Ukraine in the Membrane

Jonah returns to the solo Ruminant format to end the week, reflecting on Joe Biden’s ...

By

Jonah returns to the solo Ruminant format to end the week, reflecting on Joe Biden’s dismal first year in office and contemplating what the next three years might hold in store for the country. After what John Podhoretz labeled the “worst press conference in presidential history,” can Biden recover, or will his poll numbers continue to sink to increasingly humiliating lows? For that matter, is unity its own virtue? How would the Russian people and the global community react if Vladimir Putin conquered Ukraine? And do negative comments on his writing hurt Jonah’s feelings?  

Show Notes:

– GLoP’s latest grand adventure

– Chris Stirewalt’s latest newsletter on Biden’s political flailing

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (60)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    I loathe the idea that giving money to someone on the street who asks for it means they’re just gonna buy booze. This is a lot like the French v English garden in that I’m not not concerned about controlling every detail - especially ones I can’t control.

    There was a guy in Jersey City who used to wait for me to get off the train every afternoon because he knew I was giving him a 20 just about every time. A buddy once said I should buy him a sandwich instead.

    Maybe I was this guy’s mark, maybe he thought I was a sucker, maybe he used my 20 to buy meth every time.

    So what? I can’t control his actions, I can only control mine. The directive from my religion is “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers.” I’m not super devout but I get that standard.

    If a guy asks me for money, I assume he needs it. If he doesn’t, he has to live with that. Not me. If I can’t afford the money, he isn’t getting it. Pretty simple.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Reading451

    It would be great to have some more frequent thoughtful and interesting center-left guests to help bounce some of the ideas from The Dispatch off those from different sides of the aisle. I'm thinking like Josh Barro, Matt Yglesias, Briana Joy Gray... I'd love to hear a conversation with Jonah and these people.

    Collapse
  3. Derek Drizin

    Hi Jonah, with respect to what you discussed about the lip service to unity and the prominence of references to unity by politicians, I think it would be interesting for you to discuss what citizens should or need to feel that they have in common or agreement with their fellow citizens for democracy to function well. What you note about democracy not being about unity makes sense to me, but I often wonder what minimum sense of unity or affection for your fellow citizens a democracy requires to function effectively, especially one as diverse as the United States. Although democracies should be about managing differences and factions with different views about the good polity coexisting peacefully, in order for that to happen, doesn’t there have to be some unity in the sense that you feel like you agree on some basic things about the history of your country and fundamental values about your country? Sometimes I feel today that without unity about certain basic things like history and fundamental values that it will be difficult for democracy to function well.

    Collapse
  4. Jeff

    I have an oddball idea on Ukraine.

    Back in the '90s, the US and UK gave Ukraine guarantees of their territorial integrity in exchange for them turning over former USSR nukes to Russia.

    Now that it seems those other parties are reneging on their promises to protect Ukraine, they should give them an equivalent number of nukes out of their own stockpiles as a deterrent against Russia.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      No. That is a terrible idea.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Other commenters have done a good job explaining the difference in tone between Remnant comments and G File comments, but let me add my two cents.

    With the G File, it’s easy for someone to read the headline, scan it quick without reading it and comment. There is a small cohort of subscribers who paid for a yearly subscription not quite realizing what they were getting, and who are unhappy with their choice. They can’t get a refund, so they post trollish comments. I think the operative question to ask when commenters accuse you of operating in bad faith might be whether some of THEM are actually the ones operating in bad faith. Also there’s been a few new subscribers, maybe they received a gift subscription, maybe not. But they don’t necessarily know you and the Dispatch that well. Also, certain Dispatch writers and outside contributors always get more hateful comments than others. You’re in the middle. David goes back and forth. Haley and Scott always get very positive comments. Tom often gets hateful ones. Dani Pletka gets trashed sometimes by commenters who think she’s a bad faith war hawk or something. And someone always complains about “outside think tankers.”

    Also, even when I’m reading really slowly, it doesn’t take me 67 minutes to read a G File. Remnant listeners are here because we want to be.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Of course, Jonah, we can always post more negative comments here to even out the score with the G File:

      “Worst Podcast Ever!” (Just kidding.)

      You know it could be like Caesar’s Praetorian Guard whispering, “Remember thou art mortal.”

      Collapse
  6. Ben Bobbitt

    I heard the panhandler story as being CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien, where Tolkien questioned Lewis's giving money to the vagrant.

