to audiobooks whenever and wherever you want to listen to something, and it's free, audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet.

You get a free audiobook and a 30-day trial. Peter, Rob, as I mentioned, I'm in hell. I mean, you know, April is indeed the cruelest month, and what that means is your expectations are raised and then dashed, and there's nothing like a middle-of-the-winter tax-time snowstorm, complete with thunder to make you think that everything is conspiring against you. So torture me. What's it like out there in beautiful sunny, but broke?

But broke spiritually, morally, and economically. Yeah. It is, in fact, beautiful, James, here in Southern California. I am sitting and I have the – I'm sort of sitting half inside, half outside. So if you hear some birds chirping or some flowers actually blooming, that's what that is. Well, that's grand and I'm happy for you. Peter, are you in a place where it's drizzly and you have a cold? Because that seems to have been your metier for the last few weeks. The weather has cleared up.

So has my cold. So have my allergies. It was 79 degrees up here in Northern California yesterday and a cloud in the sky. Today it will be better because it will only be about 77. It is more beautiful here than it is where Rob is. Well, I'm sure of it. I'm sure of it. I believe that Palo Alto is actually quite gorgeous when it's in good weather.

I'm with you. I'm glad for everybody. Which is to say 360 days a year. Now I'm becoming a chauvinist for Northern California, where, by the way, I'm the only conservative. Anyway, we won't start that. But, yes, it's beautiful up here. Well, let us flip to the other side of the country where, you know, when spring comes to D.C., there's nothing like it. The cherry blossoms, the pink petals fluttering everywhere.

But in the morass of indecision and the bog of inertia that D.C. has become, all of a sudden we have what? A budget from Obama. Whoa. Where did that come from? And rumors and noises from the Obama administration that they're willing to do something on Social Security and social benefits, which has caused this big, huge schism in the party. Why our local Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar were protesting over the deep, injurious, massive, bloody cunts these are going to inflict on seniors. What game is the president playing here? Peter?

Peter Robinson Good darn question. I spoke yesterday with my Hoover colleague, John Kogan, who's an expert on the federal budget. And he noted that for decades now, it's simply been taken as a kind of article of faith that in any attempt to reform Social Security, there is one thing that no one will ever, ever do, and that is touch benefits for people already on Social Security. Republicans have put forward one plan after another, but all of those plans affect benefits for people who are about to enter Social Security, not for people already receiving it. And Barack Obama has recommended adjusting benefits for people already on Social Security, indexing them to a new cost of living rate, which is probably a truer reflection of inflation. And my friend John Kogan said, what don't you hear? And I thought for a moment and I realized that the answer is the screams of the press. If Barack Obama proposes it, the only person who opposes it is your own

Al Franken. So what is Barack Obama up to? John Cogan suggested that the game here may actually be to raise taxes because one part of this indexing, if taxes are also indexed in the same way, apparently over many years, that is to say not next year or the year after but three years out, four years out, five years out, it represents a windfall to the federal government. And that may be what he's up to. But my answer is I haven't sorted it out yet. Yeah, that's sort of my answer. I think you could see every single choice this guy is making. It makes no real political sense to do what he's doing. He doesn't really believe in it.

The idea of changing benefits for current recipients, it doesn't really follow. By the way, except for that, this budget is exactly the same budget that he proposed in December and that was rejected. So it's a very strange maneuver except – unless you remember that he believes the solution to everything, the logjam in America is – and ironically, I mean especially because of this podcast today, we're talking about somebody who's a towering figure in this. It has been the privatization and tax cutting, the aversion to taxes. And so I think that's what he's – that's his ultimate goal is if he can break through that seal, that hard – or whatever that is, that the American population and American political will has been and get us to raise taxes and get us to do it and get the Republicans to do it, then the floodgates are open. I mean that's ultimately what he wants is more money to spend.

And the other thing is I think a lot of big spending liberals like Obama believe that the problem with the federal government is that the entitlements are too high and it's keeping the government from spending money at will, right? It has all these sort of mandates it must spend on. It has all these sort of outstanding debts it's got to pay. If you can lower that and raise taxes, then suddenly you've got maybe a trillion more dollars you can spend on nonsense.

Nonsense? Good lord, man. The budget proposes universal preschool. I think every child who managed to make it outside the womb without having its head lopped off by Kermit is going to be entitled to go someplace for five years of sitting in a nice little state institution. That's a perfect, I think the preschool thing

is a perfect example of the difference between Republicans and Democrats or conservatives. There's a huge amount of research which suggests that preschool is a really good thing. Does anyone think the federal government is the place to deliver that? There's also

research that says that Head Start doesn't really have much of an effect. Preschool is great for all the reasons that everybody cites, the socialization, the commingling of your immunities and shared diseases and all the rest of that stuff. It's fun, but it's not the be all and the end all. And the idea is, I mean, the idea behind this is not necessarily it would be great to help those people who need preschool. It's to tell people that preschool is the norm. not staying at home with a kid for the first three or four years of its life, but preschool.

Get them out of the house so you can go back to work. Lean in because if you're not going back to work, you're a lesser person. I mean please, if you don't see that paradigm at work here, this isn't an option. This is about establishing a social norm. But it's weird. It's a weird kind of logic they make. Once they decide something's good, then there's really zero reason why the federal government shouldn't guarantee it. I mean, once they decide, this is Michelle Obama's food thing, once we all agree salad is good,

we don't necessarily agree the government should deliver you a giant salad every day. Do we? And I believe that if you really got into the conversation with the entire Obama administration, they would say, well, you know what? Maybe we could have salad delivery every day. We'd have somebody there just to stand over you to watch you eat it. There's no reason not to. There's certainly no – they certainly back down on no other principle. Right. There's just no principled reason not to.

On the Social Security proposal, it seems to me we have a choice. There are really only two choices. One choice is to suppose that Barack Obama really does at this stage of his second term want to do something big and this is his first offer for actually bringing in entitlements and putting the federal budget on some kind of sustainable footing. Choice one. Choice two, he's being Barack Obama and playing a deep political game. This is a big feint right now to make him appear reasonable and his game is still to win back the house in 2014. Those are the two choices. I'm frankly inclined toward the latter. Yeah. Well, it does put one in mind of who, Saul Alinsky, is that the fellow, really? The tactics that supposedly were absorbed at a molecular level and stamped into the DNA of these guys back in college.

If you want to find Alinsky, I'm sure that you can find an audio version read perhaps by somebody with an appropriately nasal voice, as we tend to associate with East Coast leftists who want to ruin everyone else's lives and reserve for themselves a small little area where they get to behave as they wish, including free love and good cigars. But then again, there are the people who fight for liberty and freedom, such as Margaret Thatcher. And if, indeed, you wish to read or hear something of hers,

Audible, that's right, audible.com, has got all kinds of books of Thatcher there, and you can get a free one. Free, 30-day trial. Free. 100,000 titles in virtually every single genre you would also ever want. And WhisperSync, or dare I say, WhisperSync technology that will shove the stuff to your Kindle automatically. I mean, it's got to be heard to be believed. It can't be seen to be believed because, of course, it's incorporeal.

