The Ricochet Podcast - What Is This Thing?

Episode Date: July 30, 2015

It’s #Throwback Thursday here on the Ricochet Podcast as we go old skool with just Peter Robinson and Rob Long hosting and we’re joined by long standing podcast guest Mickey Kaus, who returns to discuss his thought provoking essay Coulter’s Challenge on –what else– immigration. Then, Angelo Codevilla, he of the now famous column Does Trump Trump? He also proposes a shall we say... Source

Feel the surge. The air is electric. Anticipation is everywhere. Following last year's incredible success, Coopera's On The Pulse DJ competition returns. Coopera invites Ireland's rising electronic music artists to create a 30-minute mix that takes us beyond the ordinary. For a chance to perform at Beyond The Pale 2025 and €2,500 to elevate your artist's journey, submit your mix online before April 6th. Search Cooper on the Pulse for more. T's and C's apply. Hello and welcome to Ricochet Podcast number 269. In the old days, we would say volume something, number something.

I tried to start that. And then James Lilacs kind of just changed that. He didn't like that, or I don't know, Blue Yeti didn't like that. But we don't have James today. This is Ricochet Podcast Old School. I'm Rob Long, coming to you from sunny Southern California. I'm coming to you from the most Southern California way possible. I am actually driving and I'm in traffic for the next two minutes.

And on the line with me, as always, is my old friend and Ricochet co-founder, Peter Robinson, up in Palo Alto. Peter, how are you? I'm very well. I am in Palo Alto where I almost always am. But what brings you back to your home in California? You have been everywhere this summer. Well, not really. I've been in L.A. and I just got back last week.

I was on a National Review cruise. Oh, yes. We were cruising the waters of the blue and the green and the blue-green waters of Alaska with a bunch of very nice National Review subscribers and NRO readers. And by the way, those people are not always the same. I met a lot of people who, as always on these cruises, say, Oh, there's a magazine? I'm not kidding. You're truly amazing.

That's really true. And that's kind of cool. And then, of course, there are people who read the magazine and say, yeah, I don't ever go to the website. But most people I've discovered who read – who do both are iPad or tablet users. I feel like the tablets are – we in the media business are not optimizing for tablets. That's my takeaway, my business takeaway from the cruise. My other takeaway from the cruise is that our side is remarkably at peace with our candidates. Really?

Yeah. But this is a little bit before Trump really started to become an issue or not. Was Trump part of the conversation on the boat? It was really the only conversation, but I think people expect Trump to kind of fade. That's true. Whether he does or not is a separate issue, but that's what they expect. But there was kind of a cluster of three or four or five candidates. Everybody seemed to think we're okay, and it was kind of a subdued cruise. or five candidates. Everybody seemed to think we're okay.

It was kind of a subdued cruise. It was really interesting. It was a lot of fun. There are two boxes you have to check off in the blue-green waters of Alaska, whales and glaciers. How many of those two can you tick? Plenty. You know what? Look, lovely cruise, okay?

I got no complaints. But you know what? Glaciers is a big piece of ice. I don't get it. I don't get it. I know I'm supposed to go, oh, my Lord, what majestic sea. Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. I'm the one who says Pluto is just a rock in space.

Well, it's not Pluto. Schmeiss, please. Look, Alaska's cold and there's lots of water, so yeah, there's going to be ice. And I know I – A lettupe flew you in. It's no colder than Pluto, Rob. Well, no, that's true. It's not colder than Pluto.

The fact that it's much closer to the sun, that's true. But it's just that, you know, there's a certain kind of quality. The glacier looks the way a glacier is supposed to look, and it's kind of dirty. You know, it's like there's a lot of dirt around it i mean i don't know look like dirty snow um and and the whales you know i've seen whales when i took that container ship across the pacific basically very similar to the same to the route we took oh is that i saw a lot of whales and um you know the first two you see you you're like, oh, look at the whales. And then you see 10 or 12 of them, and you're like, eh, big deal. All right.

Okay, okay. Just for the record, I just want to note that I did not object to NASA, although I would have if you – Oh, boy. You're still – All I did was register a lack of wonderment at pictures and you and james lilacs jumped at me and you're doing exactly i mean i will tell you i'll tell you peter that on the cruise we were uh we were accompanied on the cruise by many

fine ricochet members yes uh which is always always delightful. It actually makes the cruise worthwhile to sort of hang out with Ricochet members. And we had a nice sort of roundtable drinks on the last night of the cruise, which was a lot of fun. And many of them expressed, one in particular, I won't mention his name because I think you might start sending him nasty personal messages. But one in particular was shocked at your lack of enthusiasm for Pluto and especially your kind of ho-hum religious indifference. And I encouraged him to send you a long personal message uprating you for that. Yes, by the way. He's too polite to do that. But no, no, no. I received it. And the message, the PS was even longer. And it began, you cannot believe the sense of awe and reverence I felt, but oddly, Rob Long did not. Standing at

the rail of the ship, looking over the school of whales to the glaciers in the distance. Well, now I know you. No, no, I remember that email very well. Very well. Before we continue, we should say, you are listening to the Ricochet podcast. That is brought to you by The Great Courses. For a limited time, The Great Courses have a special offer for Ricochet listeners. Get the Philosopher's Toolkit, how to be the most rational person in any room, especially

this one. For up to 80% off, go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. That's thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. We are also sponsored by, and these are longtime sponsors, Harry's Shave. Overpaying for drugstore razor blades is a bad habit that you should leave behind. Make the smart switch to Harry's. We are also, of course, sponsored by, not sponsored by, but produced by Ricochet.com. Peter and I are the co-founders of Ricochet.com. Ricochet.com is the fastest growing, smartest, wittiest, most civil conversation site on the web for the center-right. If you are listening to this and you are a member, we thank you. If you are not a member, we are going to ask you to join. Today is the day to join. You really have to join. We need you. We need 10,000 members. We don't have 10,000 members.

We have something short of 10,000 members. Trust me, you could be the person to put us in the black. We need to be in the black, and we need to be in the black pretty soon. We're sort of out trying to raise some money to grow and grow fast and grow big and be a bigger part of the national conversation. And to do that, we need you. So if you've been putting it off, join. The first

debate is August 6th. And if you join now, you get to participate in our legendary live chat. We'll be on there. This is going to be fun. Is today the day they pick the names? Oh, that's a very good question. The answer is I don't know. No, the answer is I just plain don't know.

While I was waiting for you to appear down there in Southern California, I was clicking around, and it turns out that there are different groups of 10, depending on which polls you factor in or factor out. Rick Perry's in, Rick Perry's out. Rick Santorum is in, Rick Santorum is out. Donald Trump is in for sure. Jeb Bush is in for sure. And because Fox News is the sponsor, Fox News gets to decide which basket of polls it's going to use. And so we're all waiting the announcement of the chosen 10 from Fox News.

