The Ricochet Podcast - The Reykjaviking Crew

Episode Date: May 8, 2014

This week, a little history and a little current events. First, author/historian Ken Adelman on his new book Reagan at Reykjavik: Forty-Eight Hours That Ended the Cold War, and on the what lessons from that summit can be applied to the current crisis in Russia. Then, our old fiends Bill Kristol stops by for some conversation on the state of the races to retake Congress, and yes, even 2016. Finally... Source

Activate program. More than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Well, I'm not a crook. I'll never tell a lie. But I am not a bully. I'm the king of the world! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long and Peter Robinson.

I'm James Lylex, and today we're going to speak with Ken Adelson, who will take us back to those momentous hours at Reykjavik when Reagan stared down Gorby. And then we'll talk to Bill Kristol to examine the landscape, both international and domestic. Let's have ourselves a podcast. There you go again. Yes, everybody, welcome to this, the Ricochet Podcast number 213. It's brought to you this week by Foodie Direct. And you're thinking, hmm, might there be a holiday coming up that requires some sort of fine, fine confections?

Yes. This Mother's Day, give mom the gift of great food and start her day special by pampering her with a delicious, you know what? I'm not going to spoil it. We'll get to that later. Foodie Direct has got great choices for Mother's Day and we'll be getting to those in just a little bit. Also sponsored by Encounter Books and our feature title this week, this month, is Dancing with the Devil, the Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes by Michael Rubin. And I'll be talking a little bit more about that later. If you've been listening to the podcast for the last couple of weeks, you know what it's about. And if you haven't read it yet, what's stopping you exactly?

It couldn't be the price, because if you go to Encounter Books and type in Ricochet, you get 15% off this or any other title. And we're also brought to you by Ricochet itself. And here is where I stand back and point my arms to Rob who is – the spotlight has fallen upon him and bathed in the light he's about to tell you. James, thank you very much. If you are listening to this podcast for the first time, welcome. We are happy to have you. If you are listening to it and you are a member of Ricochet.com, we are even more happy.

We're thrilled to have you along the ride with us as a fellow member at the calvin coolidge level the sainted cal level which of course is five dollars a month 39.95 a year that's fine we're happy to have you we would love to have you think about upgrading your membership to the margaret thatcher level or the ronald reagan level please check out at ricochet.com the various goodies you get when you're a member of those two extra tiers we We are right now putting together our plans for the Reagan level, which includes a dinner. I can't say where exactly it's going to be yet because we're trying to arrange it, but I think it's going to be really, really cool. And you get an extra podcast every month, slightly more in-depth, a slightly more offbeat

hour of good entertainment. Ricochet.com only works if you're a member. And I understand that there's no law compelling you to be a member. But that's the way it works here in conservative land. You join because you believe in the movement. You want to join a bunch of people across the country from all walks of life who are

interested in I don't want to say saving the country. Winning the country back. We've got to do that one vote at a time. We're going to have some good midterms. It's going to be a great year to be a member of Ricochet. It's going to be a great two years to be a member of Ricochet. We've never been more influential.

We would love to have you join our roles. Ricochet.com. Come and join. And also, if you join those top tier levels, you have more say when it comes to the things that you hate about 2.0 that you want fixed. Isn't that true? Hey, we're fixing stuff so fast. I know you are. I know you are. We're fixing stuff so fast and we're going to roll out, there's going to be a little bit of a

design refresh because we, unlike many large government organizations, we listen to our members and it's our members space as well. So there'll be some, you know, it's common, It's common. It's all common.

Speaking of large government organizations, wouldn't it be marvelous if we could be like Obamacare? If we could eliminate people's ability to get on the internet, if we could cancel their current policy, make it impossible for them to listen to anything they enjoy unless they join Ricochet. Right. We too would have eight million members right now. Well, all you have to do is outlaw everything else.

Exactly. Outlaw all other choices. Exactly. Which to me is the most – to me that's the most staggering thing. I was actually talking to a friend of mine, a lefty friend of mine the other day about this, and I found myself getting exercise, but I try never to do, you like you know get excited no but i kept saying that you not you yeah well i mean you know i am surrounded by by liberal progressives what are we going to do you can't go through all day yelling but i try to explain that that to achieve the goals of what they talk about in in obamacare there was it was

there was zero need to go through a thorough rehashing of every available insurance policy on the market. There was only a need to voucherize poor people so they can buy insurance on the market. And it was an astonishing thing. They looked at me like, you're crazy. What do you mean? Well, you had it. All you need to do is pay for it. That was the problem. That was to achieve the stated aims. Yeah, you're right. The real aims are to expand the reach of government, to engage in a massive redistribution. That's what's really going on, right?

This has almost nothing to do, maybe, maybe deep in some recess of her reptile ganglia, Kathleen Sebelius actually does want to do some good with Obamacare. But really what's going on here is an expansion of government, increasing the number of clients of the Democratic Party and a huge redistribution. And it's the welfare state. It's not health. It's the welfare state. You had me at ganglia.

I saw a reptile ganglia play last night at 7th Street Entry. Rob said you can't spend your day going through your day yelling. You can if your name is Janet, and you can keep goosing the economy. I believe that's her latest little idea here. Because if you have government insertion into the economy, into healthcare, into absolutely everything else, then you have equality finally. We had a study today or yesterday, this week. It said that job creation levels in America are falling to historic levels and more jobs are being destroyed than created. And when you look at your friends on the left and you ask them why this is and doesn't this worry you, there's absolutely no idea that this could be the result of anything that government does. If anything, it's a sign of the failure of capitalism. And it doesn't

matter, because those probably weren't good jobs anyway. And economic activity is bad for the planet. Why didn't you read that report? Why don't you know it's already too late? Heat, floods, pestilence, dogs and cats living together, climate change is here, and that's the most important issue. Now,

if that's the most important issue, and the president seems to be making it so. The president in L.A. talking to the chairman of Walt Disney Studios at his house at a fundraiser that cost $64,000 a couple. So, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. You talk about inequality. Go right ahead. That's what he did. That's where he is. I mean, he actually flew in a giant jet. Air Force One landed, shut down all the traffic, then glided motorcaded to a fantastically wealthy person's house surrounded by fantastically wealthy people and talked about income inequality. Interesting. Was that what he was discussing, income inequality?