So go there to audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet today and claim your book. Well, since we're talking about Thatcher, the stern and now much beloved and bereaved Iron Lady of England, why not find somebody who actually can discuss the subject much better than myself sitting here in the middle of the country observing her from a distance all these years? John O'Sullivan. Who is he? Oh, you know John. He's a British conservative political commentator and journalist and currently vice president and executive editor of Radio Free Europe slash Radio Liberty. During the 80s, he was a senior policy writer and speechwriter at 10 Downing Street for Margaret Thatcher when she was the British PM and remained close to her

up to her death. We welcome to the podcast, John O'Sullivan. John, how are you? I'm fine, thanks. That's dandy. John, Peter Robinson here. Where are you? I'm in New York, staying at a friend's house. Yes.

On my way, on my way actually to the funeral. I'm in for Wednesday. I see. I see. John, can you, I don't think that in all the years we've known each other and we've known each other since, let's see, we met, we met when somehow or other mutual friend, I think it was Bob Schuttinger put us in touch and you were kind enough to give me a tour of number 10 Downing Street when you were a speechwriter there. But I've never asked this

question. I don't believe. When did you first meet Margaret Thatcher? I met her at a parliamentary lunch in 1972 when she was Minister for Education. I was the parliamentary sketchwriter for the Daily Telegraph. And this was a small lunch of sketchwriters. There were about eight people around the table. And we were talking to the Minister for Education. So I had just been to Alum Rock in California, where there was the first attempt to see how educational vouchers would work. And that was extremely successful. I mean, I came back thinking it was successful. I'm not sure it was.

But I was full of enthusiasm for Milton Friedman's ideas, and I said all these things. And she, of course, is working in Ted Heath's government. And so she was constrained by official policy. And so she attacked them, vouchers, or said they poured cold water on them. So we had this blazing row. I was the only conservative around that table except for her.

And she's the one, I'm the one she had this quarrel with. It was a really blazing row. And it went, you know, it lasted virtually for about 20 minutes. And when she left, all the other parliamentary skyscrapers were highly amused and fell about laughing, thought that her one supporter had this row with her. But I discovered, you see, that Mrs. Thatcher liked people to disagree with her. She liked people who would have rows. And so I was in her good books from that point on, really. As I recall, the outline of the recent story is that in the leadership struggle, the one who was supposed to run against Ted Heath for leader of the Tory party was Keith Joseph. And then he lost his nerve because of an attack in the press, and she stepped forward more or less at the last moment.

And to no one's – to everyone's surprise, no one expected that. Is that so? Or did you all the way back in 1972 conceive that you might've been in the presence of a future leader of the party? Oh, I didn't do that time at all. In fact, the one person who did, who I knew well was Morris Green, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, who knew her pretty well and told me in 73 or 74 that she would become the next Conservative prime minister. I was very much an enthusiast for her, however, because of her strong performances in the House of Commons, which were not like her later performances. They were much more forensic and lawyer-like than she later was. And so she was extremely effective as a minister and as an opposition

spokesman. But she became a much more formidable and powerful figure. Now, I can tell you a story about your question, though. In 1974, after the Tories lost the second election, there was a big push by the conservative left to get Willie Whitelaw in positions of power. Now, that was to get him to succeed Ted as leader of the Tory party. All of the newspapers on the Sunday after the election were full of this and it was going to happen. And Ted had agreed and so on. Frank Johnson and I, we were supporters of Keith Joseph, whom we knew and, and who was an admirable man, by the way. So we contacted him by phone and said, you've got to get someone in the House of Commons on the press side

who will be your spokesman when these kind of stories appear. He said, come round and see us, see me tomorrow. We went round, and we were shown at the, this was the Centre of Policy Studies, the think tank that she'd founded. And we went in, a nice dab gave us a cup of coffee and then about 10 minutes later into the room what margaret thatcher and said what can i do gentlemen um i'm your uh i'm sir keith's uh campaign manager can i ask you by the way, can you hear all the conversations here? Yeah, but it's okay. It sounds like you're very busy. Oh, okay.

I hear birds, actually, John. I hear birds in the background, which is charming. Oh, there is a bird in the background, yes. Okay, well, sorry, gentlemen. Now you've relieved my mind somewhat. Let's go on. I am Sir Keith's campaign manager. What can I do, gentlemen? So, well, we said, oh, how do you do? And so we sat down and drank coffee and gave her advice. And she said, I think that's very good advice. Who would you suggest should be the press spokesman? We suggested somebody, not ourselves.

We were journalists of opinion and we didn't think, therefore, that it would be, you know, you don't you wanted a good old Fleet Street hack. Everybody trusted and felt was was kind of not going to put his own gloss on the stories and on what Keith Joseph is supposed to be doing. So we suggested someone she accepted. We had a good conversation. We disappeared. Well, as you may remember, Keith was a great guy, by the way. He blew himself up with a speech in which he quoted two left-wing sociologists who referred to social classes four and five. And these were not his remarks.

And the roof fell in, and he decided to pull out of the leadership contest, and she stepped in. And that was a very, very big deal because no one had thought the woman would run. No one had thought she would run. And everybody thought Ted was going to win so much so that um about five six days before the election um frank and i and peter upley um had a had a lot had a dinner at the reform club with um with lady t and uh or mrs thatcher she was and and um frank said what are you going to do after the election um mrs Thatcher, thinking she was going to lose? And she said, well, I should be leader of the Conservative Party, Frank.

Frank said, no, I mean, really. And she said, look, Frank, I wouldn't be involved in this fight if I didn't think I was going to win. I don't take on hopeless battles, hopeless causes. And so she was right. She won by a small majority against Ted. He withdrew. And then everyone thought Willie Whitelaw would still get it. A dear friend of mine who is a reporter for a Belgian newspaper sent a story predicting she would win.

The editor changed his prediction to Willie Whitelaw winning because Willie Whitelaw was the soft center of the Tory party. He was a very decent guy. Everybody liked him. And he was a traditional Tory. And so the next day, the fact is Thatcher had won. This poor fellow, this journalist's reputation was destroyed because he predicted on the front page of his Belgian newspaper that Willie Whitelaw would win. John, Peter here once again. She told you that she did not take on losing causes. All right.