    Collapse
  7. Mike P

    Just a few thoughts about why The Remnant followers are less critical than G-File readers… those of us who listen to the Podcast know you don’t have extreme views and have listened enough to know what to expect. Perhaps G-File readers don’t take the time to know your stances on various issues and assume things about you that are not in evidence. Of course listening to a podcast requires more of a time commitment as well. I read and listen and those are my reflections. Keep up the great work. Btw- your humor and analogies are worth the price of admission alone

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      I’m assuming he mostly means the publicly available Friday G-File. That would make sense if I’m correct.

      Jonah has hate followers. Which isn’t surprising given his chosen profession. Just to be clear I’m not saying he deserves hate followers and I’m not excusing what some of them may have done over the years. I feel certain Jonah has thicker skin than me, though that may be the result of calluses and scars.

      My guess is that most of his hate followers aren’t Dispatch subscribers. And as people who hate Jonah they likely don’t enjoy listening to him have amicable discussions with others which would explain the difference. It is also quicker and easier to read a G-File than to listen to a podcast. Those hate followers probably can’t stand the solo Ruminants.

      I’m someone who often disagrees with something Jonah writes, though usually it is a minor disagreement. I can be critical of his pieces, but I usually avoid being critical of him.

      I don’t know whether or not Jonah would consider me as a hater or irritation.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        I doubt Jonah considers you a hater, given your attempt to be cordial here. He’s got one set of people accusing him of “Extreme TDS ‘cause he sold out to the libs!” And another set accusing him of being a “closet Trumpist GOP shill.” I’ve never seen a comment from you that I thought wasn’t in good faith. Jonah isn’t bothered when people disagree with him in good faith. He’s complaining about the bad faith ad hominem attacks.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          Thank you.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Paul B

    For Jonah: Don't worry about the comment section haters! You do immeasurable work in providing proof-of-concept to those conservatives who want to oppose Trumpism without a full-blown descent into Bulwarkism. We can walk and chew gum at the same time without giving into the Dark Side (hatred of mindless populists to the point of self-consciously embracing their most annoying Carlsonian stereotypes).
    For the Comment Section: Remember, if you see Conan O'Brien in real life, ask when he plans to have Jonah on the Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend podcast. It's very important that when you do this, you ask as if it was already a foregone conclusion.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      I second everything you said

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Dusty

    I guess I haven’t really noticed the comments being extra salty since this whole voting issue thing to me is an eyeroll-inducing nothingburger that I don’t pay much attention to. But, that makes it extra disappointing that people are getting so riled about what is largely a created controversy by both sides.

    With that said, it was an excellent week for the podcast. I greatly enjoyed this solo one and the one with Shellenberger. Smart dude.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Sully

    So first, not a particular comment about this episode but about the show more generally.

    This was a particularly interesting week and it made me realize one of the things a lot of discourse is missing is just listening to subject matter experts. Your rank punditry has an important place, and while I certainly value your opinions enough to listen and give The Dispatch money, opinions are everywhere. The general discourse seems to be lacking the people without agendas who just know technical details about stuff. Obviously the two can overlap as both guests this week definitely have some ideology behind them, but it was mostly about getting to the bottom of things. The three most memorable episodes for me since last summer were Tom Joscelyn's episodes on Afghanistan and Shawn Bushway [with all apologies to Shawn, I had to look up his name to remember] on crime and crime statistics.

    I think it would be an interesting idea to try and have one show a week be focused on just political punditry, one show trying to have a subject matter expert to just understand some issue much more in depth and then a Ruminant/drive-time.

    Obviously security experts for what's going on in Ukraine right now would be useful. But even finding things like all the talk of the filibuster would be hugely informed by someone who is an expert in congressional parliamentary procedure and can talk through the history of how we got here. How exactly the problem is working right now and what any possible solutions could look like and what tradeoffs would be involved.

    The type of expertise that is all around us in our institutions from people who we won't know the name of or will immediately forget after airing is hugely important. I mean stuff like how 5G and airports is in the news would benefit talking to someone who understands how all of this interacts and is quite interesting (and in that case the person is Jon Ostrower).

    I have all kinds of ideas of stuff I think deep dives would be good for, but don't want to clutter this anymore.

    Anyway, worth a thought

    Collapse
Load More