Shiny Happy Pundits

Don't waste your life on one thing.

By
26

Tired, disorganized, and intent on burdening listeners with his personal problems, Jonah nonetheless approaches today’s eclectic Ruminant with aplomb. Granted, it helps that the details of the most pressing item on the docket—namely, the indictment of one Donald J. Trump—aren’t particularly clear yet, which allows Jonah to rant without sliding into too deep of a depression. Afterward, he touches on Chris Licht’s departure from CNN, why misuse of the term “isolationism” is so rampant, and what it takes to build a fulfilling life. 

Show Notes:

-Watch: Jonah Goldberg Solo on The Dispatch Channel YouTube

– The Morning Dispatch breaks down Trump’s indictment

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By
Comments (26)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    One objection about this Republicans staying silent argument:

    It isn’t clear that their objections would have made any difference. Where’s Liz Cheney now? It’s easy for me to say that Trump is a worthless skid mark on the underwear of American history but if you’re trying to remain relevant, how is it helpful to do this?

    The question is: can you be more effective remaining relevant or more effective broadsiding the king? Chris Christie isn’t even at 2 percent. How do you square that circle?

    If you come at the king, you best not miss.

    Collapse
  2. Randall Briggs

    To that list of GOP pols who stayed silent (28:30-ish), you've got to add Friend of the Dispatch Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI).

    Collapse
  3. Mark

    Jonah, I agree with most of your points about the Trump indictment, and they withstand scrutiny now that the full indictment has been released. The details of the indictment are... is "incredible" the right word? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Good coverage of the contents of the indictment over on AO.

    We'll see what the Trump defense team comes up with, but it looks to me like Trump doesn't have much of a legal defense. However, he's got a pretty compelling political defense: Hillary Clinton.

    The two main differences between Hillary's case and Trump's case are 1) she's sneakier than Trump and didn't let herself get caught on tape (that we know of) basically admitting to intentionally violating the law, and 2) she was playing for the "right" team, she had the right friends, and she benefitted from blatantly favorable treatment by James Comey and the Obama DOJ. I don't agree with David French that Trump's case is materially worse than Clintons, it's just that he's on tape admitting to the crime in his own Trumpy kind of way. It's a difference of style, not substance. Clinton's case had plenty of indicia of intentionally obstructing justice.

    And it's not just Hillary, of course. Joe Biden, whose Justice Department is running the prosecution, has his own classified documents problem. And don't say, "he cooperated." He cooperated when he got caught after banking classified documents for decades. And now he's presiding over the prosecution of his #1 political rival. Say what you will about the merits of the case, this is a really bad look, reminiscent of late-stage Roman Republic chicanery against the Gracchus brothers. That doesn't bode well.

    [Clears throat] Again, I say this as someone who thinks Trump is guilty of this crime.

    The thing that's driving the populist energy on the right is the perception that there are different rules for Republicans and Democrats and that parts of the government--the IRS, the DOJ and especially the FBI--are determined to thwart the democratic process that put Donald Trump in the White House. And you know what? They're right. Maybe not on all the specifics, but the general sense that the Democrats are working hand-in-glove with the deep state to influence elections and to thwart outcomes that favor conservatives is accurate.

    You can call it "whataboutism" to bring up the Hillary case, or you could call it a precedent. In my opinion, it was a bad precedent, but a precedent nonetheless. Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a neutral observer when it comes to Trump and partisan politics, how do you differentiate the decision to indict Trump's from the decision not to indict Clinton to a neutral observer? I'm not saying that the right answer is to repeat Comey's mistake of not indicting, but let's be honest about the way this looks in light of the Comey-Clinton episode.

    This stuff is an assault on the psychology of conservatives, and that's where the populist energy is coming from. After 7-8 years of lies, false accusations, breathless reporting about how the walls are closing in, a lot of Republicans just aren't hearing it anymore. This is what's driving the latent nihilism that enables the blind defenses of Trump that you and I both think are stupid.

    I'd like to hear you seriously grapple with that.

    Collapse
    1. Hendrixst2000

      I agree with all of this especially reframing "whataboutism" as precedent. Very good analysis.

      Collapse
  4. Jason

    I was delving back into time thinking about left and right and I ended up concluding that those terms as we understand them don't really apply to American politics for most of the 19th century. Once the Progressive Era begins, you see clear antecedents of the modern left, though with some obvious differences. But a lot of 19th century political/economic debating is the tariff to help industrialization which draws opposition from poorer farmers. In the 20th century, politicians wanting to appeal to those farmers would be offering government programs rather than getting government interference out of the way.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Robert Knudson

    I would be very interested in podcasts on the history of conservatism, particularly in the American context. My very hasty read is that American conservatism is unique in that it prioritizes individual rights rather than circumscribing them within a communitarian ethos as conservatives do in Europe, while still prioritizing the role of the community in ordering society over that of the government (unlike modern liberals). I imagine you will have more insight and it would be a great listen.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    1. I’m always excited for more intellectual history G-Files (or a series of subscriber-only articles or podcasts).

    2. I can’t recall a time when I ever asked myself whether I had made the right choice in friends. Maybe as a kid. In general, I hate it when people do that. The people who sit there and try to game out who to be friends with in order to improve their own social standing are the kind of people I instinctively avoid being friends with. My friends are my friends. They are my friends because they are my friends. If that sounds tautological, maybe it is, but it’s true. In many cases, it’s not because we’re similar or have something in common (though we often once did), but because we care about each other and enjoy spending time together. The end of friendship isn’t to get something out of it for yourself. The advice to “hold and forget” is good, but I start to get uncomfortable with the idea of managing friendships like a portfolio if the idea is that you are trying to “game the market” to get something out of it for yourself.