In 1979, she becomes prime minister. It happened that in that year, I was – I would soon go to England to study for a couple of years later in 79. But I was a senior in college at Dartmouth and Malcolm Muggeridge, the great British journalist, visited. And Malcolm Muggeridge spoke in England in terms that made it clear that this very perceptive man who – Lettuce Grant was, for example example one of the very few who saw through the Russians in the 30s. Malcolm Muggeridge had a fine mind and had traveled and was a great journalist. He made it clear that he considered Britain in effect a hopeless cause. He said every time I return to my own country, the trains are a little shabbier. The traffic is a little slower. And he went into a – he said, I view us as in the position of Augustine after the sack of Rome, watching the decline of – slow decline of

one's own civilization. What was it in Margaret Thatcher that enabled her to look at Britain in the late 70s when Jimmy Carter is president in this country, the Soviets appear on the advance everywhere, socialism is entrenched in Britain, a third of the economy is nationalized, the militant unions have just backed down Ted Heath and destroyed the government of James Callahan. What did she see that enabled her to say this isn't hopeless? Well, before I answer the question directly, let me tell you that Muggeridge was a great journalist and he became subsequently a great Christian, I think. But he was at all times in his life a great cynic. And virtually everything Malcolm wrote was cynical and gloomy in a sense but with an amusing ironic twist i mean

i can give you one example the first line of his review of anthony eden's memoirs ran in beat for in any book of instructions for a man of destiny beating the egyptians would be exercise one. Alas, even here, poor Eden stumbled. Now, what did he see in, what did she see that he couldn't see? Well, what she saw was that she was a representative of millions of people, that there was a silent majority. It wasn't always silent. It was absolutely fizzing with irritation and anger. And she sensed that this silent majority would rally to her cause when, first of all, it was explained to them. And she spent the next four years explaining what she was planning to do when the effects of the other policies, the labor policies, the social democratic consensus was so bad that they were so bad that people would say this has gone far enough. And in a way, the winter of discontent was not an obstacle to her at that point. It was it was actually what's the word I want to, it assisted her, it confirmed her, it demonstrated that everything she'd been saying for the previous four years was

correct. And so she entered the office with, so to speak, a great force of public desire for things to change on her side and a willingness to take risks and absorb some punishment in doing so. Hey, John, it's Rob Long in L.A. How are you? Fine, thanks. And you? Not bad, not bad. So you first met her in 1974. 72, actually. 72, sorry, 72. Was she always Mrs. Thatcher in the way we think of her? Was she – did she become more Thatcher-y as time went on or did you sort of – did you just always know that this was – that her personality was the same? Well, I think at root, yes, she always did remain Mrs. Thatcher.

She was someone who would come into the room and set things right. I mean, as a kind of housewife, if you were visiting her, she'd be moving around the room, plumping up the cushions, opening the window, making sure you were comfortable.

I mean, she did that as prime minister when she was meeting people at Chequers. Wait, so explain that. So as prime minister you'd go into her office and she'd fluff the pillows oh absolutely i mean when she was at checkers i mean obviously um if you went into the library at checkers she'd be making sure you were comfortable oh i'll open the window here she would get up and open the window and all these men be sort of sitting there looking sheepish.

And then she would fluff them with the cushions and say, is that – that's not a good chair, she would say to somebody. You need a more comfortable chair. And she would, for example, when you had dinner with her – I was trying to slim pointlessly at some point. And she said to me, you haven't got any potatoes, John. I said, well, no, Brian, I don't. And she said, give him some potatoes. And then she gave me a lecture on the nutritious quality of the potato. Right.

So, all right, I have another sort of another personality question. Now, from 1972 to, I mean, obviously in power, how sexy was she? Well, that's a very interesting question because I never found her so at the time. But when I see photographs and films of her now, I wonder why I didn't. Do you know what I mean? I think that there was something there that somehow I didn't pick up. Partly it was probably a matter, a slight amount, a slightly matter of age. But I think that a lot of people in the House of Commons considered her to be so. The famous remark, I think, was of the former foreign secretary David Owen on the Labour side and he said, you know, you go to, you're in the House of Commons, you go into one of

the bars and you run into Mrs. Thatcher and she's having a glass of whiskey. She liked, famously, she liked famous grouse whiskey and um he said you know she's arguing with someone the light of battle is in her eyes her face is slightly flushed and you think she's a damned attractive woman well now that now rob has brought us to the boxers or briefs moment of the thatcher well but did you john did she use that did you see did she was she aware of it i mean i i somehow i have an image of britain and i was a kid and in visited london a couple times and i was there right in the run-up to the 79 election i remember i

remember seeing the billboard the famous billboard i think the charles satchie billboard that long unemployment line and the tag labor just isn't working. Do you – I mean did she use it? Did you – I mean I think of all these sort of stuffy English guys in their suits and then this incredibly powerful woman just breezing in and taking charge and it's hard for me to think that that wasn't a huge part of her early political success. She certainly used the fact that she was a woman and not, I think, in a sexy way, exactly. But the fact that she was a woman, she could talk about the budget in a very different way and in a more convincing way than some pinstriped elderly guy.

And when she talked about, you know, you've got so much in this shopping basket and so much in that shopping basket, it carried conviction in a way it didn't carry conviction if Harold McMillan was saying it. And everyone knew he'd never seen a shopping basket except when his friend passed the cook in the hall, you know. And so she was able to do that.

Secondly, the fact that she was a woman meant certain kinds of attack couldn't be used against her. And that, I think, worked for her quite well. Though equally, if you may remember, she did change her image considerably in the mid-70s because people felt that she was advised that her voice was too high, and she therefore had a nagging quality across the floor of the House of Commons, and she learned to lower the register of her voice, taking lessons from, among others, Laurence Olivier.

You mentioned how she was treated by other people poorly. I mean, after she died, we've heard nothing. Well, not nothing, but the reactions that I've been reading from the left in England have been astonishingly vile. And even at the time, I remember being in Minnesota, being informed by all these spotty-faced, bloody-gum guitar pluckers that Margaret Thatcher was the beast incarnate and we should hate her. I mean, I read a piece in The Guardian the other day blaming her for the decline in modern architecture because by bringing back this bourgeois idea that was contrary to modernity itself, somehow she blunted modernity

and caused people to go back to neoclassical styles. I mean, they blame her for everything. How did she handle that level of absolutely base hatred, not only just of her, but of everything that she believed in? Well, I hadn't heard about the modern architecture point, but I think the idea of a decline of a decline is sort of interesting. Now, the answer to your question is that this is, of course, a great tribute to her at one level. She beat them, and she didn't just beat them on areas of patriotism and practical government, where, frankly, the Tories had always beaten them. She challenged them on the moral arguments at the basis of politics.

She challenged their claim to be more compassionate, to believe more in the solidarity of the country. She actually did, partly because of the Falklands War, but because of other things as well. She created a greater sense of national unity in her years in office than had existed for some time. Because national unity, which is very high at the end of the Second World War,

by the time the 70s came along, was very frayed. And she managed to put some stuffing back into the country. And that had a good effect. And so she won. They know she won. They hate her for it. And they've never stopped trying to get their revenge. Secondly, the hatred of her was shared for a long time by people who were not these kind of crazed left-wingers we see at the moment.

I mean, what kind of person is it who celebrates with a party in the street the death of somebody? It's absurd. But there were people like Jonathan Miller and establishment people who hated her because they thought she was vulgar. And by vulgar, they meant flagrantly middle class, that she was a straightforward, no-nonsense housewife, and also the spokesman for kind of housewife values. She was, in fact, she was a provincial Methodist scholarship girl. She had a lot of the earnestness of a provincial Methodist scholarship girl and never really lost it. But she was but she didn't adopt the values that these people thought were appropriate to that.