No, I mean that was one of the things. He was discussing how terrible it is that the Republicans are saying no to everything. It was a fundraiser, a political fundraiser. But there's just something that sticks in my craw about an extremely rich, powerful person surrounded by rich, powerful people clucking over how tough it is for the proles without doing anything. He doesn't have to do anything as long as he says something, as long as it's the same thing as climate change. You know, interestingly, OK, Jim Pethokoukis had a very, very good post this week. I mean, I don't know if it was – it might have been Monday. Maybe it was Tuesday on the income inequality number. And he said there's two different numbers.

There's sort of the one way of looking at income inequality in the country and then there's a way of looking at it in terms of disposable income, which is when you fold in all of the other – the social security income and Medicare and all the other things the government gives back. And it actually starts to look extremely flat, and the income inequality in this country looked at by that and from the mid-90s on has been pretty flat. Actually, it's been not so bad. But nobody wants to talk about that because it doesn't help Democrats to talk about how income inequality has been improved by government programs. And Republicans don't really want to talk about that because that seems to give government programs a little too much credit. And I don't think anybody's talking about it because – on our side because of course we didn't know it, but also because all it does is show that government is running now a kind of rearguard action to try to cover up the failure of our – I mean this is Jim Pethokoukis.

I think he's right. The failure of our education system to prepare people for the past almost 20 years now for a more competitive and different – a more competitive future that requires more skilled employees of which we are not – a group of which we are not graduating. Could that be more of a torture sentence? But you know what I mean. That government is now the thing we're using to flatten that difference instead of paying attention to the underlying cause, which is not that there are horrible hedge fund managers out there, but that we are not raising and graduating a group which is just split into the so-called the class system in England where we watch these costume dramas and everybody – we think the class system involves dukes and marquises. No, there are just two classes in England. There's the private sector. pay something like 60% of your income to the government, which then bails out the other half of England, which attends very bad public schools, which goes to a mediocre national health insurance, which health services runs from mediocre to dreadful. And it is simply two countries.

It's terrible because everybody in the A England, the private england recognizes it it's debilitating it's corrupt nobody's allowed to say so one half of england is carrying the other half and that's roughly what that's what we're that's what we're having here right that's what's happening and and everyone's using it as a political as a sort of a wedge but no one's actually dealing with the underlying problem exactly which is going to hurt everybody equally eventually. Yes. Well, if somebody made a point about 45, 47, 50%, of course, that would be the end of their electoral prospects, right? It would.

Yeah, but you know that there are some things actually when you think of percentages that 50%, if you paid 50% more for something, you'd think, huh, what am I getting for that? And if somebody realized you were paying 50% more but getting 5,000% more quality, then you start to reevaluate the deal. And then you tell them, what if you can get 15% off or 10% off? And all of a sudden, they start salivating. And salivating is the right thing to do because we're talking foodie direct, the greatest food you could possibly get at your door now fast. Great food makes the perfect gift for any occasion, especially Mother's Day. Now, if your mother does the cooking all year round, why not relieve her of the burden of that joy and responsibility by giving her awesome food?

And that's the inspiration behind foodiedirect.com, a curated online marketplace of America's most iconic regional foods, restaurants, and bakeries. Oh, my, the Today Show, the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Mail, everybody's called this the destination site online for foodies. Now, this Mother's Day, you can give her, oh, let's say, breakfast in bed, right? Sometimes the traditional idea of that is the kids coming in with cold pancakes and crumbs everywhere and spilled coffee. No, this is stuff that you can just take out of the box, prepare, and there it is. Smoked salmon, lobster salad, bagels, black and white cookies from the iconic Sable's in New York City, or Bobby's breakfast from Virginia's Red Truck Bakery featuring their award-winning cranberry orange muffins,

sour cream cake, and handmade granola that's been called the best in America by people who ought to know. If that's something you'd like to give mom, if she wants something sweet, well, there's amazing choices, like the famous Southern Layer Cakes from the Smith Island Baking Company, Seven Layer Coconut Cake. Seven, count them. Or the original chocolate cake from the Smith Island place. Foodie Direct has the most amazing gourmet ice cream sandwiches, too. And these don't arrive like, you know, keep melted stuff.

No, it's packed, cold. It arrives perfect. I've had some of this stuff, and it's, well, you want to eat it right there as soon as you open up the box. All these incredible treats are available only at foodiedirect.com. And if you do this now, we've got a special deal for Ricochet listeners, 20% off your first order with a coupon code Ricochet. So go to foodiedirect.com slash Ricochet and use the coupon code during the checkout process and you will get 20% off.

This stuff is delicious. Everybody here in the podcast has tasted it, and everybody here in the podcast is just waiting for the day when they go back to Foodie Direct and get something else for that meal or the event or just for yourself. So click, ship, and delight with a gift of great food at foodiedirect.com. I'm hungry. I know. Congratulations. I'm hungry. I know.

Congratulations. I'm hungry now. It's delicious stuff. Well, we can shift the subject and go to – if there's one thing actually that I think of when I think of Iceland, it's Reka vodka, which is really good stuff. They say that they filter it through lava. I have no idea if that's true.

Everything in Iceland filters through lava. Yes, exactly. The rhetoric, the politics, the music, the blood of Bjork. Bjork, yeah. But I actually, when I taste it, when they tell you that, I actually taste it and think, hmm, you know, there is a certain ineffable quality, lava-like, to this vodka, which of course is colorless and flavorless and the rest

of it. That's one of the things I think about. The other thing I think about is Reykjavik, which I remember seeing and marveling at the fact that, A, there's a civilization that exists on this tiny little speck of rock, and B, that they've done what they had there, and C, that they wormed their way into history really by being the location for one of the great Cold War moments, an iconic time of the 80s, and I just used the word iconic. I'm very sorry. A moment of the 80s that I remember being the good liberal that I was, spelled for me the beginning of the end of the world.