    And the darndest thing about this whole thing is that I’m supposed to be some kind of cold hardcore individualist because I like Ayn Rand’s moral case for free market capitalism and I think we should abolish all social welfare (including social security) and I’ll defend self-interest rightly understood, but I’m the one making the argument for unconditional loyalty to one’s friends. Whereas the woke crowd makes hay out of the idea that capitalism and individualism are selfish and evil but are strangely quick to throw friends under the bus for wrongthink, and the MAGA crowd that loves to moan about compassion for the working class in Ohio will let Trump stab literally anyone in the back and loyalty only means loyalty to him.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Amcox76

    Hey Jonah, just voting here in the comments in favor of your proposed intellectually history series. One of the most valuable elements of your work is your great ability is to explain 1) where the ideas come from and 2) how people are misusing/blending/shifting words and concepts. It feels like there's a tremendous amount of attempted base stealing in the media environment, and any sanity you can bring to it will be much appreciated.

    Collapse
  8. J. Mark Graham

    Jonah...once again, more cowbell please.

    I struggle with the utter cynicism and cowardice of the GOPs senior politicos. It just floors me that they keep making the same passive mistake with Trump over and over and over again. First in 2016, then after January 6th, and now all this...I mean, on the face of it, almost all of these guys are too smart to believe what they are saying in public. Which is honestly why I have a hard time with some of your logical explanations about how these Trumpist positions are nonsense, Jonah. I think its transparent to anyone, except maybe the morons of the world, that there is no there there, with any of this. I just see no good faith anywhere across almost all of the political spectrum now. Bad faith everywhere. It's very hard to reconcile. For example, I heard Marco Rubio speak at a Chatham House event, and he was very good: articulate, charismatic, compelling; he'd clearly done his homework and thought seriously about these issues. And yet you see him issue just complete bunk and garbage about this indictment. It's so frustrating that just nothing seems to get anyone to break out of this vicious cycle. It reminds me of watching my dysfunctional family continue to go round and round. There's just so little seemingly compelling reason to even keep doing it. Trump, if nominated, will lose; if not the presidency than definitely end up losing Congress, almost certainly driving a stake into the heart of the GOP.

    If anything, that's the most frustrating thing: there's almost no reason to follow Trump: he's a loser, and the only reason he has even an echo of a chance is Biden is almost as unpopular as he is. Trump will only result in more losing for the GOP: so why keep following him? After all, at this point it's clear to has nothing to do with anything that Trump advocates for; he has no policy line. Everyday this festers in the GOP means less likelihood that anyone actually enjoys real power in Washington again as a Republican.

    But yes, more intellectual history. Hook it straight into my veins, we need more public intellectual work of all kinds, but especially history. Because, and this is my opinion, one day, when the populist fever has broken in the body politic, people with start to look to more solid ground, and the more resources that exist will make it more likely that those movements will be grounded in a rich understanding of our unique, American political tradition. Also, more pre-WWII history please, way more interesting and less Marxist.

    While I heard Stirewalt mention him at the meetup in DC, but it seems like Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman are right up your alley, at least as far as media and educational theorists go. I'm always surprised I don't hear you mention them when you talk about the media.

    Collapse
    1. AJLiberty

      Rep Jim Jordan was especially irritating on State of the Union this morning, claiming that Trump had told him that he had declassified all of the documents and that he believed him.

      But this strains credulity. Does an EX-PRESIDENT get to keep as a souveir nuclear documents, analyses of U.S. and allied vulnerabilities, and potential battle plans and store them at his club? The perversity of it all is staggering. That a man with a law degree and chair of the judiciary committee could be committed to such sloppy and irrational thinking.

      January 20, 2021, Trump lost all ability to engage the process of declassification. And since there was no official record of him declassifying anything....giving DoD and the intelligence agencies an opportunity to assess and prepare for any damage....Biden could use the same super-power to reclassify it all, meaning he had to return them. Stupid, right? This is not a flaw in the classification process. It is a flaw in Trump and the fact that DeSantis, Haley, and Scott are covering for him is despicable.

      At this point, I have little faith that the GOP can fix itself. It looks to be too far gone. We have 17 months. I can only see voting for people who are in the 0-1% polling range. What a sad fact that is.

      Collapse
      1. J. Mark Graham

        Jordan is the worst. I've seen the accusations about his involvement in the cover-up of Richard Strauss. Just the absolute worst. I cannot take him seriously at all. Nothing but contempt for him.

        Collapse
  9. Lieseandrew

    I'm always a little sad that you go to "Scent of a Woman" for "the right thing is just too hard" when that's the driving force of Hamlet. It's the best play because it speaks so perfectly to the human condition of knowing that you need to do something hard but finding excuses not to, "thoughts which quartered have ever one part wisdom and three parts coward."

    Collapse
  10. Rune485

    It’s repellent. I don’t know who I’m going to have left to vote for, but I guarantee you it won’t be for any of these sycophants that looked directly at an indictment like that and got Outraged! on *his behalf instead of the country’s.

    Collapse
Load More