It is just simply not conceivable that Fox News would pick polls that did not include Donald Trump, right? I mean, they're in the business of television. Well, there's no poll that doesn't include Donald Trump at this point. As a matter of fact, I don't know if everyone you spoke to about the Donald on the cruise would remain as serene right now because what was it? Last week, he attacked John McCain. And I have to say I, like nearly everyone I knew, expected his poll numbers to dip. Me too.

Exactly. There was article after article. He's gone too far. Washington Post said it. New York Times said it. And his poll numbers have done what? They've gone up, not down. Well, Ricochet's own Rick Wilson was tweeting some poll numbers from Iowa suggesting not the John McCain comment in that particular interview hurt him,

but what he sort of referred to the fact that he really never really had bothered to ask God for any forgiveness. He didn't really believe that was an important thing. And he said, yeah, I go to church and drink a little wine eat my little cracker that may be you know for iowa values voters that may not be the best attitude to hold um and he and and and rick said well there were some there were some poll numbers showing some real softening after those comments but i guess they uh they firmed up you know maybe uh the more the more the establishment you know laughs and jeers at Donald Trump, the more attractive he gets, which is something I definitely understand. But before I continue, I want to say if you are a previous member of Ricochet and you let your membership lapse, go to Ricochet.com slash membership and use the coupon code rejoin and you get two months free. So that you do that and you can get two months free. So that you do that

and you can get two months free on Ricochet. And one of the best ways you can support this show is to help us improve. All you have to do is tell us a little bit about yourself. Take a short three-minute survey at podcastingsurvey.com and help us by sharing your opinion on this show and how you listen to the podcast. That's really important to us.

We've got to know how people are listening to us, what app, what kind of client they're using. That's the most important thing for us so we can optimize this way. So tell us how you really feel. The better we know you, the better the show can be. Take the survey at podcastingsurvey.com. Rob, say hello to everybody in the chat room. The chat room is back with this podcast. The chat room is back with us.

Hey, chat room. That's kind of a fun thing. Improved and revamped. Improved and revamped. That's good. That's good. So now I'm back, Peter. And the reason I'm back in Southern California, I will tell you, for deeply Republican reasons, it is back for money.

I have to – I'm outpitching. I've got to get a job. I can't keep not pitching. Joining us now, Mickey Kaus, an old friend of mine and an even older friend of Rob's. He is the impresario of KausFiles.com and our favorite Democrat. He still calls himself a Democrat. If you hear him talk, you may wish to try to persuade him that he's not really. I've tried any number of times over the years.

He still says he's a Democrat. All right, Mickey and Coulter, Donald Trump have finally noticed what you've been saying all along. Immigration is the issue of the day. Are you pleased by this? Are they being too crude in the way they handle it? I'm very pleased that they're raising the issue and pushing it as hard as they are. I mean, I think culture was

onto this before I was, and Trump wasn't. Two years ago, Trump, I think, was on the other side. But people are allowed to change their minds. And, you know, I wrote this piece because Anne is sort of forcing me to rethink my old semi-liberal attitudes toward it, which we're still –

By the way, we'll put up a link to the piece when we put up the post on Ricochet. So go ahead. When you say this piece, listeners will be able to find it and read it for themselves. Anne has a book out now called Adios America, which is how immigration is turning America into a third world hellhole. She sort of telegraphs her punch in the cover, I think. But my line was always that this comprehensive reform that the elites have been pushing of both parties and business and virtually all the media has been terrible because we would lose control of the border. I don't mind immigrants, but I do mind the idea that anybody who wants to come here can come here and we'll get in and we have no say on it.

So we lose control of our future. If 100 million people decide to come here, boom, they're here. And I think the bill would do that because it grants amnesty immediately and that's an incentive for more people to come. And it postpones the security measures that might block them if they try to come. The history shows that when you do that, the liberal interest groups take their amnesty and then they sue in court to block the enforcement. And you never get the enforcement. That's what happened with Reagan's amnesty. So that's a central horror.

But once we have control, I would just as soon have a lot of immigrants as few immigrants. And that's the part of my shtick that Anne takes aim at. She argues that immigrants are more bad news than good news, focusing on the area of crime, but also mentioning the area of lowering wages and calls for a 10-year moratorium, which isn't such a bad idea because it's only a pause, a timeout while we assimilate people and get our bearings. Question. Why – you just said the elites of both parties are pushing this on us. There's been a lot of discussion on Ricochet among other places about the establishment, the republican establishment, the media establishment. As a matter of fact, Rob a moment ago used the word establishment, saying the more the establishment goes after Trump, the more ordinary Americans like him. With regard to immigration, how can it be that in a democracy, if most people hold a view something like yours and Anne's, which is not to say how many immigrants should we have once we get control of the border, but which is to say first get control of the border. If most people hold that line, why has it not been reflected

in the law? What is the mechanism by which elites are short-circuiting the processes of democracy? How is this happening? Well, first, they haven't managed to cram it through yet. So democracy is working to that extent. But for two generations, at least a generation and a half, they have been failing to enforce the law as it stands on the border. controlling a crucial and growing swing block of voters. And both parties try to suck up to, for lack of a better phrase, to this block of voters and particularly to its leaders on the theory that their characterization of the block as demanding amnesty is correct.

And what's more, the crucial thing is they've bought the elite's assumption that we have to have amnesty at the same time as we start to enforce the border. They've accepted the idea, the Latino leaders' idea that we can't say, okay, enough is enough. We stop the future flow. Yes, all you people here might get amnesty, but no more flow from Latin America in the future. And the Latino leaders insist that that's a no starter, a non-starting position. And the elites somehow accept it. When you say the elites somehow accept it, what makes you so sure that they're wrong, that we haven't in effect passed – so if what's going on is a kind of crass political calculation, whatever we think about the Kaus-Colter argument, it's too late.

We've already passed a tipping point as a political matter. Either we appeal to the Hispanic vote or we're doomed. And if you want proof, just look at that California used to be a reasonably evenly divided state. It went from Pat Brown to Ronald Reagan to Jerry Brown to George Duke Magian, back and forth between Republicans and Democrats. And now we're going on two decades when Republicans haven't had a chance in this state. And what has changed? The change has been immigration, right? Right. So you make a good argument, Mickey, but it's already too late. How do you rebut that? Well, it's too late. The argument is first it can be too late in California and not too late in the rest of the nation.

