Stolen Mo-ments

More weak parties talk.

By
24

Get your bingo cards ready, because Remnant stalwart Mo Elleithee makes an overdue return to the program  to kvetch about some familiar topics.  Mo believes that we’re heading for a terrifying 2020 rematch. But could one of Donald Trump’s opponents still make a comeback, and will Joe Biden manage to make it through a full campaign? For that matter, what’s wrong with American elites? How can we reverse declining trust in institutions? And how did Jonah come to have more hatred for primaries than life itself?

Show notes:

– Watch this episode on YouTube

By
Comments (24)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. PKirch

    It was great to hear Mo on The Remnant. I always enjoy Sara's sparring with Mo on the weekly Left/Right/Center pod, although that sometimes feels like 2 vs. 1 (since the host David is reasonable but also comes off to me as left-of-center). This was more balanced and gave me some additional insight into how Mo looks at the world. I don't always agree with him, but I respect where he's coming from. Thanks.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      Re: Left/Right/Center - oh good, it's not just me. It's seemed to me recently David has cut off Sarah to end a segment far more than he has with Mo.

      Collapse
  2. Joseph Stevens

    Yeah I’m not going to let it slide that DeSantis and Republican Governors followed political ideology over expertise. Look at Michigan, California, New York, Minnesota etc. most of them never followed science and pushed back solely for ideological reasons over a year into the pandemic. The more discussion forums I go on I see this “well no one really knew and we were doing our best.” It’s an absolute lie. People were out there, actual scientists trying to give reasonable advice about masks, school closings etc and we were ignored all because it was coming largely from the right. I was at a pharmaceutical company at the time and most of us were absolutely confounded by the idiocy coming out the CDC and other government agencies, and that was in June of 2020.

    Collapse
  3. Ctl.Lambert

    The discussion of COVID, Fauci, & Desantis brought me here... Desantis followed the science much better than Fauci for a long time. Taking good measures to distribute the vaccine to those who needed it, the approach to schools, public spaces, etc. Say what you will about later on in the end of the pandemic, but early on it was not 'Fauci is following science and Desantis is just political.'

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jonathan

    +1 for a guest that Jonah somewhat disagrees with and pushes back on.

    Collapse
  5. Renicksmith

    Excellent discussion, thank you. Fouci wasn't even close to the most important topic covered, but I think Goldberg scored the doctor's performance fairly. I'm glad he took a minute to interject.

    Grateful that I tuned in. Thanks again.

    P.S. One of my favorite JG bits in this podcast was in defense of larger donors and their "healthier democratic time horizons." That Elleithee agreed gives me hope.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Addicus

    Pretty much in agreement with Mo on all the up's and down's of the Democratic party. The good stuff, the bad stuff, warts and all.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    If you want to stop declining trust in institutions, how about not promoting distrust in institutions?

    Cons have been doing this since Reagan. Is it any wonder half this country hates its own government?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      I disagree that pointing out the Government can't and shouldn't be trusted to be all things to all people is the same as "promoting distrust in institutions".

      And if that's where we're going, then there are plenty of institutions where it's been the other side promoting distrust.

      Collapse
  8. Pat.Bowne

    Whenever I hear people saying there are no cabals in Washington, I remember the many, many years when I could not find a candidate from either party who did not support globalization. Did that consensus reflect a cabal, or something else? Either way, it was unacceptable to a large number of citizens, and it led to the Ross Perot candidacy. The Trump candidacy rose in what looked to me like a similar moment of Washington consensus, this time on the unimportance of the working class.

    For most of us who aren't pundits, my guess would be that we define 'cabal' as 'that mysterious something that causes the folks running the government to all agree on a policy that most of their constituents disagree with.'

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Please tell me who said the working class were "unimportant"?

      Collapse
      1. Pat.Bowne

        The closest I saw to an explicit statement was in the response to 'The Emerging Democratic Majority' - I wasn't the only dem who thought (with relief) that we could finally stop trying to cater to the southern white working class. But policies speak louder than words, and the combination of bipartisan globalization, reps' union-busting, and the dems switching to a party of the educated sent that message loud and clear.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          Nobody sent that message. The Dems are the party that cares about the economics, the health and the education of all, including the working class. Obamacare, the push for higher wages, the push for low cost to free education,the support of unions, all of that is from the Dems.