She didn't change her values into those of a kind of bossy social democratic nanny. And she, in fact, she was the kind of the bossy nanny against bossy nannies in a curious way. Let me interrupt Rob's next brilliant question to just say this. You mentioned that she was a provincial. Ronald Reagan came from humble Middle America virtues, origins. And from what I understand, Mikhail Gorbachev was not exactly this swaggering sophisticate who rolled out of the Soviet Union, but himself had actual provincial origins. And his accent to Russian ears must have sounded risable because it actually was like electing Billy Carter in a way. He had a rural accent that was associated with some people with stupidity,

unless I'm wrong. So this means that the three great players that were all revolving around each other in the 80s came from these provincial origins, and they managed to come up with a world at the end of the 80s that was demonstrably better than the one they began with. Are we to learn anything from this about those values, or should we just see this as an anomaly and go back to listening to our elites?

That's a simple, stupid question. I cannot comment on the provincial values of Novgorod, but the provincial values of Middle America and the East Midlands, Grantham, are very similar, and particularly in the case of someone who was born and brought up in the Methodist faith. The Methodists were the quintessential striving middle class, small business religion. Mrs. Thatcher became a, she went to Oxford.

She got an okay degree there, but then she, I don't think she was truly interested in being a great chemist. She then went on to the tax law. She graduated from the tax bar, which is a formidable intellectual area and therefore formidable intellectual success for her. She was, if she remained a tax lawyer and not gone into parliament, I think she would have been a QC before very long and she would be completely unknown, enormously wealthy. One of those people that you hear about when other lawyers talk saying with tremendous tones of respect. OK, she was a clever woman. Don't forget that. A really, really clever woman. And sometimes we do forget that we concentrate on other aspects of her personality her boldness her bravery her

decency and um and i think you know her provincial middle class values but she was sharp and she could hold her own anywhere but she had to work at it and she knew it because she was moving in very high circles john hey john oh i'm sorry go ahead rob. So you knew her from 1972 to a few days ago. Yes. What was her – in all that time, when did you see her at her lowest? When was she the most challenged or the most downcast? I went to see her the day after she had lost power. I mean, she was still in Downing Street.

She had another 10 days or so there. And in a curious way, I expected that would be her lowest point. It wasn't quite. There was a kind of odd hilarity, as you do sometimes get. I remember lots of jokes being cracked, everybody drinking a lot of champagne and so on and so forth but i saw her again i saw her a lot um in the months after that because i and robin harris and i were kind of two a's i was then at national review but i came over

a lot um to work worked with her on what she was going to do after she left, she lost office. And about two or three months later, I was having tea with her, and she suddenly turned to me and said, it's so cruel that your own people turned against you. And to be taken, you know, one minute she said I was at the center of events, and a few days later I'm sitting here and there are no telegrams, no letters, no phone calls. There's nothing for me to do. I feel useless. So I I mean, I encouraged fantasies of revenge and said, you know, you want to get back and start doing things for those people, you see.

And then, of course, she did recover, as I knew she would, by the way, because the fact is she is what I said she was. She's a hardworking provincial Methodist scholarship girl. She became an applicant, but at heart she was a Methodist that shaped her. And I knew it wouldn't be long before she buckled on her work clothes and went back fighting. And that was true. And some of the best things she said were after she could no longer do things. Look at her analyses of the euro and the ERM after she'd lost office.

She looks now like a visionary when you read speeches. So that's my next question, really, is – that was her at her lowest. What did you see her at her highest? When was she the most triumphant or the most in her power? I saw her when she returned from her famous trip to Russia. I was there at Downing Street, and came back and that would have been when it would have been in early 87. She knew at that point that the trip had been a great success and the relationship with Gorbachev was working well and Gorbachev's relationship with Reagan was working

well and she had introduced Reagan to Gorbachev. She had had fantastic debates with Gorbachev. Charles Powell, her aide, told me while she was there. And remember, Mrs. Thatcher liked people who argued with her. So that's one of the reasons she liked Gorbachev. The two of them had these great ding-dong battles. And you can read them now, of course. And she gave as good as she got. And I think he liked her, too, for that reason. People often talked of a slight sort of sexual crackle between them. I think it was an ideological crackle. I think she just simply loved debating with him.

But she came back in. She looked terrific. That was the time when she started wearing these 80s power shoulders. And she came in and she looked terrific. And the whole Downing Street staff was there. We knew it would be the triumph. And we stood there applauding. And she was very, she liked that.

These were her friends and daily allies. And this was a moment of triumph. And they were applauding her. She knew she'd done well. And she knew, by the way, at that point, she was pretty well certain to win the next election, which would make it a hat trick for her. And she did, in fact. So that was a moment. And I... John, Peter here, we've got to let you go. You've got to lead your life in New York and then pack for London. But I have a couple of final questions for you, John. I saw Mrs. Thatcher, this would

have been mid-90s. She visited the Hoover Institution and we'd met one or two times through your good graces, but she had no reason to remember who I was. So I introduced myself and said, I'm a friend of John O'Sullivan's. And she said, oh, John, I must get in touch with John. And it was clear to me that she thought of you as a friend. What did she mean to you? Well, of course, you know, she remembered, as I said, we saw each other through the 70s. And I was more or less a supporter of hers, insofar as you can respectably be so while still a working journalist. And she knew it.

And she knew I was on her side. And she knew I'd tried to get the paper to back her completely against Ted Heath, which it had come close to doing, but not quite done. So she did regard me as a friend. And she did sort of say things to me when she was prime minister, like, please call me Margaret. I said, I can't do that. You're the prime minister. Do you wish you had now? Well, I did later, of course, when she was out of office and she and Dennis became good friends.

And then they met Melissa and Melissa and she hit it off. So we were sort of family friends in the last, what, 10 to 15 years of her life. And and of course, I saw her when I was whenever I was in London, really. And so, yes, it was a friend. I there we were friends, but there was a gulf of status and history, which I felt. But I don't think she particularly did. You know, she was a great woman, but she was never grand in that sense. She never condescended. She always treated other people as equals.

Now, John, you're going, here's my last question. Keep going. Well, I mean. I'm trying to text you here, you're heading over to London. I just, actually, I say this is a question, but I'm not sure I can formulate it very tightly. There is a continuity from Winston Churchill, who fought the war and received a great state funeral in 65. Mrs. Thatcher will receive the first prime minister since Churchill. The queen will be in attendance. In some way, this occasion will remind all of Britain of this heritage, this lineage of fighters and the magnificent

accomplishments of Churchill winning the war, Thatcher saving the country. And now really there's only one representative of that generation left. And she herself is 87 now, the queen. It feels to me as though in one of, as sometimes these huge state occasions in Britain often do, they represent an implicit choice to present-day Britain. More of this, or are we going to turn our backs on it? What do you make of it? Okay. Well, first of all, you're absolutely right. There have been four funerals in my lifetime, which have done exactly what you've suggested, which is ask and choose. Three of them, well, the first I will mention is the what,

and that was Princess Diana's funeral. And I was asking the British people, inviting them to become a new kind of people, emotionally incontinent, celebrity obsessed, and vague and benevolent in their spirituality which would however make no demands on them. And it looked for a terrifying moment that social pressures which came from among other places from the BBC which later confessed it had not acknowledged

any of the hostile mail it had received for the character of its coverage. It looked for a moment as though this kind of Britain was triumphing easily. But then, as you may remember, about a few months later, the Queen Mother died. And there was the kind of funeral that Churchill got and that Mrs. Thatcher will get that was held on that occasion. It was old fashioned. It had all of the symbols of old Britain and the establishment. It was military. It was people.