All right. If you look at the electoral college, for example, Latinos actually don't have nearly as much power as the media would have you think, in part because the basic thing everybody sort of understands but they never say is Latinos are concentrated in states that are not competitive. So they're concentrated in California, which is always going to go Democratic. They're concentrated in Texas, which is always going to go Republican, at least for the next few cycles. So there are really only a few states where there are large enough populations and are

swing states, Colorado, Nevada. The big one is Florida, maybe Virginia. And that's about it. So we're hearing a lot in the media about how those states are also important, but there are only like 50 electoral votes. So we actually haven't reached the tipping point nationally in presidential elections. I'm not even sure we've reached the tipping point in California in terms of, you know, we've certainly reached a tipping point in terms of the Republican Party being dead. But we haven't reached a tipping point in terms of people wising up and saying, no, you know, we want to secure the border and this, you know, we're being overrun by immigrants.

It's possible, but I think there's also some chance of appealing to enough of the Latino community with an enforcement first, OK, from now on, we're serious this time. Let's control immigration that you could break off enough to pass something in California. But I agree California is pretty far gone. Hey, Mickey, it's Rob Long. How are you? Fine. Do you park your car? Yeah, I parked it in my garage, of course. Oh, great. Are you still in the neighborhood or are you across town? I'm in

the neighborhood, yeah. I thought you were the guy living across the street in his van. Yeah, no, that's not me. I have a home. Okay. But okay, so now with pleasantries or dispense with, more pleasantries, but first I have to be honest. You have bored me senseless for years about this topic. Let me get through it. Let me get through it. And I've sat with you and Anne late into the night, and I've heard you guys go at it. And I read Anne's book, which is fantastic.

And I've read your stuff, which is very, very good. But I read your recent piece on Kaus Files. We will link to it if we haven't already linked to it. It was brilliant in which you kind of sum up the state of immigration, illegal immigration argument, and you make a very interesting point, which I want you to – if you can just do it quickly because I won't do it justice where you say – people have always been making these distinctions between illegal immigration and immigration and Republicans in general say, oh, I'm not against immigration. I'm against illegal immigration, and you say, well, maybe it's the same thing. Well, it's the same thing as if you are worried about immigration.

People – like Mike Hensley asked me, well, Mickey, come on. It's a good thing we have all these people here. They've been good for us, right? And if you come up with the reason why that's not true, it's because they've lowered wages, especially for people at the bottom who are having the biggest trouble making it in our society, in the new economy. We don't need unskilled work the way we used to. And second, we worry about sort of cultural assimilation that maybe different cultures will be somehow have trouble adopting the American culture and indeed will insist that it's racist for Americans to want them to assimilate to us.

We should assimilate to them. So if you worry about those things, there's really no distinction between legal and illegal. They both have those effects. And while you have to get control of the border by stopping illegal immigration, you also have to worry that maybe we're letting in too many immigrants total, legal and illegal. We let in one to two million a year. That doesn't seem that much, but every year, year after year, pretty soon you're talking 100 million people. And so my second – and I'm going to use myself as a test case.

So my second question is this. You and I, we travel in elite circles, Mickey. We go to glamorous Georgetown cocktail parties. We have a lot of political consultant friends. And for years, I have said to people, hey, isn't illegal immigration going to be the next big issue? And our political consultant friends have kind of like rolled their eyes and said – and these are people who are not necessarily ideological. They'd sell their soul for two pieces of silver, and they'd say, well, look at the numbers, and they'd show the numbers. They'd lay out the polls, and they'd show the numbers they could lay out the polls and they'd show the focus groups and these people spent a whole lot of money trying

to keep track of what american attitudes are they'd say see illegal immigration is way way way down there it's way down there number 10 15 19 20 27 33 it's way down there and and and you know kind of shrug and every time it was a an issue that past five six seven ten years it's been kind of not that big it hasn't really turned any big and really turned any big election and now all of a sudden ironically now when actual numbers of people crossing the border has been actually dropped over the past five years it's's a big, big issue that people are exercised about. What happened? First, every time they bring up a bill to give amnesty to these people, it becomes more salient.

And so that happened in 2007 and again last year. And the second thing is it's one of the last big issues on the table. We've got Obamacare. That's a big issue. We have the deficit. So now you're – OK. We have – I mean – By the way, just so you know, Obamacare is coming back around.

I just want to – Yeah. No, it's still alive. Fair warning, liberal. It's coming back around. I know, but we don't know which way it's going to go. Is it going to go to the single-payer direction or the other direction? But yes, the issue is not dead. It may go into a death spiral.

But it's the last – welfare was a big issue. It got sort of semi-resolved. There are just not that many huge domestic issues on which there is a debate that are left to deal with. And so this becomes the most contentious. And it's also an issue where a large plurality, if not a majority, a plurality has been denied any voice at all in the debate and marginalized as, oh, you're racist, you're out of step. So that 40% or so has intensity, even if it's number 11 on the overall polls, there are a whole lot of people for whom it's number one or two, and intensity counts in a democracy. So if you look at – okay, go ahead. Can I posit –

Oh, go ahead, Rob. Can I posit one other possible? And you tell me. I could be full of it, and if I'm full of it, Mickey, go ahead and tell me. All right. I could be full of it, and if I'm full of it, Mickey, go ahead and tell me. Could it also be – and I'm just using myself as an example. As somebody who really was not exercised by it for a while, but now I kind of do feel a little bit more – I mean maybe just being – I have Stockholm syndrome of hanging around Ann Coulter. Eventually you have to surrender to Ann. You can't fight it. But also there is something incredibly galling about a bunch of people in power – certainly in LA County, rich people have in LA County.

These indentured, undocumented servants who have no rights and no power, they come in here. You can see it in their eyes. They're terrified because they want that, and I don't want them to have that. They get to call me a racist, and I find that offensive. Does that have anything to do with it? I think you're completely right, but the big numbers are in businesses wanting indentured servants. So all the H-1B visas that Silicon Valley gets, those people are by and large, they're Indians or from some other country. They come here.

They can only work for that one employer. They replace Americans, so the American programmers get laid off. I was talking to one online who had been laid off five or six times, and they just come in and say, you people are doing a perfectly good job, but we can get cheaper labor from H-1B, so goodbye. You're all laid off. So the push on business for those – by business for those people I think is more powerful than the push from rich people who want to have servants. H-1B visas and H-1B immigration in general, that sort of STEM category, right, is almost always used as the idea of like renewing American greatness. These are the best and the brightest from around the world. We need to be a magnet for those people to come to this country and innovate. But in fact, as you're describing, it's really just a way to create a dead-red servitude class that will do the job that Americans could do.