          You know why the working class left the Dems? Culture war issues. Their guns and their perception that Dems are on the side of gays, women, and minorities, so, in their minds, they can't be for white people.

          They left. And their was no message except "we accept everyone". They didn't like that message.

          Collapse
          1. Pat.Bowne

            You're right that identity politics has helped alienate the white working class. But if that were the sole problem, dems would not be seeing their margins shrink in the black and hispanic working classes.

            What impression would a working class person who read your post get? That the dems cared about and respected them?

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Dave T

      My guess is that the mysterious thing is something like an echo chamber. It reminds me of Barbara Tuchman's book 'The March of Folly,' about historical moments of disastrous unforced error.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Fabulous episode. More Mo is a good line to follow. He is cogent, measured, principled, and not evasive. After the fall, we could do worse than a remnant led by the two of you struggling for consensus.

    However…he is very wrong, I think, about what covid did to respect for expertise and how that happened. You were right about a tactical issue in Fauci being put in a job not meant for him, but failed to press the far bigger problem, in my view.

    You can tell if someone is really an expert by noting two things: are they able to say “we don’t know” and otherwise appropriately modulate certainty and uncertainty? how do they react to plausible and even well-credentialed dissent? Fauci is just the most visible example of disastrous government and its media and teacher union allies going far beyond making mistakes (inevitable in changing circumstances) to both lie and viscously attack and discredit and seek to silence dissent. That drove the biggest damage to respect for expertise.

    From the lies/dissembling you list from Fauci, to the government and media blitz attacking dissenters such as signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, to the refusal to address very specific scientific evidence such as the importance of post-covid immunity and lack of testing in many areas, including the efficacy of masking, “experts” totally discredited themselves. As I said very early on, these approaches will cripple the public health system for a long time by destroying trust.

    Thanks

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      100% spot on. Well said, Kevin.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Addicus

      This is too harsh. Fauci is an epidemiologist not a politician. So he gave answers that were totally in line with what a scientist would give. Did masks save lives? Almost certainly yes. How many is unknowable. If your goal was to save as many lives as possible then Fauci was your guy – ridiculous double masks and all. If your goal was real politick, that some of the old and frail are expendable so the economy can continue, then you have criticisms. Herman Cain thought it was more important to show strong Trump support. He caught Covid at a Trump rally and died. I hope it was worth it.

      Was there “gain of research” in China? Did Covid come from a lab or a wet market? Honestly, what difference does it make? There’s no way in hell we should trust China with the truth on anything regardless.

      Blame the scientist all you want, but there’s one absolute truth. Trump politicized Covid. He wanted to pretend it didn’t exist because it was hurting the economy and thus his reelection campaign. So he vilified his own advisers. He would happily accepted another million deaths if it only meant he could win. He only cares about himself.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin Johnson

        Thanks for your thoughtful response, with which I respectfully disagree. The conflict isn’t between Trump and Fauci. I voted for Hillary (agonized) and for Biden to stop Trump.. I even registered GOP for the first time to vote against the idiot in the Florida primary. My criticism of public health officials, most media, teachers unions, and the Biden administration is no defense of Trump. These actors lied (documented/admitted by Fauci et al, claiming some lies were “noble.”) and sought to punish well-credentialed dissent, and dismiss very important questions. They acted very Trumpy in insisting that all disagreement or questioning was anti-science and deadly. This helped destroy normies’ confidence in expertise and strengthened less serious elements.

        It is hysterical to me that smart folks continue to claim some key disinformation campaigns by authorities “don’t matter.” When officials promote and fund research many scientists consider dangerous and then lie about the research and attack those asking questions (as Gauci did in Congress) this undermines the American decision-making process, public confidence, and our ability to learn what happened. Likewise with lying and attacking expert evidence the virus might have emerged from a lab accident. Saying now we can’t trust China is useful, but insufficient. The facts about what we and China did are important to guide us going forward. Whether we drop all support for and through the WHO depends on knowing more about what they (and we) helped China do. And attacking even credentialed folks asking serious questions only pushes people toward more extreme beliefs; if they’re going after Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford scientists for heresy, what else are they hiding?