And now, in retrospect, seems to have been quite the opposite. Which brings us to Ken Adleman. Ken was President Reagan's arms control director from 1983 to the end of 1987, including at Reykjavik, and he accompanied President Reagan at the three superpower summits. He's also served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, and after leaving government, he taught Shakespeare at Georgetown University. Ah, those Philistine conservatives. And at George Washington University as well. And at National Security Studies at John Hopkins and Georgetown U.

He's the author of several books, including Shakespeare in Charge and The Defense Revolution. And his new book is Reagan at Reykjavik, 48 Hours That Ended the Cold War. Welcome to the podcast, Ken Adleman. You're on with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lylex here in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And I remember, Ken, the photograph that ran on the front page of the Star Tribune after Reykjavik, the disappointed look on Reagan's face. And we looked at that, and good liberals that we were just thought that Reagan, Reagan again, that cold warrior. Tell us what happened in those fateful days. Well, what happened at Reykjavik was like an Agatha Christie mystery.

It was a stormy weekend in October with rain pelting on the windowsill in an old creaky house that was thought to be haunted. And there, two individuals, two remarkable individuals, had the most amazing things happened to them. Those two individuals are Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, two of the most consequential and charismatic leaders in the last century. And what happened was a summit that I believe ended the Cold War. Can Peter Robinson here, the critical moment in the summit, excuse me, not the critical moment, the critical issue in the summit was the Strategic Defense Initiative. Gorbachev promised the world if Reagan would agree to limit testing of the Strategic Defense Initiative to labs, if he would agree not to deploy it. Reagan refused.

I'm sure you'll explain the outcome in a moment. But in the first place, at a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists here in the United States was saying the Strategic Defense Initiative was ridiculous, it would never work, It was technically totally unfeasible. Why did Gorbachev care about it? Peter, he cared enormously because it represented the technological superiority of the United States and the West, as opposed to the Soviet Union in the East, because it would have negated the one thing, the only thing the Soviet Union had going for it, which was awesome military might representative in their land-based ballistic missiles. And aside from that, the Soviet Union didn't have any economic prosperity

or any political attractiveness to it at all. And so Reagan really, he was willing to sit down with the Soviets, but he was also willing to sit down with the Soviets, but he was also willing to stand up to the Soviets. And his saying no at the end of the summit really unleashed forces in the Soviet Union that brought down the country and ended the Cold War. So the significance, Reagan says no. Excuse me, before we get to what was the deal on the table? If Reagan had said yes, OK, fine, we'll limit weekend, but eventually will happen, and we don't have to give up SDI for it. This is a bluff by Gorbachev. And Reagan believed that and bought onto it, and that turned out to be absolutely true. A year after Reykjavik, the two leaders,

Reagan and Gorbachev, signed the most sweeping arms control agreement in history in the East Room of the White House. And about three years after that, Soviet Union itself came tumbling down and the Cold War ended. So by hanging tough, by hanging tough, Reagan fulfilled his dream and his strategy of winning the Cold War. Hey, Ken, it's Rob Long in Los Angeles. Thanks for joining us. Okay. So I hear the story – I've heard the story before. Was that part of the strategy before – when they're on a plane to Reykjavik, did the Americans know – all of the American advisors to President Reagan, including George Shultz and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, when they were in Reykjavik, did they know that Reagan was going to go into a room with Gorbachev and put everything on the table?

Rob, no. The answer is no. He just did it because he was just a badass, right? What happened was we thought it was going to be a photo op kind of, not even a summit. In fact, the president, when he left the White House on the South Lawn, said this isn't really a summit, this is preparing for a summit. All of a sudden, at the first day of Reykjavik, it became clear that Gorbachev really wanted to wheel and deal. And Reagan was always willing to wheel and deal. And he prided himself as a negotiator. He thought of himself as a great negotiator,

which it turned out that he was. Over those 10 and a half hours, and I don't know about you, Rob, but I've never talked to anybody for 10 and a half hours over a weekend. They were in that room, basically back and forth, talking for 10 and a half hours. And part of the magic of this book is that we now have the notes, the American notes and the Russian notes. So we see Reagan's mind at work. We see his character in play. Michael Reagan, his son said, this is the best way to get to know President Reagan, because you can see him without staff interference, without talking points, without note cards, and addressing the main issues of the day.

And let me just tell you, it's awfully impressive. Over that 10 and a half hours, Gorbachev says about 11 or 12 times, I'm making all the concessions and you're giving me nothing. And Reagan sits there and says, what's wrong with that? Sounds good to me. Okay, well, that's my question is like for the advisors outside, what I've heard – the story I heard a long time ago, and it may be apocryphal, is that George Shultz, they're sitting outside, and they weren't taking tea and relaxing. The American side was nervous. They didn't know what was going on in there, and when they found out that everything was being discussed, they freaked out a little.

Was there any kind of freaking out outside the room that maybe the cowboy in there with Gorbachev was playing it a little fast and loose? The answer, Rob, is I don't know. All I know is I didn't freak out. I had more confidence. I had more confidence in Ronald Reagan, and that I didn't see many people freaking out. The fact is that Reagan knew what he wanted. He knew what his position was, and he didn't need any help in getting there or in implementing it.

And what he did that weekend and the ups and downs and the twists and turns, it just makes a great story. It was full of surprises. All weekend long, about every hour was a surprise. Can I ask one more question just about that? Now, you're a student of American history. You've written other books, and obviously you've been sort of at the center of one of the biggest moments ever in American history. Is there an American story of diplomacy and dealmaking and resolve in the history of the country that matches this for sheer skill? There have been other instances.

I'm not a – I was not a great fan of President Jimmy Carter, but what he did over 13 days at Camp David was very impressive, bringing the two sides, Sadat and Begin, together for the Camp David Accords. That was very impressive. In terms of unpredictability, in terms of seizing an opportunity that we didn't know exist in terms of surprises, in terms of drama, in terms of just sheer excitement. There's nothing like Reykjavik. No. Ken, we hear, Peter Robinson again, we hear over and over again that Gorbachev was the central figure in the end of the Cold War. The man was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. He was essentially a man of peace. And yet you seem to be suggesting that he went to Reykjavik, Gorbachev went to Reykjavik, determined to do what he could to preserve the Soviet Union's conventional advantage

over the United States. Is that possible? What's funny, Peter, and I discuss this in the book, what's funny about Mikhail Gorbachev are two things. Number one is the high regard he is held in abroad and the absolute low regard, almost despising, that people feel in the Soviet Union and now in Russia itself. And number two is, here is a man who won, as you say, the Nobel Peace Prize. He won Time Magazine Man of the Decade and Man of the Year. He has gotten every award there is to be gotten. And he gets these awards, Peter, for doing what he did not want to do. In fact, what he opposed doing. All right?