I mean look, if Google wanted or these giant technology companies wanted to do something, they could simply do what a lot of big companies have done in the history of America, and that's invest in technical education. Right, and we're graduating a lot of STEM graduates who are having trouble finding jobs. So it's – maybe we need more of them in the future, but right now, the job market isn't exactly sending the signal that it's supposed to be sending because we're importing people to do the job for them. And so Google can say, OK, you have to work through the weekend this weekend. And if we're a free market of free Americans, there might be some pushback from the employees. OK. But because they have these guys by the short hairs, they can do that. So, OK, I'm a free market conservative.

I agree with you and Ann Coulter on immigration. I think you're absolutely right. I think we do need to take a pause. Review, who wrote a cover story about this early 90s or mid-90s at least and got on the wrong side of the editorial board and the then owner of National Review on this very topic. All right. So I agree with you about all that stuff. I don't think we should be importing engineers and importing H-1B visas and H-1B personnel

or importing cheap labor. So let me ask you then, why doesn't that argument also apply to trade? Shouldn't that argument also be – if we're going to build barriers to entry for people, why shouldn't we build barriers to entry for products? Well, two responses. First, that's – I admit it's on the same spectrum. In other words, if what you're worried about is that in the modern economy, people who have few skills who we want to be able to earn a living by working can't earn a living, trade puts them out of business too. So unskilled workers done by – so yes, at some point, if by controlling the borders we don't do enough for those people on the bottom, then maybe we should think about also restricting trade.

But keep in mind it's a big deal to import a person, much less of a big deal to import a good. When you import a person, you have a compassionate obligation to them. You're bringing their whole culture. Under our current scheme, you're bringing their whole family. If you buy a Toyota, you're not bringing the families of everybody who made it. That's a distinction.

You're importing your future rulers. People will get a vote. Cars don't vote. Toasters don't vote. Cheap plastic toys from China don't vote. Mickey, may I? Why Donald Trump? To return to presidential politics, why Donald Trump? To return to presidential politics, why Donald Trump?

As best I can tell, between him and Ted Cruz on immigration, you couldn't slide in a toothpick between them on their positions. Why Trump? I don't think that second point is quite right. Oh, is that so? I think because Cruz makes a big deal about how he wants to expand legal immigration, which Trump probably says – Trump probably agrees, but he doesn't emphasize a lot. So Cruz actually got to the left of Scott Walker on that issue, on the very issue we've been talking about, which is do you want also more legal immigration? And Walker said, no, we want to set the level at a level that's right for American workers. And somehow the right-wing establishment, if I use that word, exploded against Walker. How can you commit this heresy? I think Trump is all immigration. I'm an outlier

on this. I think if he hadn't given his first statement, that outrageous statement about how Mexicans were rapists, he would be at 4% or 5% in the polls and not 25%. That was the catalyst that said, whoa, this guy is not playing by conventional rules. He's something different. Maybe he means business. I don't think people have to agree with him. It's sort of hard to agree with him. But it was a signal to people, 40-some, 47, 43 percent of Louisianans voted for David Duke at one point.

Was it because they were all ridiculous racists? No, it's because Duke's racism was sort of a signal that this crazy – this guy is so crazy he means business. He's not going to sell out. So on immigration, people want furniture broken. They want somebody who's not going to – I'm trying to – this guy is off the spectrum of even by the standards of conservative Republicans, he's off – he's totally sui generis in the way he talks about the issue. And people – OK, that's what you're saying that's what i mean business he means business so in a funny way although he has no background in politics no experience although he's written more checks for democrats than in some strange way the sheer

the sheer volume and brass is persuasive to people. Right. He's assuring in a funny way. He obviously wasn't scared of being called a racist. Yeah. So right off the bat, he signals, I'm immune to the ordinary PC mechanism by which we bring people in line. That's it. That's what's going on. That's a big deal. I think that's a really big deal.

That's a very big deal. Yes. I will not kowtow. And that's why he couldn't apologize. Once he says, okay, you're right, he managed very so much truly to not apologize while he softened his position that he was

saying, right? So he actually retreated without saying, I'm retreating, which is actually a pretty skillful political maneuver when you think about it. Yeah. I mean – It's your love.

Yeah. He does have the ability to be the clumsy adroit. He is an incredibly, incredibly sophisticated bull in a china shop. Yeah. He's knocking over really specific pieces of China. No, I tend to think in the debate coming up, he's going to tone it down and get all sorts of points for being statesmanlike. But so people sort of hope he'll flame out. God, if he does, they should – he should be, he should be given lessons.

People should be studying him, not the other way around. That's the standard way you succeed in the American politics. You say something outrageous and then you get known and then once you're known, then you adapt and become... Jerry Falwell did this. He said these outrageous things and then all of a sudden, oh, he's the fixture of the establishment.

I've tried to do it and failed. You haven't failed, Mickey. You just haven't succeeded yet. You're on a glide path to success. We should say, we've got to let you go, but thank you for joining us. I want to say it's cowsfiles.com. You've got to go.

We're going to put a link in the show notes on ricochet.com if you're listening to Cows F files, especially that one piece, which I thought was great. It kind of sums it up. It's really brilliant. I really meant it. I would not just say that. Actually, I would just say that, but

this particular, I think, was a perfect encapsulation. And we want to have you back. And we also want to have you post on Ricochet a little bit. So maybe we can figure out a way to get some of that stuff on Ricochet. You can mix it up with our own members a little bit. I know that you're trying to monetize your own thing too. Everybody's got a garden they're tending, but it would be nice to have you on our thing.

That would be great. You're about as liberal as we can stand, Mickey. That's my motto. Thanks, Mickey. Okay. my motto. Thanks, Mickey. Okay. Take care. Thanks. Thank you.

You know, I said it's funny that Donald Trump – if Donald Trump does that in the debates, if he actually sort of completely moderates and suddenly switches gears and acts like it's presidential, he should be – he could be teaching a class. And speaking of classes – Oh, you tried a lilacs. You tried a lilacs. Yeah, we're all big fans of the great courses. They offer engaging audio and video courses from top professors and experts for people like us who love to learn. We recently watched the great courses lecture series, The Conservative Tradition, which is perfect for listeners of this podcast. Award-winning professor Patrick Elite traces the development of conservatism from the early stages to today.

It's actually a very interesting class. You should look at it. I'm not going to give anything away. We did discuss it on our little Ricochet Roundtable. There's a section about Buckley, which – William F. Buckley Jr., which I think you guys should listen to and respond to. I think is actually the best way to do it. For a limited time, the Great Courses has a special offer for Ricochet listeners. Order eight of their best-selling courses, including Conservative Tradition, at up to 80% off the original price. This is only available for a limited time, so hurry. Order today. Go to thegreatcourses.com.