It was service rather than fame at the basis of it. And the country rallied enormously to that. And to, of course, the image and memory of the Queen Mother. Mrs. Thatcher's funeral will, I think, be a similar occasion. But that brings me back to one of your first questions, Peter, which I didn't properly answer. And you asked me why there was this hatred of Mrs. Thatcher. Well, I mean, I think what we have in Britain is something

which we haven't always avoided before. And that is because we've expanded education beyond its proper limits and put it in the hands of dimwitted Trotskyists, we now have what used to be what we used to be warned against. What we have is a ruthless intelligentsia that can't get the jobs it was promised. And that's when you have basically a lumpen intelligentsia of that kind. You have social trouble. You have resentments. You have hatreds. You have a sense of failure, which is blamed on everybody else.

And that's, Mrs. Thatcher's become the focus for that feeling. How does the lumpen intelligentsia revolt, though, by nicking an extra copy of The Guardian when they take one out of the box? What are these people going to do? Well, maybe nothing

because, of course, the modern state makes provision for people to do nothing if they're sufficiently determined to do so. And people are very worried about that and they want something done about it. But at the same time, and maybe that was something which Mrs. Thatcher didn't tackle. I don't blame her for that because she tackled the other questions that were more important at the time. And you can't do everything. But maybe it's something she should have tackled. But there was one thing which she did. that were more important at the time. And you can't do everything. But maybe it's something she should have tackled.

But there was one thing which she did. And I will tell you the story that exemplifies it. She rose above these people and she showed that she was in no way frightened of them. The story is this. She was going into a conservative meeting, I think in somewhere like Blackpool. And there was a big left-wing mob trying to stop her getting in. And the police took her through. And the mob is chanting, Thatcher, Thatcher, Thatcher,

fascist, fascist, fascist, out, out, out. it make you feel awfully nostalgic? So at the end of the day, she showed she wasn't frightened of them or even that much concerned about them. But they are a subject for concern, and we have to find a way of dealing with them. John, I said I had a last – I'm sorry, James, but I really do have one last question. As you know, John, Claire Luce used to say that history will give each great figure only a single sentence. Lincoln freed the slaves. Churchill beat Hitler. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. What is Mrs. Thatcher's sentence? Well, David Cameron may have given it, which is Mrs. Thatcher saved Britain and helped to save the world. But she certainly did that and she restored the British some real sense of themselves. And I think now that she's gone.

You mean that strictly? You're not being carried away as you, she saved Britain. Yes. I mean, I think that Britain obviously wasn't actually going to disappear into the North Sea. Although, by the way, Desmond Donnelly said in 1970, his greatest fear of 1971 was that Britain would sink giggling into the sea. And so this is not something that people didn't think about beforehand. But having said that, what do I mean? Well, I mean that it remained an important country, a decent country, and a country that could feed itself and invent new things, could continue to be not, of course, the dominant superpower that had passed to the United States. We didn't have the population for that. We didn't have the strength for that anymore. But Britain still remains a country which makes astounding advances in science and technology, in culture and in life in general.

It's a great place to live. And I don't think it would have been. It would have been a shabby, it would have been a bit like the Earth Strip One described by George Orwell in 1984. That's what would have happened, I think. But fortunately, it didn't. We envy you your trip there, John. And we hope to hear a report on the events. Godspeed, have a good trip. And by all means, give our regards to your lovely wife.

I certainly will. Thanks, James. Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Rob. Thank you, John. Thank you, John. Talk to you soon. Well, we could have gone another hour or two, the inexhaustible font that is John Sullivan.

It's just a delight. He was there. He was there. He was there. He saw it. He heard it. But, you know, as far as having one sentence define you, I fear at this point that Mark Krikorian's sentence will be, he sat listening on the stream patiently, waiting for his chance to be.

But, of course, Mark is so much more than that. He's a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues. He served as executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies since 1995. Mark holds a master's from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a bachelor's degree from Georgetown. And he spent two years at Yerevan State University in then-Soviet Armenia, which is an education, I'm sure. And we welcome to the podcast to discuss, oh, I'm guessing immigration might come up. Welcome, Mark.

Glad to be here, James. Mark, how are you? I'm doing very well. Love the show. I'm glad to be here, James. Clark, how are you? I'm doing very well. Love the show. I'm glad to be on it finally. Oh, thanks. You're glad to have you. Hey, Mark, you heard John O'Sullivan.

Only a couple minutes. Only a couple minutes. Okay, that's right. Right, so we'd like your opinion on John Sullivan, and then we've got to go because we're really over time here. Well, I mean, I guess in many ways, right, we are talking about an issue that was not, I mean, I guess I'm trying to try to form this question. We are, Ronald Reagan signed what would everybody recognize as now as an amnesty bill. Did you agree with that?

Yeah, of course. I mean, yes. Are we about as an amnesty at the time? Sure. Are we about to do the same thing? Well, frankly, I don't think it's going to happen. But yes, the people pushing this are trying to do the same thing. And the problem, what's the same about it is not just that it's about legalizing illegal aliens. I mean, that's a distasteful thing, quite frankly, but it's something that sometimes you might have to do. The problem is we're legalizing first, amnesty first, and then promising enforcement later. And that's the same deal as 86. And that's just a recipe for, you know, coming back 10 years from now and having the same debate because we've got another 10 million illegal aliens. Hey, Mark, Peter here, you know, I'm your friend in all kinds of ways, but let me put the counter argument, sum it up. I think I can sum it up reasonably well. There are two arguments if you're Marco Rubio. Here's the first argument. Look,

we've got 11 million people here illegally. The Mexican economy is much stronger than it used to be. Illegal immigration from Mexico, which was 95% of the problem, has slowed to something like a trickle. This is the moment to do something. We really have to do something. Now, let's make the best deal we can. And don't worry because immigration as the kind of problem that we saw in the last decade, decade and a half is over. So relax. Argument one. Argument two, moreover, for Republicans, this is a political necessity. Hispanics are growing as a proportion of the population. Either we find a way to begin to appeal to Hispanics and the prerequisite for that is settling on immigration or the Republican Party is doomed to the same ash heap as the Whigs.