He, when he took the oath of office in March of 1985, he did not think to himself, what I'd really like to do is to disband the Soviet empire. What I'd like to do is to disintegrate and ruin the Soviet Union as a country. What I'd like to do is discredit our ideology of Marxism. Those were not his intentions starting out. I personally have never seen a leader be so decorated and so applauded for things he not only didn't want to do, but actively opposed to him. Ken, James Landlix here in Minneapolis again. The idea that you could actually have a little

conference like the one at Reykjavik and come away with nothing and say no was different, I think, because previously we'd regarded these things as just little stage-managed events that were supposed to result in the appearance of consensus. And the idea that diplomacy might actually result in a no if it was the right thing for America was a new idea, I think, to a lot of folks. But when it comes to what Reagan didn't want to negotiate away, Star Wars, what point was it technologically then? Because I remember reading about all the various ways that the term Star Wars was being defined, brilliant pebbles, having nuclear weapons that would laze in space and beam the missiles out.

How good was Star Wars at that point? Or was he unwilling just to give away the whole concept of what we eventually could come up with through our technological genius? It was more of the latter. He was unwilling to give away the chance that we could have a technological breakthrough on that.

Fact is that at the time of Reykjavik, Star Wars was a very small research program in one corner of the Pentagon of the Pentagon didn't really want all that much but Reagan and let me say Gorbachev elevated to cosmic importance okay and one of the wonderful things to watch in while we're peeking through the keyhole to look through and into that conference room in hofke house is how the two of them talked about SDI in such

a manner as to jack each other up the more Reagan praised it the more Gorbachev feared it the more her Gorbachev feared it the more Reagan praised it and the two of them were almost spinning out of control but what happened was we thought it was a great failure. The summit was a great failure at the end. The next year, they signed the biggest arms control agreement in history in the Eastern White House. And based on what they had agreed on the nuclear side of Reykjavik and years later, three or

four years later, the Soviet Union tumbled down. Why did the Soviet Union tumble down because of Brekovic? Because Gorbachev's strategy was, I'm going to make an offer to Ronald Reagan that he can't refuse. What he found out to his whore at Brekovic was there was no deal that he could offer Ronald Reagan on SDI that Reagan couldn't refuse. Okay? He just wasn't going to go with a deal on SDI because he didn't want to crimp SDI. So the only alternative open to Gorbachev was to accelerate his reforms of the Soviet system, and he did that right after Reykjavik. It was pedal to the metal and full steam ahead on reforms. Those reforms were done in the most

incompetent way possible and those reforms triggered by sdi brought down the soviet union wow that so so can we just turn for one second to today. Putin. Is he – is there a – is there any – are there any kind of analogies to draw between the Reagan military buildup and Reagan's sort of general strength dealing with the Soviets, then Soviets, and a newly expansionist Russian empire and what the challenges are for the future. I mean people are already talking about, well, we've got a real problem with our military. We have to build it up. But is there sort of a – are we seeing – is this a replay or is this a refresh or is this a brand new foe, I guess, diplomatic foe, skirmishing foe for us to grapple with? That's a very good question. The fact is we're not returning to the Cold War.

Soviet Union is far more threatening than Russia is today. Soviet Union, Russia today has about one-fourth the army that the Soviet Union had. It has less than one-fourth the nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union has. It has really no ideology that can attract people in Cuba and Angola and Cambodia. Its only ideology is Russian nationalism, which is fine for Russian nationalists, but not for anybody else on that. And its economy right now is much smaller than the Soviet Union. It's about the size of Italy, and going down the whole time. What I would say the big lessons for today from Reykjavik and from Reagan are twofold.

Number one, have a strategy. Reagan, in the 1970s, decided, I'm going to end the Cold War, or given an opportunity, I would like to end the Cold War. Here's how it will end. We win. They lose. In order to do that, we're going to build up our military strength. We're going to try to really reduce nuclear weapons. We're going to come up with SDI.

And we're going to have a campaign delegitimizing the Soviet Union, which is the evil empire. The Soviet Union is the focus of evil in the modern world, and communism is going to end up on the ash heap of history. So that's one, to have that kind of strategy. Second, to show a certain toughness. No one doubted that once Reagan gave his word or said we're going to do something, he was going to stick by it. I don't see that kind of overall strategy today,

and I certainly don't see that kind of overall strategy today, and I certainly don't see that kind of toughness today. I agree. Well, speaking of toughness, there's a review in one of the British papers about a recent performance of Titus Andronicus stating that people are fainting as they see it, because apparently it's a staging that has been brought back to remind people of the actual truth of the play itself, the bloodiest of Shakespeare's works. It's not a work that gets an awful lot of attention. And when you read exactly what happens in it right down to the cannibalism, you wonder if perhaps this is one of Shakespeare's works that perhaps we only do because it's Shakespeare. I'll ask you as a Shakespeare scholar, what is it about Titus Andronicus that demands attention again in the modern time?

It's a very unusual play. I once did some research on it and found out that there were 39 either murders on stage or dismembering of limbs on stage. 39 is a little robot. It's a game of thrones. Yes. Well, it's Chainsaw Massacre on stage for three hours on that. I think the big lesson, not that any of our listeners will care about Chainsaw Massacre because they're ever having the time to look at

it or have the occasion. But to me, the lesson of that play is here is a situation without morals, without religion, without laws, without any kind of procedures or internal or external to curb human ambition, to curb human appetites, to curb human drives. And if you want a world that's totally, everybody's free to, quote, in the words of the 60s hippie, do their own thing, you get a world like this. Geez, it is frightening. Well, yes, it'll certainly put people off pie for a couple of days.