That's all one word, thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. That's thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. Thegreatcourses, all one word, dot com slash ricochet. And let us know how you enjoy it. That was a pretty good segue, don't you think? That was a very good segue. By the way, I've said it before. Let me add it again really quickly. One of those eight great courses that they're making available, that the great courses are making available to Ricochet members at a much reduced price is on public speaking. and found himself in a position in which he is expected to stand up and make presentations in front of first his coworkers and then eventually, once they trust him, in front of clients,

the Great Courses course on public speaking is mighty useful and would make a very good gift to a recent college graduate. Just wanted to toss that in. A little personal endorsement there, Rob. That's a pretty good endorsement, I have to say. We are now joined, I should say, by Angelo Codvilla, a native of Italy, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at BU, Boston University. He was a U.S. Naval officer and Foreign Service officer, served on the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as on presidential transition teams for a decade now. He was a Senior Research Fellow at Hoover. He's a student of the classics as well as of European literature.

He's also – this is interesting – a commercial grape grower. So he's like a – this is like classic Californian. And we're going to talk a little bit about, I think, Trump, but some other stuff we want to talk about too. Angelo, welcome back. You've been – this is – welcome back to the podcast. Well, thank you. Angelo, welcome back. You've been, this is, welcome back to the podcast. Well, thank you. Angelo, Peter Robinson here. My, my, my.

Hello, Peter. Former colleague and neighbor. Angelo had a, had a vineyard in his backyard. One of the many things I admired about Angelo. Angelo, you had, you wrote a piece on the. What is an Italian without a vineyard? Exactly. When you're, when you, Exactly. Something to look out on

through the window as you translate Machiavelli. Angelo is the author of the standard translation of the Prince. Angelo, you wrote an essay on a subject to which you've been referring and writing about for at least a couple of years now. I follow you mainly in the Claremont Review of Books. Our new ruling class. And here's my first question. This is something that I can't quite work out in my own mind. Let me quote you, all right? Our ruling class has succeeded in ruling not by reason or persuasion, never mind integrity, but by occupying society's commanding heights, by imposing itself on the rest of us. So the argument there is that in one way or another, this ruling class is short-circuiting

the mechanisms of democracy. So how are they doing that? Why is it that we don't just vote them out? Well, you just answered the question, because we do not. We still have a harboring illusion that there is an opposition party, and there isn't. The great obstacle to voting them out is that we try to do so by voting for the Republican Party. And the Republican do so by voting for the Republican Party. And the Republican Party, of course, the Republican leadership is part of the ruling class.

Look, one of the things that I point out in this essay about which you're questioning me, and this is something that is too little known, except by the folks most intimately involved, is that whereas about, oh, three-fifths of folks who vote Democratic are happy with what Democratic officeholders do, only about one-fifth of those who vote Republican are happy with what Republican officeholders do. In other words, you've got a party, the Republican Party, which is supported wholeheartedly, or almost so, by only about a fifth of those who vote for them, meaning that four-fifths of those who vote Republican

would really rather be voting for others if they had the chance. Which explains why rebels, wholehearted rebels against the Republican Party, succeed. So I'm trying to identify the line of questioning here is to identify this ruling class, how it sustains itself, so as to

choose the point of attack, to choose the best point of attack. So why are there not more rebels bringing themselves forward in the Republican Party? Courage has always been a rare commodity among men. That's why.

Look, also the pool of the ruling class is very strong. If you are a member, you get certain privileges. Being a member of the ruling class means never strong. If you are a member, you get certain privileges. Being a member of the ruling class means never having to say you're sorry. It means that you can say what you wish. You can do what you wish.

Look, I'll give you the most obvious example. Once upon a time, a man by the name of Bill Clinton violated all of the ruling class's sayings concerning the relationship between a boss and a subordinate, between male and female. He committed perjury about it as well. I mean, he did the most scandalous thing imaginable in the Oval Office. And what happened? The ruling class closed ranks behind him

and pilloried those who tried to hold him to account. Now, imagine if a Republican had done that. Imagine if a non-member of the ruling class had done that. I can understand. I can see with my own eyes. I mean, I just get it. or a non-member of the ruling class had done that. I can understand. I can see with my own eyes. I mean, I just get it. The judiciary, where the judges,

where we just have in the Obergefell decision, we have Justice Kennedy, that is simply saying, that is nothing, that is a judicial coup in effect, saying we set the Constitution of the United States aside to impose on the country the values of a particular class. Got it. And why do we do that? Hold on a second. Yep, go ahead.

Why do we judges do that? Do we do that because we have discovered, because there is something in law or in reason that commands that? No. We do that because we have discovered our own preferences, and we have discovered that those who oppose us are unworthy, that they are haters, that they are animated strictly by animus, and that there is nothing to recommend them at all. Opposition to us is not legitimate. That's what I mean by, that's one of the things I mean by occupying the commanding heights. I used to be in the military. In the military, that's called pulling rank.

Right, right, of course. So the judiciary, I can see it. You and I both know it in detail because of the lives we've led in academia the question is so really the only the only point of attack i'm stating this i'm framing this as a statement but it's a question the only point of attack is politics and you say – I'm quoting your essay again. An unintimidated statesman would ask, why should not all classes be equally protected? A statesman worthy of the title would respond that calling people names is the very opposite of civility. Such a leader would trump our rulers. And of course Donald Trump, you conclude, is not such a person.

Is there anyone in prospect who strikes you as such a person? Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, name them, Angelo. Ted Cruz has done it. Scott Walker could do it, but you notice that the defining moment for Scott Walker came when he went to Iowa and endorsed the ethanol mandate. He endorsed the U.S. government's mandate that gasoline be made out of corn. Now, that is indefensible by reason. There is no reasonable argument to be made for doing that sort of thing.

Once upon a time, some people made such arguments. Those people dropped these so-called environmental arguments. There are no environmental arguments for the ethanol mandate. It is strictly the fact that some people in Iowa

and, more importantly, the Archidanglia Midland Company, there are all sorts of industries that have been built up around the ethanol business, and they support candidates. And Scott Walker is simply not willing to take them on. Now, Ted Cruz went to Iowa and said, you know, this is a bad idea. The ethanol mandate is a bad idea. It raises everybody's gasoline costs and it's bad for the environment.