We have to do something. So that's the argument. How do you respond? Well, there's two of them. We have half an hour, right? So the first point is we don't know that immigration from Mexico is over. First of all, I mean, it's not over. It was about 60 percent of the illegal populations from Mexico. So it's actually not an entirely Mexican issue. Close to half of illegal immigrants come in on visas legally and then never leave. And that's, there's a lot of Mexicans who do that too, but that's not mainly a Mexican issue. My only point here is that the idea that the illegal immigration problem is now over, that it's a phase

we've passed through, like, you know, pioneering or settling the frontier or something. That's just, you know, maybe that's true. I don't know. I can't say that it's not true, but I can say that no one knows that that's true. And when we see illegal crossings in South Texas, for instance, surging 50 percent more than they were at the same time last year with Central Americans, especially making up an even bigger share. Because remember, Honduras, you look if you're in Honduras, Mexico looks like Norway compared to your country. Right. It's not the problem's not over. And, you know, we at least have to wait a little while, wait till our economy picks up and see if illegal immigration, in fact, doesn't pick up. Do you see what I mean? In other words, sort of jumping the gun. The second argument, political argument, the fact is Hispanic voters, we're talking about Hispanic American voters, most of them are native born, aren't really voting on immigration. There's some degree

to which they're clearly going to vote on an issue of sort of the question of respect. In other words, do Republicans respect us or are they treating us disrespectfully? That's a real problem, I think. That's not an immigration issue. And something I've suggested, I actually wrote on it at Ricochet, was the Republican Party ought to reach out to immigrants, not imagining that an amnesty is going to get their votes because it isn't. Rather, set up what I called American Opportunity Centers to teach, to get volunteers, Republican volunteers, teaching English, teaching the citizenship test. I actually do that myself at Catholic Charities, helping immigrants with their tax forms, that kind of thing. That's the kind of outreach that I think can send a message that, you know, that we don't disrespect you.

The problem is it doesn't get any kickbacks for political consultants buying, you know, arranging ad buys. Right. Hey, Mark, today, Mark Zuckerberg and a bunch of Silicon Valley and New York City tech investors formed a PAC or they launched a PAC I should say. It is for – I think it's called Forward. – FWD.US, Forward US I guess they're saying. And it's a political advocacy group designed to focus on the passage of comprehensive immigration reform, which especially means the H-1B temporary visas for the high-skilled foreign workers. Is this a – is this where we – can we agree that we should do that? Well, first of all, well, the answer is no. But before I go into that, you know, these kind of groups, I think they should just be open is call themselves billionaires for open borders.

You know, what's his name? Mayor Bloomberg and, you know, the Fox News guy, you know, you know, owner of Fox News. What's his name? Rupert Murdoch. Yeah. Rupert Murdoch and Bloomberg started a group like that. Again, it should have been called billionaires for open borders. The tech issue, first of all, is separate from this issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants. It's a separate issue. These guys are really in favor of increasing the high skilled foreignilled foreign workers as sort of temporary immigrants or getting green cards.

The wait time is apparently very long. The visa class is H-1B. That's kind of all they're focused on. I mean you're right. They're pretty much all billionaires but they – but I get their point. I mean those are people we want to come to the country, right? Let's – I mean well, let me sort of unpack that. First of all, they're supporting what's called comprehensive immigration reform. That's the jargon for putting

everything into 1000 page bill, including the tech visas and the amnesty and everything else. So they are lending their weight to the amnesty, even though the tech workers are their main concern. Secondly, these tech workers, some of them really are the best and brightest in the world, but most of them are kind of people with average skills. They're not going to end up on welfare. They're not landscapers, but they're not special. I mean, we've looked at the H-1, the skill profiles of people on these so-called H-1B visas. And, you know, they're really not that skilled. They're a tool for employers to get cheap labor. It's not that different from getting tomato pickers. It's just a different industry.

Mark, Peter here once again. I have to say, I have no idea where this will come out. And there are even edges of the argument where I want to say, oh, I'm not sure that I'm completely with you. But I do want to say this much. Boy, do I admire the courage and intelligence and calm that you demonstrate when the zeitgeist consultants, party bigwigs, and even Marco Rubio, of all people, have swung hard against your position. How do you – what do you find sustains you? Where do you find pockets of support? Or for all I know, we were just talking with John O'Sullivan about Mrs. Thatcher and John made the point that Mrs. Thatcher sensed that the people, ordinary people, were with her. Well, I mean part of of it, I think, honestly, is personality. If the entire Republican Party

were on my side, I might start then dissenting and pushing the other way. I don't know. And some of it is just sort of Jimmy Stewart in the movie. There's no, the lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for. But the, you know, I think there really is a pretty strong sense among the public that they don't dislike foreigners, that illegal immigrants who are here and have been a long time, been here a long time and have kids, you know, okay, let's let them stay. That's all right. But only if we're not going to be here again 10 years from now. And, you know, that's just, you know, there is the immigration issue really isn't a right left issue, even though I'm pretty firmly on the right. It's much more an up down issue. It's a it's a populist kind of issue

versus elites, Republican and Democratic. And I don't know, that kind of thing just appeals to me. And frankly, I'm just kind of a phlegmatic personality. So I'm almost liberated. I'm liberated by the fact everybody's on the other side. I have one last question, Mark, and I know Rob and James. Is this really the last one or is that just? I think this is my last one. I have to say, I suppose this just shows that I haven't been doing my reading. But what was it, yesterday or the day before that the New York Times included that figure in some story fairly prominently featured that over 40% of people here illegally were on expired visas. And I thought that I knew the issue pretty well and that I was emotionally drained. And that one made me

angry all over again, because that's a clear failure of the federal government. The inability to follow up on people once you've issued them visas, I mean, it's just a staggering failure. Am I right that that represents at least a kind of political opening to talk about the immigration issue, not as negative towards the actual people, but as yet another failing of the stinking federal government? Yeah, actually, you're understating the case, Peter, because it's worse than that. Congress in 1996 and a big immigration law that was partly inspired by the first World Trade Center attack required the who didn't check out, who's still here. That was 17 years ago and five more times since then. Congress has mandated the development of a system like this and it still isn't complete. And even in the Gang of Eight bill, they're proposing to complete it within 10 years and only at airports and seaports, even though most of the foreign visitors coming into the

country are coming across our land borders. So it's way worse even than you think, because if we had Herman Cain's electric fences and all that kind of nonsense on the Mexican border, it really wouldn't make that much difference. Honestly, you have to have the whole system secured. So, okay, this really is my last question. And I knew it. You've got to go lead your life. But Rob mentioned, and it gets referred to pretty generally now, Ronald Reagan's 1986 amnesty. But as you know very well, he signed a piece of legislation that had two components. One component was an amnesty for the then 3 million people who

were here illegally. But the second component was much tougher enforcement. And Ronald Reagan signed that measure in 1986, believing in good faith that he was granting an amnesty because it would never happen again. And so from 86 forward, the federal government failed again and again and again to put into place effectively the provisions of the law that he signed. We know that it's bipartisan. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton failed to enforce the rule of law at the border. And now you're saying that since the world trade, the terrorist attacks, Congress has seven times enacted law requiring tighter use of the visas. I just don't understand why Marco Rubio, well, I'm not even sure how to frame the question, but why aren't Republicans saying this is a catastrophic failure of the federal government?