Well, I'm glad I got the chance to ask a scholar that question. It is a curious play. It's got the body count of a Schwarzenegger film, and it's a remarkable piece of work, as is everything Shakespeare does. It has one of the great stage directions of all time, however. Shakespeare did not use many stage directions. And, you know, there's very few in any of the plays, but this has one of the great ones of all time.

And it has, Enter messenger carrying a head and two arms. I don't believe any other play in history has that kind of stage direction. No, in an early Coen Brothers, you might find that too. Yes, it's one of those where they actually have to mop up between the acts. Well, of course, this can be, I'm sure more on this can be found in your works, Shakespeare in Charge being one of your books, The Defense Revolution being the other. And of course, the new book is Reagan at Reykjavik, 48 Hours That Ended the Cold War. We advise everybody to go out, buy

it, and read it. And we thank you for coming to the podcast, Ken Adelman. Hope to see you again down the road with the next book. These are wonderful questions. And I'm telling you, you go to Reykjavik and you see it is a great story. That's the main thing. The story is great.

Thank you. We hope to talk to you again soon. Good luck with the book. Thanks very much. Very good. Thanks for the main thing. The story is great. Thank you. We hope to talk to you again soon. Good luck with your book. Very good. Thanks for calling. Bye. Yes, Reykjavik's an interesting place. Nice little airport and they sell those little tiny bottles of Reka vodka. I've stocked up on so many of those at the gift store that I just clanked all the way

back to America on the plane. It is interesting what he talks about. When I mentioned before that we were used to seeing these diplomatic things as little stage events where we'd all be relieved at the end of it, that progress had been made, that hands had been held as if it meant anything. And it turns out that it wasn't a da that got rid of the Soviet Union. It was a nyet. You'd think we'd learn from that, don't you? No, unfortunately, we don't, because we seem to have an administration today that believes that if you talk and get yes and get paper at the end of it, that peace and joy and love will follow. No, uh-uh. You know, if you go over to Encounter Books and pick up Dancing

with the Devil, the Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes by Michael Rubin, you will find exactly why the Reagan strategy isn't being applied these days and what the consequences are. As the praises of the book puts it, the world has never been as dangerous as it is now. Rogue regimes, governments, and groups which eschew diplomatic normality, sponsor terrorism, proliferate nuclear weapons, and they challenge the U.S. around the globe. And our response has been, well, let's talk. It never hurts to talk to your enemies.

Well, seldom is conventional wisdom so wrong. Well, it's true that sanctions and military force do come at high costs. Case studies examining the history of American diplomacy recently with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, the Taliban, you know, those guys, the rogues gallery. Oh, and Pakistan too. Remind us that problems with both strategies do not make engagement with rogue regimes a cost-free option or a wise idea. In fact, these regimes have one thing in common. They pretend to be aggrieved in order to put Western diplomats on the defensive. Whether in Pyongyang or Tehran or Islamabad, rogue leaders understand that the West rewards bluster with incentives

and that for the State Department, the process of holding talks is often deemed more important than the results. Yes, doesn't this sound depressingly familiar to you? Well, if you want the particulars on this, you can go get Michael's book for 15% off the list price. Encounterbooks.com. Use the coupon code, everybody,

all together now, Ricochet at the checkout. And we thank Encounterbooks for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Well, this, of course, is not the point where we would say, that's it, pack it in.

I mean, usually many podcasts would be content to have somebody like Ken Edelman in discussions of Reykjavik. But no, no, no, no, we have Bill Kristol. That's right, the editor of the Weekly Standard, of course. We're happy to have him back at the podcast here to marginalize themselves from the legitimate mainstream of American politics. Right? We welcome to the podcast Bill Kristol. Bill, Rob has got a great little piece in Ricochet about how the strategy for the Democrats is to paint anybody who even mentions the word Benghazi as one of those truther, birther nutcases. To marginalize and

controversialize it. If this is their strategy, do you think it's going to work? No, because what happened at Benghazi was an outrage. The failures that led up to Benghazi have been well documented, including by bipartisan review groups, the cover-up or the failure to tell the truth, let's say, about what happened in the days immediately following Benghazi is not exactly a mystery. And even the failure to be honest about the failure to tell the truth is becoming increasingly evident. So I think Republicans, not just Republicans, really, everyone should investigate this and find out exactly what happened.

And furthermore, it's part of a much bigger policy failure. I supported the intervention in the uh... early two thousand eleven that they totally turned their back walked away ended up leaving obviously uh... you know people like a best receivers without sufficient protection of his protection without a real policy or strategy to secure the situation in libya now we have the power region i jerry and i just covered a border streets from here ago

a lot of the are some of the arms, you don't know how many, that Boko Haram has in Nigeria, Boko Haram, the Islamist group that abducted all these, you know, close to 300 girls, and has killed God knows how many people. They got a lot of weapons from the chaos in Libya. So, you know, this is part of a much bigger failure of Obama's foreign policy, but it's an important part, and it's something Americans are right to be interested in,

and there's no reason to back off in investigating it. The sticking point that makes everybody nervous, of course, is whether or not the Republicans can conduct the hearings in a way that creates a comprehensive, understandable narrative for most people to get. How do you think that's going to go? I don't know. You know, congressional hearings are tough.

They can easily be kind of not disrupted in the sense of, you know, having demonstrations, but sort of skilled witnesses are good at avoiding answering questions. But I just think keeping a simple focus on what happened, how did the situation get to where it got on September 11, 2012, what happened on September 11, 2012, what did people say in the days and weeks subsequently and why did they say it? That's a pretty straightforward, I think, set of questions that they should be able to answer or explain that they can't answer because they're not getting full cooperation from people who served in the Clinton State Department or in the Obama administration. And then I think it is important to pull the lens back and say, incidentally, what about Obama's foreign policy as a whole and what about obama's foreign policy is all what about uh... secretary clinton's management of the state department this was a great you know this is her for four years that disposed of qualifier

unquestionably and unchallenged oblique to the next president i'd say i'm not so sure that's gonna end up both end up looking that way not just because of the government because of everything else to the reset uh... with Is she going to boast about that, the policy towards Nigeria? Is she going to boast about that? Peter Robinson Bill, Peter here. Bill Crystal, in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, quote, Republicans are on the eve of the fight of a lifetime, close quote. Oh, come on. I mean, from the long point of view of history, the country's,

it's still a rich country. It's still the most powerful country in the world. Obama will be gone in two years. It's not the fight of a lifetime, is it? Yeah, I mean, I usually try to avoid that kind of, you know, exaggerating every election. But I've got to say, 2016, when you step back and think about it, just a simple thing. The Supreme Court right now is very evenly divided. There are all these five to four decisions. A lot of elderly justices. The next president pretty clearly shapes the direction of the court, I think, for 10 or 20 years.