        Your specific points about masking are a concrete example of where the “attack all dissent” approach damaged us. Dissenters called early on for funding of better mask studies rather than the folkloric “they might help” approach. Getting our best idea of what works is vital for good resource allocation. Maybe we couldn’t have learned early on that washing groceries was a waste…but those arguing against such measures were proven right through science in this and other cases; we can and should learn where pushing such policies was prudent given available information and where scientists pushing specific studies early on should have been listened to. Again, I am not demanding that officials, media, and unions have perfect knowledge which was unavailable. I’m arguing for taking serious questions seriously, not demonizing dissent, and following useful avenues of inquiry…in other words, science. What we saw was politicized manipulation and outright lying, as with Fauci’s urging of media and researchers to denounce the Great Barrington Declaration drafters rather than answer their points, the government campaign to get social media to muffle dissent, and the lock-step media attempt to lump all dissent under “conspiracy theories.”

        I can oppose Trump and also argue we can and must do so much better in the future to avoid disastrous hubris, politicization, and anti-science approaches to emergencies we saw during covid. The damage from this approach to kids, the poor and working folks, and our ability to respond in the future is massive. As with so many other issues, from immigration to trade, if only extremists address concerns felt by millions of Americans, these Americans will eventually turn to extremists. I, as one vaccinated non-extremist, can oppose Trump AND the things we got very wrong in approaching covid. I hope more will also do so. “But Trump!” simply won’t do. The damage done will last beyond Trump, and last longer if good folks refuse to look.

        Thanks for your time.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Addicus

          I think you need to look at the pandemic is two phases: pre-vaccine and post-vaccine.

          During the early days there was a lot of “we don’t know”. The public health side said, “we don’t know so we should do X, Y and Z as a precaution”. The other side, fueled by conspiracies on the internet and talk radio said, “If you don’t know then we’re not going to do X, Y or Z.” The public health side quickly dropped the “we don’t know”. Clearly a society that horded every single roll of toilet paper in the country wasn’t going to be easily reasoned with. Not when the “Truth” quickly broke down along partisan lines. You can see this most clearly in the masking kerfuffle. Masks won’t stop the virus so they’re useless vs. masks slow the spread so they are useful. (Two sides shouting at each other - Useless. Useful. Useless! Useful! USELESS!!! USEFUL!!! I’m not going to wear that damn chin diaper! Put on that damn mask or you're fired!) How could any nuance in the data survive that?

          The flip side happened post-vaccine. OK we’re all immunized so we can stop doing X, Y and Z. Umm, Jonny over there in the red hat says he won’t get “the jab”. Well, I guess we’re going to have to save Jonny from himself so we’ll keep doing X, Y and Z until he comes around. He’s not coming around and the kids are really falling behind in school. (Two sides shouting at each other again – Open the schools! Not until you get vaccinated! Never, now open the schools!)

          I think the moral of the story is that we as an American society royally screwed Covid up. We had a public health system that over reacted (even lied) to save lives and a body politic that politicized science. Even today, the surgeon general of the state of Florida says vaccines (all vaccines) are dangerous. That’s not science that politics. If there’s a Covid-2024, I’m sure that we will have learned nothing.

          Collapse
          1. Russell J

            If only this were the debate of the pandemic rather than the silly performative ones then. Personally I think there are ways to criticize Fauci that don’t make him a villain (not pointing to Kevin but the broad GOP line). There were many figures who acted more like villains and he was an important voice of reason in the frightening pre-vaccine period. There were several voices obviously downplaying the severity for political considerations long before vaccines.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Kevin Johnson

            thanks for so much time and thought. may we both be spared from viruses and political bs around them.

            Collapse
  10. Eric S.

    Ooo...

    Gotta disagree with Mo on expertise.
    His statement was something along the lines of we want experts and the experiences civil service making the decisions because they know the data.
    If I'm in a position of leadership I want the best advice I can get. I want people I can rely on to give me unpopular answers, who will challenge my views, and who will encourage me to make right decisions that will get me hated. I absolutely do not want them MAKING those decisions.
    Similarly, as a voter, I have a small group of people who I am responsible for holding to account. Those people do not include either experts or civil service personnel. They include elected officials. I want wise officials, I want ones who listen to advice, but they have to be the decision makers.
    Since I just finished Starship Troopers, I want experts who are experienced, career Sergeants. They should know their stuff, they should likely be better at the on the ground job that their CO. They do not have the job of the CO. Expert in a field and decision maker are different roles, and it is to me a sign of the tremendous failure in leadership we have that anyone would say that we should have the experts making the decisions.

    Collapse