And before anything else happens, Americans have – it is perfectly reasonable for Americans to say we want proof that the government is serious and can perform in enforcing the rule of law, visa law, the rule of law at the border, before we consider another amnesty. I just don't understand why there isn't – why we don't have major political figures, not even Rand Paul. Nobody is saying that. Why not? Because immigration is an issue where there really isn't any significant elite pressure for better enforcement. So because you have this elite public divide, you have legislation that looks tough to placate public concerns. But then, like any piece of legislation, what really matters is how it's implemented. Is it followed up? How does the funding work? How are the loopholes defended? that kind of thing. And that all happens at the level

conducted by lobbyists. And I don't say that as a dirty word, but the point is in between passing tough laws, interest groups that actually visit the offices, make the calls, run into the congressman on the golf course and tell them what they think. Those people overwhelmingly want the laws to not be enforced strictly. So you end up with laws that look tough and then don't end up being enforced. That's the central problem. And until the political class earns the trust of the public that it will in fact follow through with these promises. I just don't see any rationale, any way to justify a broad amnesty program. Yeah, Mark, this is my first question in a series of 14. Good. Actually, no, it's not because we got to let you go and we appreciate you being with us. But

the point you made is absolutely right. It doesn't matter really what the federal government does if the states and localities are patting themselves on the back about being all good and humane and wise by refusing to question people's immigration status. I mean, we find that all over the place. I mean, it's extraordinary whether the police are told not to inquire or not to do anything if they learn or suspect, which just seems an inversion

of the law that would have struck the forebearers as rather peculiar and would have seemed unthinkable 50 or 60 years ago. Anyway, we look forward to your take on what's coming up and we will find it in all the usual places, including we hope ricochet and this issue is never going away.

So we're going to have you back to, to tell us what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong. Thanks again, Mark, Mark Ricorian. Thank you guys. Thanks Mark. Thanks.

Well, we are long. We, uh, you're well Ricorian. Thank you, guys. Thanks, Mark. Thanks. Take care. Well, we are long. You are well. No, Rob is. I am, yeah. I'm short and Peter's lanky. So before we go, one last thing here, guys. I'm sure you've been watching the NORC spin up the rhetoric. Hot Air is

reporting today that their news people are saying, prepare for war. The South Korean people will be obliterated into cinders, et cetera, et cetera. Where is this going to play out? What are we looking at a week from now? Well, I think we're probably looking at a Chinese buyout. We're trying to – some kind of payment. Look, you can time the North Korean eruptions by how hungry the people are and the people are kind of hungry right now.

No, not by the hungry people. How depleted the supply of VSOP brandy. Yeah. All right. to have – that's the one thing that they need to sustain their regime is they need money and they need stuff because they don't make anything and they don't grow anything anymore. And that comes almost exclusively from China. And so that's usually what this is.

They can't go to their friends and press their friends. So they go to their – the people their friends do business with and they make trouble. That's – I think that's the best possible outcome of this. The worst obviously is that they actually launch something, whether it actually works or not. It's something else. But we – it doesn't seem conceivable looking at that region that this kind of thing can continue for much longer.

This kind of – because they get closer and closer to actually having a missile and they get more and more desperate. And that's kind of the – that's sort of a death spiral. You don't want people to get increasingly more desperate and increasingly more sophisticated with their weaponry. What you want is you want to come to a solution for it. And that solution is going to have to be – that solution is going to have to come from Chinese leadership. that we are at least occasionally and we're often concerned by, we're actually asking them and we have to, to bring this little kind of pesky and potentially very dangerous ally to heal. There's really no, there's no good scenario for us right now,

but those are the cards we have. Hmm. No, that's all you're going to get out of me. Just a hmm? Yeah, just a hmm. The piece of this, our press, well, I have to say I haven't, I can't claim to have delved into it very deeply. But skimming the front page, doing my usual reading, the Times and the Journal every morning and skimming the internet as I do, there has not been much reporting that I have seen in our press on the reaction in Seoul. And that's a major city very close to the North Korean border. And I would like to know how

nervous they are, even as when I'm trying to think through how close is Iran to getting a nuclear bomb and how bad would that be, I send a note to our friend Judith at Ricochet and ask her, how are things in Israel? And she'll put up a post. And in general, Israel seems a fairly calm place, reasonably businesslike. There's no panic in Israel. They seem at some basic level to think they can deal with it in Iran. And I don't sense that there's any panic in Seoul. So I guess they've been living with these lunatics across the border for more than four decades now. I guess I would defer to their judgment. On the other hand,

there are 20,000 American troops in South Korea. We have ships all around the area. So they may just be relying on us. I don't know, which is why I revert to my original comment. Hmm. Hmm. Well, I think hmm is probably correct. I wish we had somebody in South Korea, some Ricochet member or someone who's a friend of a friend who could sort of help shed some light. I'd love to know what the nuances of what their press are reporting is. I love to hear that. Let's put up a blag on Ricochet this very day.

I'll bet somebody knows somebody who can give us a report. But in general, the South Koreans have a fairly sanguine attitude because the actual – the land that's going to be traversed by the 23 million emaciated North Koreans when the whole thing comes tumbling down, they're probably not going to go south. They're going to go north. It's much, much easier to cross the border to China. And it's the Chinese who are nervous for a whole bunch of reasons. One is that up there by that – what they call Dongbei is the part of China. It's ethnically Korean and the Koreans have been talking about the roots of the ancient

Koryo Empire up there. And the Chinese, the Han Chinese who run China are always terrified of any kind of ethnic separatism or ethnic movements. They don't like it when it's the Uyghurs in the west. They don't like it when it's the Indo-Chinese, the Tibetans, Indo-Chinese in the south. They don't like it when it's the – The Tibetans. The Indo-Chinese, the Tibetans, Indo-Chinese in the south. They don't like it when it's the Koryo in the north. And if you suddenly get 23 million of them streaming across the Yalu River, it's not great for the Chinese. So to me, the solution comes from – if your dog is biting neighbors, then you can get the dog but you also got to get the dog owner.

And it is absolutely indisputable that the Chinese own the North Korean dog and they must step in. It's not something they want to do but it's something that they have to do and we need to require them to do that. The only problem with that is that once you do that, you've increased Chinese power and influence in the region. So you get another problem on the other side. But or just recognize the power that they that they wield. I can imagine. Yes, I can imagine. Yes, that they're not saying what about the prospect of 23 million people coming across the border, which is why I just think that they wouldn't let them come across the border. You guys stay there and figure, you know, we'll drop some sacks of grain on you, but you're not going to come in here. I mean they may say –

China is a very rich country. They can send a billion dollars to Pyongyang every year. This represents yet another entry in my file folder entitled There Is No Bottom to Rob Long. I had no idea. I had no idea that he was an embryonic secretary of state. When did you learn all this? I just, I, I read widely, Peter. I'm thumbing right now to the page in the economist where I read the same thing. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Uh, no, no, but here's the drill. I mean,

I've been there. That yeah. dipped my toe in the Yalu River. I've been there. You have? Yeah. When were you at the Yalu? Yalu, I don't know, five years ago, four years ago? Six years ago. And you still have that toe, so the industrial pollution is not as bad as I heard.

No, children, look, the Yalu River is about 30 meters wide most places. It's very shallow. The North Korean children swim and play in it in the summer. Here's the point. If the Chinese are smart, and they are, and we know they like to play the long game, it would be in their best interest to get a regime in North Korea that isn't as nuts as these guys and open up the entire place as a theme park. I mean open up Pyongyang as a totalitarian theme park and let the tourists stream in and see exactly what this insane, isolated, fictitious culture built.

I mean, I'm fascinated. There's a deadness of the soul to communist art that I find fascinating. It is amazing. And this is that on an urban scale. But you know, it's harder for the Chinese to do that. I mean, I know what you mean. It is not in their nature. It's not in their history.