Even if the next president only gets one term. That direction is important. Either we have a sort of restoration or beginning of restoration of constitutional limits to government, of a real understanding of the Constitution, or else it's just Katie by the door in terms of the government doing whatever it wants. Domestic policy, Obamacare, you know, really is the most important piece of domestic legislation passed in decades. Either it gets institutionalized after 2017 or maybe radicalized even further in terms of its kind of nanny state micromanagement of, what, a fifth of our economy and everyone's

lives because of health care or it really does get repealed and replaced with a conservative reform which actually improves the health care system foreign policy i don't you know i think it's pretty obvious that i guess the path we're on is pretty disastrous um democratic administration presumably continues on that path republican administration tries hard to correct it and to reverse it though it's going to be an uphill battle just because so much damage has been done. But still very, very important to stop the damage and then to reverse course. So I think it's rare that you get a presidential election where it's kind of across the board.

Whatever issues, what you personally care about, you can really say it's going to the country will look very different, could look very different, at least is likely to look very different in 2020 or 2024. If you do get a Republican victory in 2016, or a Democratic victory in 2016. So this, what's your assessment, then, of Hillary Clinton, the general view, if there is a general view is that Hillary Clinton is a kind of she'd be more like her husband, she'd be more of a centrist Democrat. Rupert Murdoch said the other day, I could live with a President Hillary Clinton. She wouldn't repeal Obamacare, but she'd in one way or another try to introduce more market incentives. We could muddle through under four years of her, no? I don't think so because the Democratic Party itself is different from what it was when Bill Clinton took over.

Bill and Hillary Clinton tried to go go to fairly bold and radical direction in ninety three ninety four they got repulsed obviously and then decided to accommodate the republicans and were more centrist but just look at foreign policy look at areas of domestic policy pretty hard to see i and party that who would staff a clinton administration she's shown much stomach and standing up to the left ever since she's been retreating for her vote for the Iraq War, what, over 10 years ago?

I don't buy that. I mean, maybe she'd be marginally better than Elizabeth Warren. I don't know. Maybe she'd be worse, incidentally. I mean, do we prefer kind of, you know, horrendous, democratic, crony capitalism to just straight out, straight out, more radical liberalism in a way? I prefer to debate. I'm serious. I prefer... That's a terrible choice.

At least Elizabeth Warren would try to actually introduce a left-wing populist agenda, but Hillary Clinton would be the worst of all worlds. The kind of creepiness of crony capitalism and corporatism combined with liberal swarminess and the nanny state in a ton of areas. I mean, it

really would be bad. I got to say, that's great direct mail copy right there. Bill, one more question. That's the highest praise. Thank you. One more question from Peter before I release you to Rob. The editorial in this week's Standard is entitled, I beg your pardon, Calm, Cool, Collected? And you're upset that the Republicans aren't showing more fight. So I suppose that in next week's issue of the Weekly Standard, you're going to write an editorial praising the one Republican who's distinguishing himself by showing fight, Ted Cruz, right?

Wrong. In next week's Weekly Standard, I've just written an editorial actually for it on Hillary Clinton and the Nigerian terrorist group and the seizing of the girls and what that says about failures in American foreign policy. But look, I admire Ted Cruz for fighting and sounding the alarm. He might sound it a little too indiscriminately at times. It's not good to cry wolf if you cry wolf about everything. But I do think generally the Republican consultant class and even some Republican politicians,

they've been so hammered into that they can't sound like some hysterical Tea Party person or like some talk radio person, which they shouldn't sound like. Granted, they probably shouldn't even sound like me or you, but they should. It is legitimate to be genuinely alarmed and genuinely worried about the future of the country and to say that this is a big moment and not to simply sort of downplay differences between the parties and downplay the boldness with which I hope the next Republican president is going to address problems for our domestic.

So it's a little bit of an attempt to, you know, jolt a little bit of energy into some of these – some Republican candidates and those who advise them. Wow. Okay. Hey, Bill, it's Rob Long in LA. Thanks for joining us again. So here's my question. We're all surveying the same group of people, and we all have our know little special itch we want scratched by a candidate one of the things you said that in a recent editorial that you know it isn't so much that that nobody wants to be no no republican on the you know on the horizon wants to be like reagan they don't even want to be as broadly appealing as reagan but we've all got our little things like well this guy's not enough about that or that guy's not enough about this what do you who do who do you think right now – I mean if you were going to come up with an ideal candidate, now you don't have to mention any names or you can mention a composite like this guy's that or that guy's that.

Who do you like for – who do you think embodies a winning Republican message in 2016? I mean I honestly don't know, and I do look forward to the primaries of the debate i'm not one of those who you know is shuddering at the thought of oh my god debates primaries to the divisiveness and embarrassment i think it was a little bit of that in 2011 2012 but that's because it wasn't really a credible field i actually would like to see a debate with scott walker and mike pence and marco rubio and ted cruz and rand paul i don't think i'll end up preferring him but he should be there and paul ryan and i don't know two or three others genuinely arguing about and i could differ that much but

but i could see them address these issues uh... i do think it is important to have a sort of comprehensive reform agenda a foreign and domestic policy willing to address all issues it's striking how much reagan did that and how much current candidates but after time saying what that issue that's not really central i'm really address all issues it's striking how much reagan did that and how much current candidates spent half their time saying well that issue that's not really central i'm really focused on x you know let the voters decide what they want to focus on and explain what you would do about all presidents have a ton of responsibilities and and they should be once you're ready to actually announce

a run for president you should be ready to more or less say more or less what you would do in a lot of different areas. I mean, for me, I guess foreign and domestic policies, they're all important. Supreme Court, Obamacare, I hate to even put either of those as low as number two, but I guess, given the state of the world, I would put foreign and defense policy number one. And I would really like to see a Republican candidate willing to say, defense cuts have gone too far. We really need to rebuild our defenses.