It's good only for corruption. So no, look, Scott Walker is a man who has shown much courage in many ways, but he certainly has not. He has certainly been intimidated by the prospect of joining with the ruling class. I'm going to ask one more question and then let Rob come in because you are – it seems to me that you are establishing a test for purity that ill befits a man who understands practical politics as well as the most important translator of Machiavelli's The Prince. So I mean can't you just – can't you say, look, Scott Walker had to give them that one for a larger end? I certainly can do that. Absolutely. But in this world of ours, you also know that he who gives in to the ruling class for one purpose may very well give in to them for another.

The question that one would ask of Scott Walker is, look, where is your limit? Where will you not give in? We know that you have fought the ruling class in this and that, but you are choosing not to do it in this. Why? Why is this so important? I mean, I can certainly understand compromising, that's the art of politics, of course. But

what do you get for, one of the fundamental practical questions about politics is, what do you get for what? Right. Well, if I could break in, this is Rob Long. Thanks again. Let me stop for a moment. Henry IV said Paris is worth a mass. Very well.

But it was Paris. Right. Well, but if you're Scott Walker, you say winning the Iowa caucus is worth a little pander on ethanol that I can then walk back. The Iowa caucus is just the beginning. Well, that's a – sorry, but that's – you're making a political – a strategic political decision, which frankly I agree with. But if you're Scott Walker, you're on the – you're a neighbor of Iowa. You think, well, I can't really afford to lose it. I'd like to come in first. I'd like to have the big momentum.

I think he's wrong, by the way. But you could make that argument in his... You could, but you would have to explain. I mean, he would have to explain to someone, me, for example, why it is that this one, that this compromise... In general, I can understand.

I subscribe to the argument that compromise is necessary. I subscribe to the argument 100%. In necessary. I subscribe to the argument 100%. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran against government waste. And his 1980 blueprint for a new budget and a new government ran square against government waste, except for one strange railroad boondoggle in Iowa. He ran and he supported one strange railroad boondoggle in Iowa. This is Ronald Reagan.

Now, well, well, well, so, you know, I, first of all,

I, I, I don't know about that, but if that is so, um, uh, Ronald Reagan had attracted to himself. I,

I speak about this because I was, I actually was, uh, one of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy advisors. I don't mean that, but I did an awful lot for

Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan attracted to himself a tremendous amount of hate. And he handled it beautifully. He thrived on it. If someone who does that willingly and fully,

wholeheartedly, as Reagan did, made a particular compromise on a particular boondoggle. Right. I would understand. Wait a minute. Let me push back on that just slightly. Because I'm not advocating for Scott Walker, but Scott Walker's

done the same thing. He's attracted, I would say, probably a good deal more hate, practical hate, than Ronald Reagan has. He's death threats. No. Ronald Reagan has. These death threats, these ceramic crafts. Ronald Reagan led a movement. Okay, but Scott Walker stared down the public sector unions in Wisconsin. There were death threats.

Okay, there was a recall. Scott Walker did one good thing. Scott Walker did one very good thing. Ronald Reagan, by the time he ran for president, had done a whole bunch of things. We agree that Scott Walker's no Ronald Reagan. But we also have to agree that when you go to Iowa, you run and you try to win the Iowa caucus. Listen, I'm not making a Scott Walker argument, but I'm just suggesting this particular example of pander, which by the way, I sort of agree with you. I think this ethanol subsidy is ridiculous.

That would be much, much happier if Scott Walker punched him in the nose with it. I'm not sure this is the example in which I would hang around for a second. However, let me just – one more – I sort of want to get a little bit broader here because it's true what you say about the Republicans, and I think I'd agree with it. But it's hard if you're a Republican strategist at this point. You look – we have, what, 68 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers right this minute. I don't know how many – 31 Republican governors in the country. Despite the national bad mood and despite Republicans' preternatural desire to hate other Republicans and be sort of sour on Republican leaders in general, this seems like statistically anyway a Republican high watermark. So speaking of trumping the establishment, is Donald Trump running against the ruling political class,

or is he running against the ruling cultural class? I'm not sure those two are the same thing. I believe the two are the same thing. They are precisely the same thing. They are precisely the same thing. The ruling, the political ruling class rules by virtue of its cultural monopoly. Perhaps because I'm Italian, but more because I'm a student of political thought, I spend more time than I care to with Antonio Gramsci, whose point, who was a far greater totalitarian than V.I. Lenin, and who explained that control of the culture,

and by the way, makes it impossible. Machiavelli did that as well in his treatise upon our language. Control of the culture makes it impossible for people to disagree. What Justice Kennedy and generally the political correct movement are doing, not only are they trying to do what they are doing, is to banish certain ways of thinking and making it illegitimate to think in any other way. Now, Donald Trump, Donald Trump's fame, moment of fame, came when he inarticulously said, hell with you all, who the hell do you think you are? Right. You see, and the country is eager for that, whereas the Republican

leadership is entirely complacent with the cultural conquest that the left has achieved. This is extraordinarily important, because a thought comes before the action. If you cannot think certain thoughts, you will for compromise and the way in which he did so and i to tell you the truth even though you and i were both there and watched him at work it's puzzled me in all the years since he could give a speech imposing imports on japanese quotas on japanese car imports and somehow communicate that he was doing it only because he had to. He would never say anything like that, but he could somehow communicate to his audience, my heart is not in this one, I have to do it. How did he – so the question –

You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right about that. How did – and that's what you're – so if we have a – if a Scott Walker, you said where are his limits, and Reagan somehow was able to communicate to his followers and indeed to the broad American public itself where his limits were, where he was doing something because he had to compromise. How did he do that, and how do we voters apply the Reagan model to the current Republican field? What should we be looking for? That is an excellent question. Reagan had built up, not so much as president, but as, because you know that as president, the man was on his way down physically.

But as a candidate, over many, many years, he had built up a certain record, and he drew upon that credit. And when he communicated that this is something that was against his principles, but that he somehow had to do it people believed him. Credibility is very very very hard to establish and

Reagan established it by not all at once but by a long long process not by saying things but but also by, in effect, telling his attackers, you know what, you're right. You're right by calling me all the names that you call me, and by sticking to his guns so

often. Again, more as a candidate than as a president. He rallied a people to himself and to a cause. And this scared the bejeebers out of the left. Because the left didn't so much fear him, they feared the voters. They feared the voters who would follow him. I think that's exactly right. I think that's, I think that people, for whatever reason, you know, we can, we don't have time to get into the details, but whatever they see in Donald Trump, one of the things that people

like about Donald Trump is that he scares the right people. The people he scares and terrifies. And they are not scared of Donald Trump because Donald Trump is not a scary figure. He himself cannot explain or will not explain. And his range of concerns is very, very narrow. I listed in that article the things that an effective politician would have to tackle. Regarding those videos of people who are financed by the U.S. government ordering the custom slaughter of unborn babies. We are talking about custom slaughtering human beings for profit. This is something, by the way, that the Nazis never descended to. The Nazis themselves never did that.