It's not even in, I don't even think it's in their, the worldview, the geopolitical worldview that they teach and learn that a superpower has custodial responsibilities. That's just not something they do. They are entirely defensive all the time. It's not Tsarist Russia which became Bolshevik Russia where you just sort of – one landlord took over the provinces of the other landlord. This is just not a Chinese thing. So they really – they think of themselves entirely as self-preservation and that they are defending the celestial empire and the center of the universe. They don't really think of it as like, OK, well now the world is divided up into spheres of influence and these are our – this is where we have influence and we need to exert

a certain pressure and control the way the world has been run for millennia. They don't see it that way. When they go into traditionally, for lack of a better word, colonial areas like Africa, they go in, they're making deals. They don't care. They don't care about the government. They don't care about – they're not opening schools or hospitals or missionaries. They don't – they have zero interest in that. They are making a straight-on financial deal and all they want to do is have somebody keep the peace. In one way, that's very refreshingly honest. In other ways, it's sort of – it's just hard for – I think hard for us to wrap our heads around because we in the West are always trying to think how could this be better?

Are we improving? Are we not improving? We just think differently. And so we have to get the Chinese to start thinking, all right, you're going to have a blue water navy. You're going to do this. You're going to do that. Well, you give a lot of money to North Korea.

You're going to have to give more to North Korea because we're not going to put up with this kind of threat anymore. And if you don't, then we're going to have to exert our influence and it's right on your doorstep. You're not going to like that either. Well, it's a good thing we have such a persuasive president who enjoys the muscular flexing that the job requires. Yeah.

More than content to let the budget deficit go to, you know, to let the debt consume 100% of the GDP, put his feet up on the table, think about his library in Hawaii and plan his next golfing expedition. And be content with the knowledge that the media will just acknowledge him as one of the people who did something that no other president really did. And that is just he gave so many things and reminded us that it's important that we all pay our fair share. Why we have a little cartoon in the paper today. It's got Obama touching the third rail of Social Security entitlement reform while he's waiting for the Republican to touch the third rail that's called taxes because the Republicans have given absolutely nothing and need to give so much more. That cartoon is exactly correct.

It's exactly correct. He will do anything and spend anything and vote for anything and propose anything to maneuver our side into saying, OK, let's raise taxes, because then that takes our entire reason for being away from us. And it breaks the seal on this thing that has been this resistance and the people understand he wants Americans to wake up tomorrow morning and say they're both going to raise my taxes. So why don't I vote for the party that's going to give me stuff? Right. So you will have a man who at the end of his career will be worth a hundred million dollars and got there by encouraging other people to turn on the guys who make 250,000 and convincing them that they have to spend 4,000, 5,000 more. And that

makes him a good person, a very good person. I know we're wrapping this up, but I just want to say that that's the one thing it's hard for us sometimes on our side to understand when we talk about deficits and debt and this and that. They don't care. He doesn't think that's a problem. I don't. Because the solution is you raise taxes. Or you put money. Yeah. It's not a problem. You get it from someplace else. Right. Hey, Rob. Yeah. I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to know that your star has his jaw wired shut because rob long is really animated on our podcast when he doesn't have to worry about getting over to burbank and running the writer's room i am in the middle of shooting a pilot actually this has been oh you are oh yeah whoa i'm shooting i've got another i've got another thing i'm doing for the same network they want me to another one

and the schedules did not work out. So instead of shooting it in the summer when I wanted to shoot it or shoot it in the autumn when I had plenty of time, they decided that I should shoot it in the middle of my production of another series I'm doing for them. And so I have to tell you that when my star Steve Burns jaw was wired shut, I was both upset for him and concerned and made sure he was healthy and concerned for the shutdown of production and all sorts of things. But there was a part of me that was thinking, well, at least I don't have to worry about that for this week because I can go do the other thing. So I am going to Burbank in 10 minutes. I'm doing a new pilot.

It's basically set at Home Depot. It has two great pros I've always admired and I've never worked with. One is the great Cheech Marin of Cheech and Chong. He plays the guy who makes the keys and he's sort of a doomsday prepper. I like that. And the other is Bill Engvall who is a great comedian. Bill Engvall, wonderful comedian. Toured a long time with Jeff Foxworthy, guys like that.

Incredible guy, wonderful guy, very, very funny. When you're dealing with people like that, you just kind of give them – you don't have to work that hard. You just kind of write a line for them. They make it funny. The only bad news from this week is that we had a very funny Obama joke in there that Angbaugh delivered perfectly. I don't know his politics at all, but I suspect they are ricochet consistent,

we should say. And it was very funny. We had to cut it for time. And everybody in the room, all the other writers and me were kind of rolling their eyes at me like, yeah, yeah, yeah, Rob, you got that in. But it'll be in there somehow.

It may not be in the pilot, but it'll definitely be in episode two. So there you go. Okay, so let's just make a blanket offer to you right now, Rob. Any anti-Obama jokes that get cut, just bring them right over here to the podcast. Just bring them to us.

Well, they're all contextual, so I haven't, you know, I got to get that one. They're all contextual. All right, boys. You got to go to Burbank. James has to go do his job. I got to go to one. They're all contextual. All right, boys. You got to go to Burbank. James has to go do his job. I got to go to work.

Go ahead. I have to go interview somebody, the former chief of staff or the governor about education because our former governor, who was regarded by many people as an utter quizzling because Republican though he was, he drifted left and endorsed Obama, which generally you don't associate with Republicans. But he wrote an article about the bloat at the University of Minnesota, how they spend too much money on salaries and they're getting away from the core idea. And I'm looking forward to having a conversation about what exactly a university is for. Is it to educate the students for a reasonable amount of money and equip them to go out and get a good job? Or is it some big institution that's there actually to find the one micro bacteria that can change heart tissue and make –, I mean, what is it? Are we here to educate people and load them up with debt?

Or are we this other great civic institution that somehow carries the flower of Minnesota intellectual life forward? So yeah, that's, that's what I get to go do after this. And then write a humor column about how a coffee shop is closing. That sounds like a full day. All right,

boys. All right, Rob, get to work. Peter, get to full day. All right, boys. All right, Rob. Get to work. Peter, get to work. Me, get to work. Everybody, get to work and go back to Ricochet. Listen, comment. We thank you for listening.

We thank John O'Sullivan. We thank Mark Ricorian and we thank, of course, everybody at Audible who sponsors this podcast and everybody at Hillsdale College with their free online course

on the Constitution and Western Heritage. Ricochet.com slash Hillsdale. Sign up today for the whole free thing. Thank you for listening and we'll see you all down the road. I'm in love with Margaret Thatcher, I'm in love with Margaret Thatcher, I'm in love with Maggie T. I'm in love with Margaret Thatcher, I'm in love with Margaret Thatcher, I'm in love with Maggie T. Oh, Margaret Thatcher is so sexy, she's a girl for you and me. I'm in love with my gay friend.

I'm in love with my gay friend. I'm in love with my gay friend. I'm in love with my gay friend. I'm in love with my gay friend. I'm in love with my gay friend. Ricochet. Join the conversation. And we're very happy that we leave the United Kingdom in a very, very much better state than when we came here 11 and a half years ago.