We need to be unembarrassed about being strong around the world and so forth. I just think that situation is really scary. Hey, Bill, Peter Robinson here one more time speaking of scary situations. Also from the Weekly Standard, Elliot Abrams has a piece called Getting Ready for a Bad Deal. Two points about this struck me. He quotes a speech that the prime minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, delivered on Holocaust Remembrance Day, that's April 28th, in which he talked about the importance of remembering the lessons of history and refusing to permit Iran

even to bully Israel, let alone, of course, to carry out its threats to attack Israel. Here's Elliott Abrams. Elliott Abrams writes, of course, Netanyahu has been saying these things for years. And then Elliott Abrams talks about another couple of security experts who are warning that the Iranian bomb is really close and really dangerous. And Elliott Abrams writes that these statements, these three statements are of course meant to toughen the American position. Okay. I read that and I thought to myself, well, exactly.

I said, I feel it myself, Bill, which is why I put the question to you, that Bibi Netanyahu has been saying these things for years. And one does get the feeling when looking – reporting on a putative debate in Israel that it's less debate in Israel than an attempt to play the United States. What was the – the New York Times Sunday Magazine had the cover story. It was almost two years ago now in which Ehud Barak said we have only a matter of months. So how do you deal with it if even somebody like me is saying, you know, this is getting to be crying wolf, just a certain sense of fatigue and weariness about it all when in fact the situation is dire? How do you deal with that? Look, I think the Israelis have desperately, maybe too desperately, tried to put off acting in the hopes they could get America to act,

probably in the hopes in 2012 that there might be a different American administration in 2013 that would be friendlier. If you're an Israeli prime minister, you really want to try to stay on good terms with the U.S. It's such an incredibly important ally in so many ways for Israel. But I do think, I mean, the point Elliot makes is not just in the Yahoo speech, but also the op-eds, I guess they were, by Yadlin and by Amidror,

who are very senior establishment figures, former National Security Advisor, former Military Intelligence Chief, and especially in Yadlin's case, has not been that hawkish on Iran in the past and sort of said, we have time. So for him to write what he wrote does suggest that they may now feel,

with a bad deal imminent, that if that deal goes through, if it really becomes clear the U.S. is accepting Iran as a nuclear threshold state, that Israel might well act. I think you can't, but the reason why I agree, I feel the same way a little bit. It's like, oh my God, again, they're warning. But I do think it's a real threat, and they think it's a real threat. And I actually think there will be. If I had to bet, I would say within the next year there could well be action.

Now, of course, there already has been a lot of covert action, presumably, and maybe there will be a big 100 airplanes suddenly overhead, but maybe just more stuff will happen. But I do think it's a shame. It's not more than a shame. It's really a disgrace almost that the U.S. is abdicating its responsibility on this, though, and putting the weight on Israel's shoulders. If Iran gets the bomb, the 10-year run-up to that will be seen in retrospect as the most astonishing abdication of responsibility that we'd seen since the 30s. It's

just an extraordinary thing to watch happen. But we'll read about it in The Standard regardless of what happens. And we thank you, Bill Kristol, for coming by to this, the Ricochet podcast today. My pleasure, guys. Hey, thanks, Bill. Hey, thank you. You know, when you mentioned Boca, for a minute there I almost said Boca Raton. I know.

Probably. The abduction of the young girls, which I have been reading about on various websites, that are usually not attuned to these things. There's always this sense of shock where they wake up and they say, my God, how can this have happened? How did we not hear about this? Who are these people? There's scales clanging from their eyes like manhole covers as they as they say wow this is this is this is stunning we must do something and one of the pieces that i read online about what we all can do uh first of all that upbraided us for not paying attention and for caring about the nfl draft and the kardashians speak for yourself guy uh one of the things that we can do is we can add the hashtag bring back our girls to all of our social media because that will do it, right?

That will do it. That and a bumper sticker maybe next to the free Tibet one. That will do it. But the thing that really tasked me when I read these pieces in the comments is that the first person who mentioned that there was actually an Islamist component to this group that might actually be a dominant factor in how they view the world. Generally, they got turned on by everybody else in the comments as being an Islamophobe or one of those people, one of those right-wing Christianists who just hates Islam, period. And the conversation immediately would devolve into casting out

the unclean believer who had wandered into this site and polluted the purity of their concern by pointing out that there's actually a thread between this group and that group and this group and this thread might bear our attention. And I don't see actually anything in the administration that we have now working to change this. I mean, when you look at Benghazi, for example,

everything that we learned this week, and I think the Republicans will be making a mistake if they make it all about the video versus the attack, the spontaneous, right? If that's all it is, that's just going to seem like inside the beltway politics. But, but there is something, there is something to that. Is there not in that the administration was willing and desperate, perhaps, to downplay the idea that there is a resurgent Islamism that still threatens the country. Take it, guys.

Yeah. Well, I think you're probably right. I mean look. I think what Bill Kristol said earlier I think is probably the secret secret here behind the events, which is that we had to furiously go to be in Libya at that moment to buy back the arms that we were – had sort of sprinkled through the country to fight a more protracted civil war against Gaddafi. And then once Gaddafi fell, there was still a lot of stuff still there that we needed to go and collect.

These things never work obviously because the world just doesn't – it's not that efficient. But you got to go buy it because you know like it's a very dangerous part of the world and al-Qaeda in it because you know it's a very dangerous part of the world and al-Qaeda in North Africa is – I mean it's incredibly strong there. That's actually one of its redoubts is North Africa. North Africa is a – teetering, has been teetering on the edge of Islamic fundamentalism for – I mean longer, since the mid-'90s, since the Algerian election that was suspended.