And this is something which has not become routine for some Americans. Donald Trump is unable to articulate the moral horror that is involved here. Someone is, and someone will. But I think he's tapping into the frustration a lot of people feel that these issues aren't even being discussed. That, as you put it, they've been outlawed. And so the fight, the reason that people are fighting, the reason that the ruling class is fighting for Donald Trump is,

oh, what if somebody did that as they could do? What would happen then? I would be eager to see what happens. That's kind of a cheerful thought, actually. I was getting depressed, and now I feel like, well, maybe there is... Oh, no. Oh, no, no, no, no. Please don't be depressed. No, I did not mean to depress anyone by that answer.

That's good. On the contrary, I meant on the contrary to point out how easily the ruling class could be broken just by asking the right questions forcefully without intimidation. Demanding, for example, gosh, homosexual marriage, we are forced to honor homosexual marriage. What exactly are we honoring? Precisely what is this thing that they do that we are forced to honor or lose our jobs? What is this thing? Why it's called, well, anal intercourse. And why is it that all 50 states had laws against that a few years ago? There were reasons behind that. Why are those reasons wrong?

Let's talk about that. Please explain to me, Mr. Lee. Explain to me why that's wrong. We might be running out of bandwidth for that. I'm not sure there's yet. That's exactly my point, my friends. Right. Well, it's –

Some questions are very difficult to – it is intimidating to confront certain questions, is it not? Well, I would say – Which is why they're not being confronted. I would agree with that last point wholeheartedly. Angelo, thank you. You're most welcome. So, Peter, I want to talk some more about that last point that Angelo made. I'd like to spend the next hour, if I could, with you just really getting into that.

Is that all right? Just you and me, and then maybe we'll bring in some – just maybe spend the next seven or eight podcasts just really getting into that. I'm speechless. Go right ahead, Rob. I'll just sit here and listen. Before we do that, let me just say that Harrys.com was started by two guys passionate about creating a better shaving experience. You know, people actually come up to – people came up to me on the cruise to talk about how much they love Harry's Shave. It's a funny thing about that, and I got an email from a Ricochet member.

I won't mention his name because he didn't tell me I could, but he said that people at the Ricochet meetup in Seattle were talking about how much they love Harry's Shave and how incredibly loyal they are to the product and, of course, loyal to Ricochet. So they're like, hey, listen, as long as they're on Ricochet man we're we're behind 100 it's a really great product uh and i'm sure you're wondering how does harry's dot com deliver a superior shave well they bought a blade factory in germany that's been crafting some of the world's highest quality blades for almost a century so they cut out the middleman and they can offer amazing shaves at a fraction of the price of drugstore brands and they ship the blades right to your door at factory direct prices no longer you don't have to reach into that thing that plastic thing their starter is just their starter kit is just 15 that includes the razor three blades and your choice of hairy shave cream or foaming shave gel um i prefer the gel i don't know why i'll just do i think it's

just easier to put on and that's an added bonus you can get $5 off your first purchase with the code, which I think is Ricochet. After using Ricochet code, you can get an entire month's worth of shaving for just $10. Shipping is free, which is the best way to do it because it's really simple, and satisfaction

is guaranteed. Go to harrys.com now, and Harry's will give you $5 off if you type in the code Ricochet with your first purchase. It's harrys.com, H Harry's will give you $5 off if you type in the code RICOSHAY with your first purchase. That's harrys.com H-A-R-R-Y-S dot com and enter the coupon code RICOSHAY at checkout for $5 off and start shaving smarter today.

So let's go back to that last thing that Andrew said. I really don't think we've... You know what? This has been, for me at least, for little me, for me personally, this has been a better than average podcast because it actually produced, to my mind, two very important insights. I have not been able to figure out Donald Trump until we had Mickey on a moment ago and Mickey said no, no, no. It's the defiance. It's the sheer brass. It's the way he's saying I am unintimidatable.

I will not bow before political correctness. I get that. I understand that now. The sheer brazenness of the man is the strength. It's not, what is the old, it's a feature, not a bug. And then for Angela – go ahead. He's the class clown.

He's the class clown and that's – I mean in the good way, right? He's the class clown making fun and making the incredibly uptight teachers who want you to march in lockstep and making them look like fools. And so you naturally side with the class clown. You naturally do. The court jester is allowed to say things to the king that are offensive. Nobody else, nobody else can get away with it.

And then Angelo, the thought precedes the action. What you cannot think you cannot act upon. That's very important. That's why free speech, limiting freedom of speech, intimidating people, ruling off entire questions,

ruling out entire questions for proper discussion, debate, refusing to permit disagreements on legitimate – where the disagreements are legitimate. All of that isn't just speech. It actually limits people's genuine freedom, their scope for action. That's a very profound point. And it was pretty well put. Yes. Yes. And then we got into other issues. But yes. Oh, man. The Ricochet podcast, you never know where it's going to go. That's what we love about Ricochet. You never know where it's going to go. It's a conversation. You can't put guardrails on a conversation. Peter, what's the point of having a conversation. Peter, what's the point of having –

What's the point of getting smart people in a room together to have a conversation if you're going to say, well, this or this or this or this is going to sound too weird? Whatever. We should talk about a couple of these great member posts, and you should become a member and follow up on them. They're great. Aaron Miller, as usual, has a great one. There's no long game. He says simply the Republicans must strike when they can, as often as they can, as hard as they can. Playing the long game clearly doesn't work, nor do soft steps.

History does not support the timidity of reigning Republican strategies. Well, that kind of goes with what Angela said. Oh, by the way, thank you for reading Aaron's because I have to – for the record, I don't think there are going to be a lot of people who care about where I stand. But for the record, one week ago on the last podcast, I defended Mitch McConnell about 20 seconds after we put that podcast on. Your house was on fire. Of course, the attacks began. But in the week – I have changed my mind on Mitch McConnell because Ted Cruz was right. The attempt through sort of backdoor machinations in the had died. The authorization for it had expired and Mitch McConnell attempted to put it past his own – a large portion at least of his own caucus. McConnell because he just – now Joni Ernst has introduced a bill to respond to these abortion videos and defund Planned Parenthood.

As of a moment ago when I checked on it online, there are 19 co-sponsors and Senator McConnell is one of them. So he is capable of doing the right thing as well. But boy, that was a disappointing move for – Yeah. You can't even do that. Like come on. Exactly.

You can't even do that, right? Exactly. And there's this Planned Parenthood stuff, which I think is something that it's not hard to – it's not hard to make your case to the American people that there's something wrong about this, right? This is not a war against women as much as they're going to try to say it. Old Summer has a great piece called The Counterattack Begins. A great deal of what establishment of either party does is to force compliance and silence with party money and bullying in regard to the perks of the Congress, which they control. That's really true. That's like organizational bullying 101. Even those who are in spirit agreed with Cruz and Meadows know that to publicly stand with

them is to lose in regard to access to power and party money. That's kind of what makes people like Cruz about us kind of important, right? I mean – Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, exactly. So we shall – I mean the speakers get elected to appoint people to committees. That's part of their job.

But they do get elected. The question – Boehner is where he is and McConnell is where he is because a majority of the republicans in the house and the senate put them there. Cruz and Meadows are saying, fellas, let's rethink this. We'll see where it goes. And then there's the solid good conservative or good Al Kennedy. Why is the republican base upset? He says basically, please don't let your disappointment, frustration and a feeling of what planet do the people who govern this country live on prevent you from working very hard to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the next president?

That's – look, Republicans in general do come home. They do vote for the Republican. They actually do. They don't stay home. They get the stakes. Even if they don't – they're not in love with their candidate, they vote for their candidate. They don't stay home, which is the good news. My guess – I do not know this, but my guess would be that the candidate who's polling in second place after Donald Trump right now, Jeb Bush, is saying to himself, wait a minute.

My father lost his reelection bid because of the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot. What do I need to do to reach out to the voters, my fellow Republicans, the Republican base? What do I need to do to demonstrate to them that I care about the same issues that are making them angry, That they should come to me trumps a temporary enthusiasm. For goodness sake, just as Al Kennedy says, the imperative here is to defeat Hillary Clinton. How do I, Jeb Bush, help bring that about? They must be thinking very hard in that campaign in particular. They should be looking at that campaign. That's exactly right because that year was very much a change election against an establishment.

And remember there were two insurgencies. The Perot insurgency was much later after the Buchanan insurgency. Correct. conservative response to what he considered to be a very establishment Republican, you know, milquetoast, four years of pastel, you know, very, very, you know, soft cornered Reaganism, which he didn't, you know, he thought it lost its way. So yeah, these people should pay attention. And I think, I mean, even I can see it it in myself i'm starting to look more closely at what trump might mean rather than you know just the rolling my eyes the trumpism of it all which i think is good i think we all should do that in some ways to me donald trump himself remains

illegitimate he has no claim on the presidency of the united states but the people who support him are good people who have an argument. They're saying something. We've got to pay attention to it. Correct. And also – and there's time. This is not a crisis. That's right. This is a good time for this to happen.

In a hot summer, pay attention. The autumn rolls around. This is good. This is exactly right. This is exactly when this should happen. There's plenty of time for all these candidates to figure out what the American people in general are saying. And I believe if you drill down on Trump's support, you're going to find a whole lot of disaffected Democrats there too. I'm sure you will. Hey, so enough of this nonsense of romantic mystery fun thing. But the half hour is – if the half hour works, it would be kind of fun. There might even be a – I'm not even going to say it. There might even be a slight –

Keep going. So people who are familiar with my other work might even detect a slight political touch to it. Oh, wonderful. Hey, could I ask you a question? Yes. Going into a pitch meeting, I myself, if I even try to imagine what you do, and I know you do it three or four times a day some days. It must be terrifying. They sit behind a desk. They have all the money. They make the decisions.

And they get to listen to as many people pitch as they want to. You got nothing. You're singing. I mean, is it as nerve-wracking as it seems? Or do you sort of get to the point where you don't get the queasies before you walk into each new office how does it or or is at this stage are you pitching to friends do you all know each no no i mean you know you're not you're pitching to people you know and maybe i feel i've known a long time but nobody nobody who's sitting on the other side of the sofa from you who who who you want money from is a friend got it that's a friend. I don't care what business you're in.

No, you're just telling them a story, right? You're just there to tell them a story. And as long as it's a story that you really like and you really care about and it's something you really want to do and you really see it. This is a completely Pollyanna way to do it, but I think it's the only way to do it. As long as it's something you really believe in, then it almost doesn't matter. You don't really get nervous because you're prepared and you you know when i tell them a story it's like this is the show i want to do this is this and i i don't i don't tell them the outline of a show i just tell them the the first episode because then i'm telling you a story it's

like hey okay this happens this happens this happens this happens it's how you sell the audience is going to meet the characters is how you're going to meet them too. Are you pitching – do you lead with the situation? Do you lead with the characters? I usually lead with something that happened in my life that made me think. The person I met or something that happened to me and – or something that's happening in the world or something that happened to me that reflects something that's happening in the world. Got it. Like I am an old lion and I'm about to get killed by a dentist or something like that. Right, Rob. Wrap this up. Something like that. All right, Rob.

Wrap this up. Yeah, that's right. We start with the old lion. It's time to go. Thank you for listening to the Ricochet podcast. As always, we are grateful. We want you to become a member of Ricochet. So if you were thinking about it, if you've been saying to yourself, I want to be a member, do it now.

Please do it today. We absolutely need you. We're trying not to do this kind of boring, tedious membership drive, but we might have to do it. We need to get to 10,000. If you like, look, it's going to get very exciting and very interesting very soon. And we want to have you be part of the big club, part of the conversation. So join ricochet.com. This podcast was brought to you by us, of course, and thegreatcourses.com, our fine sponsor. Go to thegreatcourses.com, put in ricochet.com. This podcast was brought to you by us, of course, and thegreatcourses.com, our fine sponsor. Go to thegreatcourses.com. Put in ricochet coupon code.

You get a great, cool stuff. And Harry Shave, as always. Visit the Ricochet store. Lots of great Ricochet swag in there, which many of our cruisers were wearing on the cruise, which was really cool to see. It's a lot of fun, like suddenly the Ricochet t-shirts come out. And of course, join ricochet.com if for no other reason, and there's a million other reasons, so that you can join us for the debate chat on August 6th. We'll be there.

Peter will be there. I'll be there. Troy, we'll all be there. It's a lot of fun. It's kind of freewheeling, but it's a lot of fun. It's kind of freewheeling, but it's a lot of fun. You're watching it. Depending on your time zone, make sure you have a drink handy because it's much better that way.

We will see you in the comments, of course. Peter, next week. Next week, Rob. What is this thing called love? This funny thing called love. Just who can solve its mystery?

Why should it make a fool of me? I saw you there one wonderful day. You took my heart and threw it away. That's why I asked the Lord in heaven above, what is this thing called love? Ricochet. Join the conversation. I saw you there one wonderful day. You took my heart and threw it away.