Then you have the Muslim Brotherhood, which is terrifying – and Islamic movement in Egypt, which is terrifying the – so terrifies the Saudis that they are now working more closely with the Israelis by all reports than they have ever worked before because they have a common enemy. So this does seem like there's an embarrassing foreign policy slash strategic failure here that is being covered up because this is an administration that does that. That's what they do. They make a mistake and they lie about it and then press lets them do it. So I mean you're correct that there is probably – the danger here is that we go overboard and it just looks like this bunch of why – what was our – what side were we taking in Libya and why? And what was our – what is our outcome? And it's one thing I think for a Republican or a conservative or sort of an American interests advocate to say, look, we try to do something because we believe in acting in America's interests.

I get that. and start secretly selling arms left and right. Say this for Reagan, we knew where he stood on the Contras and we knew where he stood on the Russians and we knew where he stood on the Iranians. There's no ambiguity. Ambiguity, I think, is where we get into trouble. Quite right. If only we could have a feck implant in this particular administration. Well, next week, folks, when we do the podcast, we're actually going to have a sounder, if I get around to doing it, for the member post of the week.

Yeah. So just imagine right now some crashing, exciting little musical thing here, here. And then I come back and say, member post of the week. And it's from Ricochet member whose name I can never pronounce. It's mistheocracy. And I'm not – it's one of those words that I – I'm trying to figure out exactly which portmanteau phrases are being jammed into it here, but it doesn't matter. He writes great posts.

And he asks a question. Okay, who's got a rebuttal for this San Jose minimum wage article, which goes on to show that the sky did not fall, the world did not end, there actually were jobs created, and the economy did not collapse down to an infinitely hot, dense point like a neutron star.

So conservatives, you guys who don't want the poor people to get a little bit more money, what do you say to this? Is there a rebuttal to it or are we wrong? Well, I mean you could say – you can take specific statistics for a town, San Jose. But San Jose is a large town in the peninsula, San Francisco Peninsula, the Bay Area Peninsula. It's the southernmost big – it's a big city now. And you just have to say, well, what about the unemployment rates for places around there? Who was working there? What was the employment trajectory anyway? I mean look, it's hard to argue in a macro sense and no one really does that raising – except stream progressives.

But even garden variety liberal economists always say that, yes, there's a certain dampening effect of raising the minimum wage on low-income wages and low-income jobs. That's who gets hurt. So if you want to increase jobs, you can't increase the wage regulation. I don't really think you need, you'll probably find specific instances where in towns that have done it but there's always been sort of, someone else paid the price very close to that town.

There's a very interesting proposal that I think someone made. I believe it's Peter Thiel, who's a very smart guy and a fund manager, general brainiac up in San Francisco. He said, well, one solution to it is to decide what you think the minimum wage should be. Pick a number. Go ask the most liberal progressive person you could find. Find it from Elizabeth Warren. Sit her down and say, what should the minimum wage be in a perfect world? What is that number? Is it 20 an hour? Is it 50 an hour? Is it 10 an hour? Just pick a number.

And then we simply stop all immigration and illegal immigration into this country until the natural minimum wage, meaning the number that businesses have to pay just to compete for workers in the marketplace, until the natural minimum wage reaches the number that you like. It's a pretty good idea. It's a great sounding experiment.

Like all those other things that people propose, it'll never happen. I know, Rob, that you get frustrated with these things that you wish, I wish they would do this and it's always,

I wish they would suspend the Constitution for six months just so everybody, I mean, I know that those bother you they do bother you but uh it's it's that um and it's also you never see what economic activity you might have had if they hadn't done this right you know everyone said we have draped we have draped all these boat anchors around the neck of the economy, and we still have 2% growth. Therefore, our policies are great and not harmful at all.

And you point out that, well, you never see the 4% to 5% to 6% to 7% growth. You never see the factory that isn't built, the hotel that doesn't get constructed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Well, I have the feeling we could ramble on for another four or five hours or so, but we all have other things to get to, including, of course, well, somehow the Yeti is going to cobble this thing together. Rob's got to pack because he's off to Europe. Peter has sweaters to casually knot around his throat. You think that's easy, James? You think that those sweaters are not themselves?

I don't think so at all. No. They don't knot themselves. As he finishes up the Cold War book, right? Oh, yes. Yes, yes. Off to the publishers any day now. And I have to go get a dog.

No, not a dog to keep, but a dog that I am house-sitting for three to four hours or so. Good, good. It's a completely undisciplined dog that respects one creature on Earth, and that is me. So I'm going to go and assert my authority.

It's a small, petty life, but I like it anyway. Thanks for listening, everybody. Thank you, of course, to our guests, to Yeti for putting this together, and to Encounter Books for sponsoring it, and Foodie Direct for sponsoring it as well. You might want to loop back in the podcast, listen to the mouth-watering descriptions of what they have to offer, and go to Foodie Direct, and enter that coupon code RICOSHET for 20% off your first order. And of course, Encounter Books will give you 15% off any book if you enter Ricochet on your way out

of the site there as well. A plethora of savings for you. Thanking you for joining Ricochet, for reading Ricochet, and for writing in Ricochet in the comments, which is where we'll see you very soon. Fellas, next week. Next week. Inconclusive

end to the show. Bye. Leaning back from the mic. Do you know the way to San Jose? I've been away so long. I may go wrong and lose my way. Do you know the way to San Jose? I'm going back to find some peace of mind in San Jose. L.A. is a great big freeway.

Put a hundred down and buy a car. In a week, maybe two, they'll make you a star. Weeks turn into years, how quick they pass. And all the stars that never were are parking cars and pumping gas. You can really breathe in San Jose. They've got a lot of space. There'll be a place where I can stay. I was born and raised in San Jose.

I'm going back to find some peace of mind in San Jose. Fame and fortune is a magnet. It can pull you far away from home. With a dream in your heart, you're never alone. Dreams turn into dust and blow away. And there you are without a friend. You pack your car and ride away. I've got lots of friends in San Jose.

Do you know the way to San Jose? Ricochet. Join the conversation. I'll make you a star. Weeks turn into years, how quick they pass. And all the stars that never were are parking cars and pumps and gas.